[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 12, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7366-S7407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 5441, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Feinstein amendment No. 4556, to amend chapter 27 of title
18, United States Code, to prohibit the unauthorized
construction, financing, or, with reckless disregard,
permitting the construction or use on one's land, of a tunnel
or subterranean passageway between the United States and
another country
[[Page S7367]]
and to direct the United States Sentencing Commission to
modify the sentencing guidelines to account for such
prohibition.
Cornyn amendment No. 4577 (to amendment No. 4556), to
provide for immigration injunction reform.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there was an understanding that the Senator
from New Mexico would offer the first amendment this morning, and then
we can go to the Senator from Oklahoma. He has five amendments.
How much time will that take to offer?
Mr. COBURN. I will get through them fairly quickly.
Mr. GREGG. We presume that after the Senator from New Mexico
proceeds, we will go to the Senator from Oklahoma for his five
amendments. If other Members have amendments they wish to offer, we
would like to have them bring them to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Amendment No. 4591
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
courtesy. I call up amendment No. 4591 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is laid aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Cornyn, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an
amendment numbered 4591.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide financial aid to local law enforcement officials
along the Nation's borders, and for other purposes)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
TITLE VI--BORDER LAW ENFORCEMENT RELIEF ACT
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Border Law Enforcement
Relief Act of 2006''
SEC. 602. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) It is the obligation of the Federal Government of the
United States to adequately secure the Nation's borders and
prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs
into the United States.
(2) Despite the fact that the United States Border Patrol
apprehends over 1,000,000 people each year trying to
illegally enter the United States, according to the
Congressional Research Service, the net growth in the number
of unauthorized aliens has increased by approximately 500,000
each year. The Southwest border accounts for approximately 94
percent of all migrant apprehensions each year. Currently,
there are an estimated 11,000,000 unauthorized aliens in the
United States.
(3) The border region is also a major corridor for the
shipment of drugs. According to the El Paso Intelligence
Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the
markets of the United States enter the country through the
Southwest Border.
(4) Border communities continue to incur significant costs
due to the lack of adequate border security. A 2001 study by
the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition found that
law enforcement and criminal justice expenses associated with
illegal immigration exceed $89,000,000 annually for the
Southwest border counties.
(5) In August 2005, the States of New Mexico and Arizona
declared states of emergency in order to provide local law
enforcement immediate assistance in addressing criminal
activity along the Southwest border.
(6) While the Federal Government provides States and
localities assistance in covering costs related to the
detention of certain criminal aliens and the prosecution of
Federal drug cases, local law enforcement along the border
are provided no assistance in covering such expenses and must
use their limited resources to combat drug trafficking, human
smuggling, kidnappings, the destruction of private property,
and other border-related crimes.
(7) The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with
Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law
enforcement agencies located along the border are small,
rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of
land. Counties along the Southwest United States-Mexico
border are some of the poorest in the country and lack the
financial resources to cover the additional costs associated
with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-
related crimes.
(8) Federal assistance is required to help local law
enforcement operating along the border address the unique
challenges that arise as a result of their proximity to an
international border and the lack of overall border security
in the region
SEC. 603. BORDER RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants, subject to the availability of appropriations, to an
eligible law enforcement agency to provide assistance to such
agency to address--
(A) criminal activity that occurs in the jurisdiction of
such agency by virtue of such agency's proximity to the
United States border; and
(B) the impact of any lack of security along the United
States border.
(2) Duration.--Grants may be awarded under this subsection
during fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(3) Competitive basis.--The Secretary shall award grants
under this subsection on a competitive basis, except that the
Secretary shall give priority to applications from any
eligible law enforcement agency serving a community--
(A) with a population of less than 50,000; and
(B) located no more than 100 miles from a United States
border with--
(i) Canada; or
(ii) Mexico.
(b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded pursuant to subsection
(a) may only be used to provide additional resources for an
eligible law enforcement agency to address criminal activity
occurring along any such border, including--
(1) to obtain equipment;
(2) to hire additional personnel;
(3) to upgrade and maintain law enforcement technology;
(4) to cover operational costs, including overtime and
transportation costs; and
(5) such other resources as are available to assist that
agency.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible law enforcement agency
seeking a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) describe the activities for which assistance under this
section is sought; and
(B) provide such additional assurances as the Secretary
determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) Eligible law enforcement agency.--The term ``eligible
law enforcement agency'' means a tribal, State, or local law
enforcement agency--
(A) located in a county no more than 100 miles from a
United States border with--
(i) Canada; or
(ii) Mexico; or
(B) located in a county more than 100 miles from any such
border, but where such county has been certified by the
Secretary as a High Impact Area.
(2) High impact area.--The term ``High Impact Area'' means
any county designated by the Secretary as such, taking into
consideration--
(A) whether local law enforcement agencies in that county
have the resources to protect the lives, property, safety, or
welfare of the residents of that county;
(B) the relationship between any lack of security along the
United States border and the rise, if any, of criminal
activity in that county; and
(C) any other unique challenges that local law enforcement
face due to a lack of security along the United States
border.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to
carry out the provisions of this section.
(2) Division of authorized funds.--Of the amounts
authorized under paragraph (1)--
(A) \2/3\ shall be set aside for eligible law enforcement
agencies located in the 6 States with the largest number of
undocumented alien apprehensions; and
(B) \1/3\ shall be set aside for areas designated as a High
Impact Area under subsection (d).
(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts appropriated for
grants under this section shall be used to supplement and not
supplant other State and local public funds obligated for the
purposes provided under this title.
SEC. 604. ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize State
or local law enforcement agencies or their officers to
exercise Federal immigration law enforcement authority.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is the Border Law
Enforcement Relief Act which I have introduced before, along with
Senators Domenici, Cornyn, and Hutchison. I offer this amendment on
behalf of all of us again. It provides local law enforcement agencies
in border communities with much-needed assistance in combatting border-
related criminal activity.
During the debate on the immigration bill, this same legislation was
proposed and agreed to by the Senate with a vote of 84 in favor and 6
against.
For far too long, law enforcement agencies that operate along the
border have had to incur significant costs due
[[Page S7368]]
to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's
borders. It is time the Federal Government recognize that border
communities should not have to bear that burden alone.
Specifically, the amendment establishes a competitive grant program
within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law
enforcement agencies that are situated along the borders cover some of
the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration,
drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes.
The amendment authorizes $50 million a year and enables law
enforcement within 100 miles of the border to hire additional
personnel, to obtain necessary equipment, and to cover the cost of
overtime and transportation costs. Law enforcement outside of this
geographic limit, this 100-mile limit, would be eligible if the
Secretary of Homeland Security certified they were located in what we
designate as a ``high impact area.''
The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989
miles of border with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies
that are located along the border are small. They are rural departments
charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and with
very limited resources. According to a 2001 study of the U.S.-Mexico
Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice costs associated with
illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. Counties along the
southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in
a good position to cover these additional costs.
The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of
emergency in order to provide local law enforcement with immediate
assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is
time, in my view, that the Federal Government step up and share some of
that burden. So I urge my colleagues to support this important measure
and to give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these
challenges.
Mr. President, I met last week with sheriffs and local police chiefs
in communities along the southern New Mexico border with Mexico and
talked to them about the challenges they face and the need for
additional personnel, the need for modern equipment. Clearly, they are
faced with a very significant challenge because of the increased
illegal activity going on along our U.S.-Mexico border. The assistance
provided in this amendment is assistance that would be very important
to them in carrying out their responsibilities to the citizens of those
communities.
So I urge my colleagues again to support this amendment. I am
informed this is an amendment the chairman has indicated might be
acceptable. I am hoping we can have a vote, but I will at this point
yield the floor until my colleague who is managing the bill can respond
to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object for just a minute. My
understanding is we were going to dispose of my amendment before we--
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I apologize.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4591) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 4562
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if there is a pending amendment, I ask
unanimous consent it be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4562.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4562.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require that any limitation, directive, or earmarking
contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate report
accompanying this bill be included in the conference report or joint
statement accompanying the bill in order to be considered as having
been approved by both Houses of Congress)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained
in either the House of Representatives or Senate report
accompanying H.R. 5441 shall also be included in the
conference report or joint statement accompanying H.R. 5441
in order to be considered as having been approved by both
Houses of Congress.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment we have had several
times on appropriations bills. It is about sunshine, pure and simple.
What most Americans do not realize is that when conference reports come
on appropriations bills, there are things that are added in the House
that we in the Senate do not have any idea of what they are. They are
not printed except in the report language. When we vote on the bill, we
have no awareness whatsoever of what those things are.
This is a fairly simple amendment that just ensures that every
earmark or directive must be included in the final Homeland Security
appropriations bill that is approved by both Chambers. The American
people ought to get to see that, and we ought to be able to know, as
Senators, what is in the bill.
This amendment is for transparency. It adds to the debate, and it
provides the American taxpayers an additional safeguard that their
money is not wasted on unnecessary projects that might jeopardize the
Nation's fiscal health or lessen the impact of the Homeland Security
bill.
The first time I offered this amendment, it was defeated. The second
time I offered it, last year, we won it, and the third time we won it
on separate appropriations bills. Thereafter, it was agreed to. That is
all good and fine. But after it was done on every appropriations bill,
it was dropped in conference, saying: We don't need to know what we are
voting on. We don't need to have the information that we are having.
The American people shouldn't know what we are voting on, and we
shouldn't know what we are voting on.
I believe this is something that we ought to put into every
appropriations bill. We ought to know what we are voting on. We ought
to know who is responsible for what is in there. And we ought to be
able to go home and defend it or object to it here on the floor. But
nobody can make a case for us not knowing what is in the bill.
So my hope would be that the secrecy of the appropriations process or
the sleight of hand in how things are written, so nobody can know where
it is going or who put it there, would be eliminated. All this is is a
sunshine amendment saying: We ought to know. My hope is we will accept
this amendment, one, and then we will keep it in in conference so that
when a conference bill comes back out, we can know what the House did
on earmarks and directives, as well as knowing what we did.
I think it is a commonsense amendment. My hope would be the chairman
and ranking member of this committee would accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the Senator
from Oklahoma in the area of making sure the taxpayers know where their
money is being spent. I think it has been constructive, and I will be
happy to accept the amendment. But I do believe that at least relative
to this appropriations bill there ought to be some recognition of the
fact that this is probably the cleanest bill brought to the Senate in
the history of the Senate relative to what would be deemed earmarks in
the pejorative sense.
I am not one of these people who subscribes to the view that the
Congress should not earmark. I happen to believe there are a lot of
instances where the congressional prerogative of spending the money
requires that we do earmark in order to make the case against the
executive branch, which can earmark unilaterally, and basically in
[[Page S7369]]
true secrecy, by simply spending the money however they want to spend
it once we give it to them. Often their direction is incorrect, and the
purpose of the Congress should be to redirect it.
Now, there are other earmarks, particularly like the famous ``bridge
to nowhere,'' and other things, that may and do have serious issues. I
would take the entire highway bill that passed the Senate--of which I
was one of four people who voted against it, which had $24 billion of
earmarks--as the most egregious example of when Congress got carried
away with directing money inappropriately.
But there is a purpose for earmarks. And this bill is a classic
example of that, quite honestly. The amendment, for example, that was
offered yesterday by the Senator from West Virginia could be deemed an
earmark amendment, I suppose, because he said specifically: Coast
Guard, you shall purchase this plane; Customs, you shall refurbish this
plane. You shall buy armament for these Coast Guard helicopters--all of
which benefited some district in this country. And some Member of the
Senate benefited from that by putting out a press release, I suspect,
that we just bought an airplane for the Coast Guard, and it is going to
be produced in someplace or other.
But the reason we had to do that was because the administration had
not sent up the necessary capital improvements to make sure the Coast
Guard had the aircraft, to make sure they had the armament on their
helicopters, to make sure the helicopters were replaced, to make sure
the vehicles were replaced because, for whatever reason, the Department
of Homeland Security had not determined that those were priorities. We
think they are priorities.
In this bill there are no, what you would call, district earmarks to
speak of. There are a few probably in there somewhere, but nothing of
any significance compared to what the average bill that comes through
this place has. I do believe when we do our job right--which is the way
I think this bill was done--when we do not use earmarks for the
purposes of basically addressing an individual need that is maybe not
within the context of the basic goal of the agency--although many
things are that are deemed earmarks, that we rather use the earmark
structure as a way of getting agencies to do what has to be done in
order to complete their missions appropriately--that we should get
credit for that.
This bill should be acknowledged as a bill that is a pretty good
example of how this should be done right. So I appreciate the vigilance
of the Senator from Oklahoma. He has become the watchdog of earmarks.
And he is doing the Lord's work in many ways. I am perfectly happy to
have sunshine on this bill because I think this bill is a classic
example of the way it should be done.
So has the amendment been reported, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be agreed to.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object for one
moment, I want to make a point. The example used of the Senator from
West Virginia is exactly the way it ought to be done. It is out in the
open. There is direction. His name is tied to an amendment. And
everybody in America who is watching this place knows who is doing what
they are doing.
This amendment is to make sure that happens. The point is not what we
are doing. This amendment is as to what the House is doing. And I would
confirm with the Senator, the chairman, that this is a great bill in
terms of earmarks. There are very few in it. We study every bill to see
where it is and what the direction is. My hope is that an example will
be set. There are a couple of earmarks, directives in this bill we will
be talking about in amendments, but I will tell the Senator that I
agree and I appreciate the fact that we are seeing a little bit of a
change in culture in that regard.
My hope would be, also--I might ask the Senator--if he would agree to
hold this in conference so we can see what the House does when we come
to the conference report.
With that, I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4562) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. In response to the Senator's request that I hold this in
conference, I have no problem in trying to hold this in conference. As
the Senator knows, the House has a different approach to some of these
issues. But I think this is a very reasonable request. People should
tie their names to what they are willing to spend taxpayer dollars on.
It should be public, as the Senator said. That is the way we should do
it. I am perfectly happy to support that aggressively.
Mr. COBURN. I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 4561
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 4561 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4561.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require that reports required in the bill to be submitted
to the Committees on Appropriations and the Department of Homeland
Security's annual justifications of the President's budget request
shall be posted on the Department of Homeland Security's public website
not later than 48 hours after such submission unless information in the
report compromises national security)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Any reports required in this Act and accompanying
reports to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations
and the Department of Homeland Security's annual
justifications of the President's budget request shall be
posted on the Department of Homeland Security's public
website not later than 48 hours after such submission unless
information in the report compromises national security.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this requires public disclosure of all
reports delivered to the Appropriations Committee, including the
President's justification on his budget, with the exception of national
security issues by the Department of Homeland Security, so that
everybody can see what the request is, what the justification for the
request is, and what the reports are.
Unfortunately, in this bill, there is a section that requires the
opposite. There is a directive that says they are not to release it to
the American public, that they are only to release it to the
Appropriations Committee. A little bit of experience: This year, when
the President's budget request came up, and the justifications for it,
as a U.S. Senator it was unavailable to me. It was unavailable to my
staff. It was unavailable to any staff except Appropriations staff.
They do a good job. But as to the justifications for the request, just
like the Senator from New Hampshire said--we have the right of the
purse strings. The House and the Senate have the right to say where the
money goes. If we cannot have the justifications for why the
President's budget is so numbered and divided, then we will not have
the ability to defend that--and that is those people outside of the
Appropriations Committee.
In the committee report is this sentence:
The committee is deeply disappointed in the actions taken
by the Department to combine the reporting requirements of
this committee with other reports and then releasing the
results of those reports publicly prior to submission to the
committee. Reports to the committee are not expected to be
turned into publicity events again in the future.
Well, whose business is this? It is the American people's business;
it is not just the Appropriations Committee's business. And it is the
other Senators' business. And it is the other Congressmen's business.
It is not just one committee's business. They have the authority and
the obligation to bring it to the floor, but the knowledge of what the
President requests and the knowledge of the reports required by bills
that we all vote on coming back to the Congress should be shared with
the American people.
[[Page S7370]]
All this amendment says is that 48 hours after they report it to the
committee--and they should get it first; I adamantly agree they should
see those reports first, since they are the ones who asked for them--it
becomes on line and available to the rest of the Senators, the rest of
the Congressmen, and, beyond that, the rest of the American people.
Why should they not see the President's budgetary request?
As a matter of fact, Josh Bolton, before becoming Chief of Staff for
the President, was head of the OMB, and he agreed last year that this
year they would put that all on line at the time they give it to the
Appropriations Committee. This is simply another sunshine amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator, in the spirit of full
disclosure, when we considered the asbestos bill, which the Senator
supported, there was one corporation that would have benefited to the
tune of more than $1 billion by that asbestos bill. In the interest of
full disclosure of special interest groups and who is pushing
legislation, would the Senator from Oklahoma also demand that kind of
disclosure so we know if there is a change of a word or two, and one
corporation, one lobbyist, or one special interest group is a big
winner in a bill that is not an appropriations bill? Is the Senator
from Oklahoma going to demand the same disclosure?
Mr. COBURN. Certainly, in answer to the Senator's question. On the
trust fund, we never got to know who was going to give the money. It
was same thing. So there are big problems everywhere. I believe in
sunshine everywhere. You won't see me fighting sunshine. The people of
this country deserve to know what is in the bills, what is in the
reports, and what is in the requests and the justifications.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. I only have 45 minutes to get through three other
amendments. I don't want to put this into a political game. What I want
to do is talk about what the American people ought to be getting from
us. This language ought to be changed so that we accept the
Appropriations Committee getting the reports early, but then the
Department of Homeland Security making it available to the rest of the
American public, provided it doesn't have a security implication within
it. It is a very straightforward amendment. I hope the committee will
accept it and keep it in in conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have no problem with this proposal. The
Department will have a problem with it simply because if the Senator
has followed the activities of this Department, their ability to
produce the reports requested is limited or at least their efforts have
not been stellar. In any event, it is a reasonable request. I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4561) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4585
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 4585 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4585.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds available to the Coast Guard for
operating expenses for the continuation of operations of Long Range
Aids to Navigation stations nationwide)
After section 539, insert the following:
Sec. 540. None of the amounts available or otherwise
available to the Coast Guard under title II of this Act under
the heading ``United States Coast Guard'' under the heading
``operating expenses'' may be obligated or expended for the
continuation of operations at Long Range Aids to Navigation
(LORAN) stations nationwide.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I know there is going to be a radical
difference of opinion on this amendment. Let me explain. This is about
the LORAN stations nationwide. This is an old-time aid to navigation
that this bill has requested another study of. This has been studied.
There are volumes of reports from every agency of the Federal
Government that has anything to do with this. All of them say we don't
need this system anymore.
LORAN stands for long-range aids to navigation. The original LORAN-A
system was developed during World War II. LORAN-C, where we are today,
was developed during the 1950s and 1960s. There are 24 LORAN stations
across the United States. One of them is actually in my State.
These stations send out radio signals and LORAN receivers on board
vessels and aircraft measure the differences in the time that it takes
for a signal to come back and determine both the longitudinal and
latitudinal positions. It is used rarely for some civilian navigation,
but it is no longer a primary source for civilian navigation needs
because it has been replaced with a far superior system called global
positioning or a satellite-based system. That has been totally
functioning since 1994.
The plan was released February 10, 2006. It was prepared by the
Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the
Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard requested to terminate
this program. There is no longer a need for the Coast Guard for either
primary or secondary. If GPS fails, there are other systems that back
it up besides LORAN. And it is not needed for the Department of
Transportation. The Department of Defense said they don't need it. The
Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and the FAA said they
do not need it. In this bill, it calls for DHS and DOT to submit a
report to the Senate Appropriations Committee that requires them to
come up with excuses to continue the LORAN operation. Here is the
report.
I would like to submit for the Record the report and also the
statement of administration policy on this.
The administration objects to this provision because it is going to
postpone the inevitable. This is a program that we don't need. Every
agency of the Federal Government that uses this program or has been
involved with it says they don't need it anymore. There are special
interests that might want it, but the country doesn't need it. The
Government doesn't need it. You don't need it for navigational
purposes.
I am quoting now:
The Department of Transportation has conducted numerous
studies that make clear that the benefits of terminating the
LORAN system far outweigh the costs. Furthermore, as
discussed in the Subcommittee Report, the Global Positioning
System is a far superior navigational aid, with sufficient
backup capabilities in place to meet the Coast Guard's needs
for the Maritime Transportation System [and to meet the FAA's
need for air travel, and the Department of Homeland Security,
as well as the Department of Transportation].
I ask unanimous consent to print that in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy, July 12, 2006
H.R. 5441--department of homeland security appropriations bill, fy 2007
The Administration supports Senate passage of the FY 2007
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, as
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The President's FY 2007 Budget holds total discretionary
spending to $872.8 billion and cuts non-security
discretionary spending below last year's level. The Budget
funds priorities and meets these limits by proposing to
reform, reduce, or terminate 141 lower-priority programs. The
Administration urges Congress to fund priority needs while
holding spending to these limits, and objects to the use of
gimmicks to meet those limits. The Administration looks
forward to working with Congress to adopt the President's
proposals to cut wasteful spending in order to maintain
fiscal discipline to protect the American taxpayer and
sustain a strong economy.
Although the bill is largely supportive of the President's
request, the Administration would like to take this
opportunity to share additional views regarding the
Committee's version of the bill.
Border and Transportation Security
The Administration appreciates the funding provided by the
Committee for border
[[Page S7371]]
and immigration enforcement and strongly urges the Senate to
fully fund 1,500 new Border Patrol agents and 6,700
additional detention beds and associated costs, as requested.
On May 15th, the President outlined his five-part plan for
comprehensive immigration reform. The Administration is
committed to securing the resources necessary to gain control
of the border through deployment of additional Border Patrol
agents, as well as adding infrastructure and technology, such
as access roads, fences, vehicle barriers, tactical
communications, and aerial surveillance. These resources,
coupled with additional legal authority from Congress, will
end the practice of ``catch and release'' along the southern
border by increasing detention and removal capabilities. The
Administration is committed to working with Congress to
implement an immigration enforcement strategy that will give
our law enforcement authorities operational control of our
Nation's borders as a part of the Administration's
comprehensive immigration reform initiative.
The Administration is concerned that the Committee did not
include the requested increase for aviation security
passenger fees. The Senate is urged to include this provision
to ensure that the direct beneficiaries of aviation security
measures bear a greater share of the cost of implementing and
maintaining a secure screening system.
The Administration strongly supports the provision to
provide the Department with the flexibility to employ a risk-
based strategy for focusing aviation screening resources
on significant and emerging threats to aviation security.
The Administration supports section 524 of the Committee's
proposed bill that will provide additional direction to
the Department and information to Congress on protection
of Sensitive Security Information without compromising
security.
State and Local Programs
While the Administration appreciates the Committee's
commitment to State and local grant and training programs,
the funding provided does not effectively target Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) resources. Overall funding for
programs administered by the Office of Grants and Training is
$504 million above the President's request, providing
resources to lower priority programs that support individual
infrastructure sectors or organizations and emphasize basic
response equipment for local agencies. Resources should be
shifted to fully fund programs that target high-risk targets
and combine security efforts across the Nation's
infrastructure sectors such as the Urban Areas Security
Initiative and the proposed Targeted Infrastructure
Protection Program. The Administration also urges the Senate
to fully fund the Citizens Corps initiative, which helps to
encourage greater citizen participation in local preparedness
efforts.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support of
FEMA's core operating expenses, flood map modernization, and
the pre-disaster mitigation grant program. The funding
provided for the pre-disaster mitigation grant program will
protect people and buildings from flood damage, earthquakes,
and wind damage from hurricanes and tornados. The
Administration also strongly supports the transfer of the
National Disaster Medical System to the Department of Health
and Human Services, consistent with the recommendations of
the White House Katrina `Lessons Learned' report.
The Administration strongly urges the Senate to provide the
full request level for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The
amount provided for the DRF is $316 million below the
President's request. The requested funding is based on the
five-year average of total disaster costs, excluding large
one-time events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Full
funding of the DRF is important to ensure that DHS is able to
respond appropriately to the Nation's unforeseen events and
natural disasters.
Management
The Administration strongly opposes any effort to reduce or
eliminate funding for the DHS MAX HR initiative. This human
resource management system is designed to meet the diverse
personnel pay and benefit requirements of DHS.
The Administration is concerned that funding for the design
and buildout of a new Coast Guard Headquarters at the St.
Elizabeth's campus was not included in the bill and urges
that it be restored. This facility has been identified by the
General Services Administration as the only Federally-owned
secure campus readily available in Washington, D.C. It is
critical that the Coast Guard headquarters be constructed in
a timely manner and these funds are needed to ensure the
facility is constructed on schedule, address serious
spatial needs of the agency, and support infrastructure
development for eventual tenancy by other DHS components.
Coast Guard
The Administration strongly objects to the provision that
would postpone decommissioning of the LORAN system and would
require additional cost-benefit analysis. The Department of
Transportation has conducted numerous studies that make clear
that the benefits of terminating the LORAN system far
outweigh the costs. Furthermore, as discussed in the
Subcommittee Report, the Global Positioning System is a far
superior navigational aid, with sufficient backup
capabilities in place to meet the Coast Guard's needs for the
Maritime Transportation System.
Secret Service
The Administration urges the Senate to include the
establishment of a Special Event Fund to meet the unique
security needs of the Secret Service to be prepared for
special events. These funds have been requested in a separate
account to ensure that resources are dedicated to meet
special events overtime and travel needs.
Citizenship and Immigration Services
The Administration appreciates the funding provided for
expansion and improvements to immigration verification
systems to more effectively verify employment eligibility and
benefit records. These resources support the Administration's
comprehensive immigration reform initiative, and the
Administration urges the Senate to fully fund efforts to
automate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business
processes and systems, which will improve its ability to
collect, process, and provide immigration-related benefits.
Science and Technology
The Administration appreciates the funding provided by the
Senate supporting the Department's research, development,
test and evaluation (RDTE) requirements. However, the
Administration strongly urges the Senate to restore the
Management and Administration appropriation funding needed to
ensure the necessary resources for the proper planning,
prioritization, management, execution, and oversight of the
RDTE programs.
The Administration is opposed to the transfer of the
Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) and explosives
threat funding from Science and Technology (S&T) to the
Transportation Security Administration. S&T is best
positioned to prioritize, develop, and execute the innovative
research programs necessary to achieve significant results
against explosive threats. S&T is also best suited to foster
the research and development capabilities of the TSL and
leverage these capabilities to support the entire Department.
Preparedness
The reduction in funding for the National Preparedness
Integration Plan will limit the ability of the Preparedness
Directorate to implement initiatives based on Katrina
`Lessons Learned' recommendations. At the funding level
proposed by the Senate, the program will not be able to
support needed improvements in telecommunications
capabilities. DHS will work with Congress to better define
the role of the proposed Federal Preparedness
Coordinators, and avoid duplication of other DHS
functions.
The Administration is also concerned about the aggregate
reduction of $24 million from the request for funding of
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security
activities. The $20 million reduction in the National
Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications program
will diminish the ability to provide priority wireless
connectivity in disaster-affected areas and implement
recommended improvements from the Administration and Congress
to emergency communications infrastructure.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), but strongly
recommends that the full funding requested be provided. This
initiative is a priority of the Administration and failure to
fully fund DNDO research and development programs will
appreciably delay the availability of new technologies for
detecting radiological and nuclear materials in cargo, at our
borders, and elsewhere. Specific reductions in funding will
delay the deployment of next-generation equipment for
detecting nuclear devices; hinder efforts to leverage the
research capabilities of our Nation's universities; and delay
efforts to track the source of radioactive materials.
Competitive Sourcing
The Administration strongly opposes provisions that limit
competitive sourcing. Section 516 imposes a legislative
restriction on the use of competitive sourcing for work
performed by the Immigration Information Officers at the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and section 537
overrides Executive Branch discretion to consider public-
private competition by dictating that commercial classroom
training performed at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center is an inherently governmental activity. Precluding
public-private competition for performance of these
activities deprives the Department of the operational
efficiencies to be gained by competition, and limits its
ability to direct Federal resources to other priorities.
Management decisions about public-private competition, and
accountability for results, should be vested with the
Department. On a Government-wide basis, the improvements set
in motion by competitions completed between FY 2003 and FY
2005 will generate an estimated savings that will grow to
over $5 billion over the next 10 years. The Senate is urged
to strike these restrictions.
Reports and Penalties
While the Administration understands the need for prompt
delivery of reports to Congress and makes every effort to do
so, the Committee's requirement to deliver reports on
complicated matters before receiving funding could inhibit
the Department's efforts to carry out its mission.
[[Page S7372]]
Constitutional Concerns
Several provisions of the bill purport to require approval
of the Committees prior to Executive Branch action. These
provisions are found under the following headings: ``United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology'';
``Automation Modernization,'' ``Technology Modernization,''
and ``Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance,
and Procurement,'' within Customs and Border Protection;
``Automation Modernization'' Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; ``Protection, Administration, and Training,''
United States Secret Service; ``Management and
Administration,'' Preparedness and Recovery Preparedness;
``Management and Administration,'' Science and Technology;
and section 509. Since these provisions would contradict the
Supreme Court's ruling in INS v. Chadha, they should be
changed to require only notification of Congress.
Section 521 of the bill, relating to privacy officer
reports, should be stricken as inconsistent with the
President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary
executive branch.
Mr. COBURN. I draw the attention of my colleagues to the formal
report on the LORAN system as put forward by the three agencies.
We are going to hear debate that there is not sufficient backup. Let
me answer that first. The 2005 Federal Radio Navigational Plan reported
that the U.S. Coast Guard has determined that there are backups. LORAN
is not needed for it. In case there is a GPS failure, conventional
navigation is used, using all available equipment which includes GPS,
DGPS, radar, lights, buoys, celestial navigation, daymarks, and dead
reckoning. There are seven backups besides this.
Coast Guard Congressional Affairs has indicated that LORAN is one of
many backups. It is not needed for aviation backup. They have very
high-frequency omnidirectional beacons that give the same backup.
Distance measuring equipment, the ILS systems, a backup to GPS, it is
not going to be long when we won't even have ILS systems at airports.
We will probably have somebody who wants to keep those in. The fact is,
we need to recognize the technology. These dollars would be better
spent somewhere else.
The Coast Guard is going to spend $35 million in 2007 on operations
and the maintenance of the LORAN system. The Federal Aviation
Administration will spend between $15 and $25 million on
recapitalization. The Coast Guard tried to start getting rid of this in
2000. The FAA at that time said they still needed it. They now no
longer need it. It will take another 6 to 10 years and another $300
million to complete the recapitalization that was mandated since 2000
for a program this isn't needed.
Here are the savings: $500 million over the next 7 years if we go on
and terminate a program that we don't need and nobody needs as a
backup.
The Senate report on this bill and the proponents of LORAN will claim
that GPS used along with LORAN provides the most accurate positioning.
That is one of the claims. They aren't even used in tandem anymore. If
you are looking at GPS, you don't use the LORAN system. And GPS is far
superior to anything that LORAN could give us. One of the claims will
be that shutting down will adversely affect other Federal agencies that
use LORAN. The navigational plan asked for by this Congress indicated
that it is no longer a mission-essential device. It is not needed for
either a primary or secondary source for positioning, navigation, or
timing for the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation,
or the Department of Homeland Security. Who is that? That is the FAA,
the Maritime Commission, the Coast Guard, all of them saying: We don't
need this. Yet we are going to spend another $500 million over the next
7 years if we don't get rid of it.
So it is simple. Somebody wants it, yes. Why? There are special
interests that will want this to continue. But the fact is, a half a
billion dollars is a lot of money that we don't have. We ought to
eliminate this program. I know there are others who disagree with that.
I look forward to the debate.
I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment.
Certainly, I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to
terminate the LORAN program. This is a program that affects a lot of
our small airplanes, maritime safety, their ability to communicate in
the Pacific Northwest waters. I know Senator Stevens from Alaska has a
deep concern about this as well.
We know that at some point the LORAN system is going to be changed.
The problem is that the Coast Guard alone, which I have tremendous
respect for, made a decision to terminate the LORAN system without
talking to the FAA, without talking to DOD, and without talking to many
of the other users of the LORAN system. This bill makes sure that as we
move toward a new structure within the waters in the area of the
Pacific Northwest and up into Alaska and other places along the coast,
we do it in a way that makes sure that all of the users of the system
are not impacted in a way that makes them unsafe or their travels
unsafe.
It is unwise for us to terminate this program without the consent and
the understanding of these other organizations. We had a debate about
this in the Appropriations Committee. The committee agreed with us that
as we move forward on the termination of the LORAN program, we need to
make sure that the Department of Defense, the FAA, small maritime
users, and everybody who relies on this for safety in the waters along
coastal regions is on board and we move forward in a way that doesn't
cause any harm to any of the users of the system.
I respect the Senator in trying to eliminate funding and trying to
make sure that we are making the best use of public resources. But it
has to be done in a way that doesn't impact the safety of our many
maritime and airline users.
I will oppose the amendment. I know Senator Stevens from Alaska has
been very involved in the debate. I believe he is on his way to the
floor as well. I urge our colleagues to listen carefully to the safety
and the use of many people in our coastal waters as we move forward on
the matter of closure of the LORAN system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this language was added to the bill in
committee. It did not arise out of the original mark. I opposed the
addition of this language because I agree with the Senator from
Oklahoma. I have a lot of confidence in the Coast Guard. In fact,
within this agency, the Coast Guard is clearly one of the best run,
most efficient and most professional groups in our entire Government.
The Coast Guard has come to the conclusion they don't need the system,
that it is ancillary to the basic needs of navigation.
It is a lot like maintaining a black-and-white television when
everybody has gone to color--or high definition now. Hand-held GPSs are
like little telephones. You can carry them anywhere. The accuracy and
instantaneous locating of those devices is extraordinary, especially
compared to LORAN.
There is no need to keep this black-and-white technology. We should
phase it out. The Coast Guard has come up with a plan for doing that.
We can save some money, and with that money we can put it into other
things the Coast Guard does need. I support the amendment.
There are other Members who wish to speak. I don't think we should go
to a vote until we have given people the time to come and put their 2
cents in. I support the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a couple of comments to the Senator
from Washington State. LORAN won't go away if this instruction for this
study is taken out. There are still 4 years that LORAN will be there
under the Coast Guard's plan. I also remind the Senator that the FAA
has already said they don't need it. The Maritime Commission has said
they don't need it. The Coast Guard has said they don't need it. Who
needs it when we have other backups? It is true that in 2000 the FAA
said we don't have sufficient backup to eliminate LORAN. They have
since, in the report--the study that has already been made--said they
don't need it. So this is a report to extend the life of LORAN,
something that we don't need.
I know the Senator from Alaska will oppose this. I look forward to a
vigorous debate with him.
I will soon ask unanimous consent again to submit the 2005 Federal
radio navigational plan into the Record so everybody can see all the
claims that
[[Page S7373]]
have been made by the groups that supposedly don't need it. The plan
has already been done. It is not required as a navigational backup.
Now, will some people somewhere want to get a better navigational
system? Yes. You can buy a GPS system for a boat now for about $300 and
you can have something far superior than LORAN ever was or you can use
the VOR system or one of the myriad--seven other backups for maritime
without using LORAN.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside,
and I will call up another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4589
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4589 be called
up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4589.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To reduce appropriations available for certain training,
exercises, technical assistance, and other programs)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Nothwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
amount made available in title III of this Act under the
heading ``Office for Domestic Preparedness, State and Local
Programs'' is reduced by $25,000,000 and the amount made
available under such heading for ``training, exercises,
technical assistance, and other programs'' is reduced by
$25,000,000
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. The
Improper Payment Information Act was enacted in 2002. It was very
specific, and Congress was very wise to do it. What it said is that the
agencies have to make an assessment of improper payments.
Now, what the American people don't know is that at least $65 billion
in improper payments--payments made by the Federal Government to people
who don't deserve to get them--are made every year. Think about that:
$1.6 billion in food stamps; $20-some billion at the Pentagon; $42
billion in Medicare improper payments; $30 billion in Medicaid improper
payments. So the $60 billion number I quote is a very conservative
estimate.
What we saw with Katrina is that tons of improper payments were made.
But we had the Department of Homeland Security say they didn't have any
improper payments. That is what they asserted to this Congress in 2005.
The fact is that they didn't do the studies which were necessary to
assess whether they were at risk. The $65 billion that I quote
represents only 18 of 70 entities of the Federal Government, and it is
only 18 out of 70 that are reporting.
The Department of Homeland Security, in its fiscal year 2004
performance and accountability report, said none of its programs or
activities were deemed to be at significant risk for making improper
payments. The OMB put some special definitions on what that is. It is
$10 million or 2.5 percent. We know of at least a billion dollars that
has been wasted in Katrina that we can document right now. The
Department has since admitted they are finding and reporting improper
payments for 2005 that were not in full compliance with the law.
We are seeing that everywhere in my Subcommittee on Federal Financial
Management, where we look at these agencies. They actually ignore the
law and don't make a concerted effort. Senator Obama and I asked in
September that a chief financial officer be set up in terms of the
response in September of last year to Katrina. We never got that
through, but had we gotten that through, we would be a billion dollars
ahead of where we are today, just in terms of the funds for Katrina.
The price tag is going to be over $200 billion in Federal money by
the time we finish. If you take the rate of improper payments within
DHS just in terms of Katrina, we are probably going to have $2 billion
or $3 billion in improper payments.
For the record, I believe it is important that the American public
know why we ought to be having an assessment of how we spend our money.
Sixteen percent of the dollars and assistance initially spent after
Katrina and Rita was spent on divorce, sex changes--bogus things--and
$1.5 million went to credit card waste, a 1-week Caribbean vacation,
five season tickets to the New Orleans Saints, and Dom Perignon in San
Antonio. A thousand credit cards were given to people with Social
Security numbers belonging to State and Federal prisoners, and $14,000
was given to an inmate in a Louisiana jail. Subcontracting--we were to
pay, on average, $32 per cubic yard for debris removal, but the actual
cost was $68. We had the rest taken up in layers of subcontractors. I
could go on and on, but I will not.
This amendment gives a million dollars to the Chief Financial Officer
of the Department of Homeland Security and says: Do improper payments
reporting. I ask that this be accepted by the committee because it
makes common sense and we have a real problem in Homeland Security with
waste, fraud, and abuse. To start fixing that, we must know what the
problem is.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I could not agree more. As far as the
million dollars, I am happy to reallocate it toward this activity. This
is a huge amount, but I don't think it should be understated how much
effort is being made to try to figure out how much in the way of funds
has been either mishandled, fraudulently handled, wasted, and the first
cut just on the individual side is $1.8 billion. As a result of
Katrina, the number is going to be much higher when they get into the
public area of rebuilding roads, schools, and hospitals. However, the
Department is trying, and certainly the inspector general of the
Department is trying very hard. He has a very highly structured task
force--a series of them--to try to manage these dollars. The results
are not too complete. We are starting to get hard information, but
dollars have been wasted, and it is inexcusable. If this technical
accounting process is something that should be followed, I have no
problem with proceeding in this way.
I don't want to imply that this is going to resolve the problem. The
problem is much bigger than this. The issue is whether the inspector
general can get his arms around everything that has happened down
there. You are not only dealing necessarily with the Federal folks who
are giving us the issues; there are a lot of local and State issues
about how Federal money is being spent here that is very questionable.
Unfortunately, people took advantage of the American taxpayers'
compassion for folks who have been devastated in that part of the
country. Some people saw that as an opportunity to take advantage of
the American taxpayers. We are very creative people sometimes in that
area, and unfortunately it happened.
There is a genuine effort to try to make sure the money is spent
effectively, and there is an equally genuine effort by the inspector
general to follow up on money that has not been spent correctly. So I
welcome this effort as part of the fight to make sure tax dollars are
spent effectively.
I ask that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I made an error in the number of the
amendment I called up. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
set aside and the true number be 4590 instead of 4589 and that the
debate be considered with regard to No. 4590 rather than 4589.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the chairman for a
minute. I know this isn't going to solve the problem. This takes away
the excuse for not doing proper payment analysis at the Department of
Homeland Security. I know they are working hard in that regard.
Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Alaska is here. I wonder
if we might recall amendment No. 4585.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to report 4590 first?
[[Page S7374]]
Amendment No. 4590
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4590 be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4590.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make appropriations available for the Chief Financial
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure compliance
with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321
note)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
$1,000,000 shall be made available from appropriations for
training, exercises, technical assistance, and other programs
under paragraph (4) under the subheading ``state and local
programs'' under the heading ``Office for Domestic
Preparedness'' under title III, for the Chief Financial
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure
compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
(31 U.S.C. 3321 note).
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, is that the pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the amendment that was just brought
up. That was the amendment that was the subject of the previous
discussion.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, can I clarify? It is very confusing. The
Senator from Oklahoma called up the wrong amendment. Would the Chair
explain exactly what is the pending amendment?
Mr. COBURN. The pending amendment is exactly as I described. It is an
amendment that moves $1 million to the chief financial officer of
Homeland Security so they will do the improper payments report.
Mr. GREGG. I believe that amendment has been agreed to and disposed
of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the problem is the Senator mentioned
the wrong number. It is not 4589; it is 4590, and the Senate agreed to
4590.
Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed
to.
Mrs. MURRAY. Has that amendment been agreed to or set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sent up amendment No. 4589. It was
his intent to send up amendment No. 4590. He asked that amendment No.
4589 be set aside, and we now reported amendment No. 4590.
Mr. GREGG. Has it been reported yet?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been reported as the pending amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what is this amendment?
Mr. GREGG. This deals with the transfer of $1 million to the finance
officer.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, simply to
clarify, so we are all on the same page, the chairman of the committee
is asking that we agree to the amendment that was just debated, that
was called up, that the Senator had the wrong number; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Right.
Mr. GREGG. And this is the amendment dealing with the transfer of $1
million to the finance officer.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is asking us to agree to that amendment that
was debated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
Mr. GREGG. Now the pending amendment is the amendment on LORAN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to amendment No. 4590 being
agreed to, the $1 million amendment? Without objection, the amendment
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4590) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4585
Mr. GREGG. And the pending business is the LORAN amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now the pending question is amendment No.
4589.
Mr. GREGG. That is not the LORAN amendment. We set that one aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Apparently amendment No. 4589 and amendment
No. 4585 are both pending.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
4585 be called up at this time, which is, as I understand, the LORAN
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The clerk will report.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, may I clarify then that amendment No.
4585 is pending? From what I understand from the Chair, both amendments
are pending. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4589 be laid
aside and that the pending amendment be amendment No. 4585.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Just for the clarification of the Senate, we are now back
on the LORAN amendment; is that correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As far as I can tell.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there a time limit on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from
Oklahoma will delete an amendment I offered in committee. This is what
it says:
The committee denies the request to terminate operations at
LORAN stations nationwide and directs the Secretary to
refrain from taking any steps to reduce operations at such
stations. The committee further directs the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to submit
a report to the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce
Committee regarding the future of the LORAN system. The
report shall include the cost benefits, the merits of
maintaining the LORAN system as a backup navigational aid,
and the benefits of using the LORAN system in conjunction
with the global positions system. The report shall be
submitted to the committee within 180 days of enactment of
this act.
I did hear my good friend from Oklahoma indicate he would like to
have some vigorous debate. I don't know how vigorous it is going to be.
I do want to tell the Senate that this amendment means a great deal to
my State, obviously, with half the coastline of the United States, with
a number of areas that are affected by this LORAN system.
The LORAN system has not been modernized in my State, although it has
been in all the rest of the country. In recent years, we have
appropriated approximately $160 million to the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Coast Guard to modernize the LORAN structure
through an existing interagency memorandum of agreement that existed
between the two agencies. The recapitalization primarily came through
the FAA budget, while the Coast Guard has provided resources to operate
and maintain this system.
The proposal to terminate LORAN was not coordinated with the
Department of Transportation or the FAA and certainly was not
coordinated with my State. The decision to terminate this system should
not unilaterally be controlled by the Coast Guard.
I am constrained to tell the Senate, this is just another example of
the problems of representing the largest State in the Union with
agencies that are not properly represented in our State.
The LORAN system was originally developed as a radio navigational
service for coastal waters and was later expanded to include complete
coverage of the Continental U.S., as well as all of Alaska. Originally,
it really was designed for an area like the coastal waters off our
State.
LORAN-C provides coverage for maritime navigation in the U.S. coastal
areas, particularly in Alaska, and provides navigation, location, and
timing services for civil and military air, land, and marine users.
We welcome the advent of the global positioning system. It is an
invaluable navigational aid. The LORAN system uses a very strong
wavelength and signal strength which enables it to penetrate areas
where GPS has difficulty and will not work because of line-of-sight
blockage.
The LORAN system is an independent system. It can serve as a backup
for GPS. Until the people who have equipment to use LORAN are able
[[Page S7375]]
to switch to GPS and have it be shown that GPS will work in every area
where it is necessary to navigate--I remind the Senate, 70 percent of
the cities in my State can be reached only by air. We have the largest
area and the largest involvement in fishing in the Nation. Over half of
the fish consumed in the United States comes from Alaska.
This is an independent system and really it ought to be maintained as
a backup to the GPS, in our opinion, at least until the complete
modernization of the older vessels and the older airplanes that were
designed to use LORAN.
The modernization of LORAN is almost complete. As I said, we spent
$160 million in the past few years to do that. It can be used as a
backup to GPS to better produce an estimate of location than either
system acting alone.
The LORAN system is a national asset. Again I say, it was not
coordinated with the Department of Transportation, particularly the
FAA, in terms of making this recommendation.
It just so happens that the first weekend of the last recess, just 10
days ago, I had occasion to travel with my son down one river and up
another in Alaska in a vessel that had GPS. He is a qualified pilot for
any vessel in the United States. At one point, at around 11 o'clock at
night, we were traveling through a fog. We were talking about the
navigational systems. The difficulty people have is they don't
understand what it means to live in an area where it can be dark for
several months and operating in a fog at night--all day long, as a
matter of fact, in darkness in some instances.
The fisheries vessels and the systems off our State depend on LORAN
for accurate positioning. It is true that GPS is a better system where
it works better, but it has not had the findings and analysis that this
committee amendment asks be prepared. That is, the Secretary of
Commerce is asked to make a study, along with the Secretary of
Transportation, and report to us the analysis of the cost-benefits of
this LORAN system, the merits of maintaining it as a backup
navigational aid, and give us that within 180 days.
In other words, for 180 days, we have a hiatus to determine whether
we should follow the report made by the Coast Guard or whether we
should listen to those involved in the fishing systems and in the
aviation systems in a State such as mine.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for a
question?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska just made a point
that I think is critical that we understand. During the debate prior to
the Senator coming to the floor, the point was made by the Senator from
Oklahoma that there are a number of other backup systems that are
available to users of the system in the coastal waters off Alaska and
other States.
From what I just heard from the Senator from Alaska--and I want to
clarify this--because of the mountainous regions, because of the
inaccessibility and a lot of the difficult geographic locations that
exist within his State, we are not positive that many of those backup
systems work; is that correct?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are
areas in our State where GPS does not provide the accuracy it does in
other places because of the line-of-sight problem, whereas because of
the very strong wavelength and signal strength LORAN puts out,
particularly the modernized LORAN-C, it is an absolute necessity right
now.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator then, what he is saying
to us is it could, indeed, put many people at risk because we do not
know yet whether those systems are working in many of the geographic
locations within his State?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is absolutely right. We just cannot
terminate this system all at once. It is true it can be phased out in
many places in the country without any harm to anybody. But the people
who rely on the system right now as the sole source of their navigation
should not be abandoned.
As a matter of fact, I have prepared a second-degree amendment which
I will be glad to offer if the Senator from Oklahoma does not
understand our situation. It is a second-degree amendment which would
delete the amendment, as the Senator wishes, but substitute for it a
complete indemnity by the United States of any harm that comes to any
person who presently is relying on LORAN because they cannot have
navigation capability.
We believe there is going to be substantial harm to a lot of people
if this is not done right. The current system just says ``terminate.''
If they did so by cost-benefit analysis on a nationwide basis, they did
not do it on a cost-benefit analysis in the area where it is needed.
``Where it is needed'' is what makes a difference.
We do not say this program should exist forever. We believe in the
final analysis that it probably will be terminated. But when it is
terminated, it should be phased out on a geographical basis so it stays
in effect in the areas where it is absolutely needed until it can be
replaced by a system which would have to upgrade GPS, and that is not
in the plan of the Department of Commerce at all.
I think this is wrong to take out our amendment. I believe the
amendment is a reasonable one. All it says is we postpone the
termination operations. We refrain from taking steps to reduce
operations at these stations where they are needed. If that is not
acceptable to the Senate, then I say, all right. If the Senate, in its
wisdom, is going to take a total cost and benefit analysis on a
nationwide basis and leave people who depend on this system now
completely without a navigation system they can rely on, then they
should be indemnified for any harm that comes to them as a result of
the premature termination of this system.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. I want
to clarify something which is just my understanding, and please correct
me if I am wrong.
The GPS is never limited by line of sight. It is a satellite. It is
the LORAN system that is limited by line of sight. The mountainous
structures in Alaska limit the LORAN system. GPS is far superior to the
LORAN system. That is accurate. Both as a pilot I know that and from
what we have said.
The other point that I would make--
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I could just answer that.
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right, but at the same time, he is wrong.
Satellites don't work everywhere in Alaska because of problems in
updating their signal. The same is true for GPS. You must have a
satellite signal that can reach for GPS.
Mr. COBURN. I would concede that.
Mr. STEVENS. Many places in our State did not have access to GPS
because the satellite is not ubiquitous for the world. It does not come
down in some places of our State.
Mr. COBURN. I would concede to the Senator that there are occasional
times that the GPS cannot be utilized. I would concede that.
Mr. STEVENS. I want to make certain, Mr. President, that the Senator
understands what I am saying. There are places where GPS cannot be
accessed in Alaska.
Mr. COBURN. There are also places where LORAN cannot be accessed in
Alaska today.
Mr. STEVENS. That is true, in some places. But where it has been
operating, LORAN is relied upon in places where GPS cannot reach.
Mr. COBURN. I would concede to the Senator that LORAN can be used in
places where GPS cannot be utilized. But I would also concede that the
study that asked for this has already been done. Everything that this
study asked for has already been put forward. The 2005 Federal
Radionavigation Plan answers every question you have asked in this
amendment.
What the Department of Transportation says, what the FAA says, what
the Maritime Commission says, what the U.S. Coast Guard says is LORAN
is not needed for a backup for a navigational system anywhere in this
country. That is what they say, and that is what you are asking for.
They have also done a cost-benefit analysis, and they have said,
without question, the cost-benefit is on the side of eliminating LORAN.
Let's talk about what it will cost. The Government estimates it will
cost $300 million to upgrade the LORAN
[[Page S7376]]
system in Alaska over the next 6 to 7 years. And what they are
certifying--and I understand the concern of the Senator from Alaska
because some people might not have a system they are used to today. But
when these agencies certified that LORAN is not needed as a secondary
backup, that is what you are asking them for in the study, and they
have already said it is not needed.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? That is not what I am asking
for.
Mr. COBURN. I will finish my point, and then I will turn the time
over to the Senator.
Mr. President, the Federal Radionavigation Plan is a 120-page report.
Let me just go through it real quickly.
FAA has said: Sufficient alternative navigational aids exist in the
event of a loss of GPS-based services. They have VOR, which they have
in Alaska.
The Maritime Administration determined that there would not be
significant disruption in the movement of vessels in and out of U.S.
ports or affect commercial enterprises as traditional aids to
navigation are still in use and capable.
The Department of Homeland Security has determined that LORAN-C is
not needed as a backup for timing users, as adequate alternatives are
already in place.
The Federal Railroad Administration said they have no need for LORAN.
The bottom line: The accuracy of LORAN in these areas can be equally
degraded and compromised, and therefore, there would be no material
degradation in navigational safety should GPS be the only RNAV source
for Alaska. Traditional backups for maritime navigation would still be
in place: VTSs, buoys, ranges, radar, lighthouses, and fathometers.
Since 1997, $160 million has been appropriated to recapitalize LORAN.
$117.5 million of that has been transferred to the Coast Guard. It is
estimated that it will take another 6 to 10 years and $300-plus million
to recapitalize that.
The point is, even without the amendment of the Senator from Alaska,
his addition in committee, it is 4 years before this is decommissioned.
So it gives 4 years for anybody who has any problem with it a chance to
adjust to that problem.
I would offer to the Senator from Alaska that there might be a
compromise that we could discuss in keeping LORAN working just for
Alaska where there is a problem, rather than keeping LORAN working
everywhere else there is not a problem. I would suggest there may be a
compromise to address the issues of concern that the Senator from
Alaska has, that would also save us a considerable amount of money and
solve his problems with those who feel at risk without elimination of
LORAN. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is quite generous in his
suggestion, but I have to say that we heard on April 18 of this year
from the Department of Transportation the following:
The Department of Transportation has not formulated a
position regarding the future of LORAN. It is our hope,
however, that it will be possible, consistent with the
Federal Radionavigation Plan, for the administration to
announce a final, fully considered decision before the end of
the calendar year. That decision should be made
collaboratively with due regard for the mandates in NSPD 39
relating the identification of a backup for GPS.
In terms of where we live on the Pacific, the problem is we
appropriated the money for modernization of LORAN but, unfortunately,
it was improved in areas where it wasn't needed anymore, and in the
area where it is still needed, it was not.
We are in a situation now where our people still rely upon LORAN. We
were told that the Department of Transportation did not participate in
this study. We now know that the Department of Transportation says that
from a cost-benefit analysis, the whole system is not justified. That
may well be. That may well be. All we are asking for is this analysis
now to be made of the system, and the merits of maintaining LORAN as a
backup navigational aid and the benefits of using it in conjunction
with the Global Positioning System.
We believe that in areas where it doesn't work continually, GPS ought
to be backed up by LORAN and vice versa. But particularly in terms of
the long coastline of the Pacific coast--and we are part of the Pacific
coast--we were not included in the study. This benefit-to-cost ratio is
a national conclusion and not a conclusion based upon the areas where
LORAN is currently used. In many areas of the country, it has been
totally abandoned, and it ought to be abandoned. We don't have any
problem with that. But steps to reduce operation at stations where this
LORAN is still in use and is relied upon today is wrong. If there is to
be some decision along that line, we will be happy to try and work that
out in conference with the Senator. But maybe we should say the
Secretary should refrain from taking any steps to reduce LORAN at
certain stations but nationwide.
I will be happy to change that, so he should not be prevented from
taking steps to reduce operations at any station where it is not
currently relied upon for navigation, either directly or as a backup to
GPS.
Now, that means the Pacific coast. I am led to believe the same thing
exists off California, off Oregon, and Washington to a lesser extent
than it does off my State. You have to remember that half of the
coastline is off our State, as I said, and in the areas where small
boats, small planes currently rely upon LORAN as a backup, or in some
instances as the total system, it should not be eliminated without a
study of that area.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just add that I support the
recommendation that Senator Stevens has just made, and if we are able
to work that agreement out, I think that would be good.
I do want to amplify something quickly that I stated earlier in the
debate, and it was repeated by my colleague from Alaska, and that is
that DHS came to this decision without adequate consultation with other
impacted Federal agencies. If there is any confusion over that
question, I would like to put in the Record and ask unanimous consent
to insert a letter from the Honorable Jeff Shane, Under Secretary of
Transportation, to the Honorable Stewart Baker, the Assistant Secretary
of Policy at DHS.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2006.
Hon. Stewart Baker,
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Stewart: The future of the Long Range Navigation
(LORAN) system has been the subject of debate for many years.
In 1994, the Clinton Administration announced plans to
terminate the LORAN system based on its expectation that
emerging Global Positioning System (GPS) technology would
fully respond to the needs of LORAN users. In response to
strong support from industry and the public as well as
analyses showing key GPS vulnerabilities, however, Congress
has continued to fund LORAN. That funding has gone to the
United States Coast Guard for LORAN operations and to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for LORAN
modernization.
According to the 2005 Federal Radionavigation Plan, signed
by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, and
Transportation, ``DOT, in coordination with DHS, will make a
decision regarding the future of LORAN by the end of 2006.''
Related mandates are set forth in National Security
Presidential Directive 39, establishing a U.S. space-based
positioning, navigation, and timing policy. According to the
unclassified fact sheet accompanying NSPD 39, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall, ``[i]n coordination with the
Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, and Commerce, develop
and maintain capabilities, procedures, and techniques, and
routinely exercise civil contingency responses to ensure
continuity of operations in the event that access to the
Global Positioning System is disrupted or denied. . . .''
Elsewhere, the fact-sheet says that the Secretary of
Transportation shall, ``[i]n coordination with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, develop, acquire, operate, and maintain
backup position, navigation, and timing capabilities that can
support critical transportation, homeland security, and other
critical civil and commercial infrastructure applications
within the United States, in the event of a disruption of the
Global Positioning System. . . .'' (Emphasis added.)
For some time now, the Coast Guard has indicated its desire
to decommission the LORAN system. The FAA is similarly
interested in being divested of LORAN responsibilities.
Neither agency believes that LORAN is necessary today to
support its respective mission. From the perspective of the
two agencies, those assessments are undoubtedly correct. But
the future of LORAN
[[Page S7377]]
should be determined by reference to the broader national
interest. Might LORAN serve as the backup to GPS contemplated
by the mandates of NSPD 39? Apart from its potential as a
backup to GPS, does its robust, low-frequency, penetrating
signal offer potential value in our effort to secure the
international supply chain? Are there other possible
backups to GPS that offer clear advantages over LORAN? If
we decide that LORAN should be maintained, which agency
should shoulder responsibility for maintaining it? If we
decide that LORAN should not be maintained, what should we
do to persuade Congress that continued funding of the
system is no longer in the national interest?
DOT has not formulated a position regarding the future of
LORAN. It is our hope, however, that it will be possible,
consistent with the Federal Radionavigation Plan. for the
Administration to announce a final, fully considered decision
before the end of this calendar year. That decision should be
made collaborativeIy with due regard for the mandates in NSPD
39 relating to the identification of a backup for GPS.
DOT looks forward to working together with DHS and with
other interested agencies in the interest of bringing this
issue to closure. I will be in further touch to discuss the
best process for pursuing this important objective.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey N. Shane,
Under Secretary for Policy.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what this letter simply does is make it
clear that DOT is willing and ready to discuss this matter, but it also
makes clear that there are other issues, especially in aviation, as the
Senator from Alaska has said, that really have to be worked through as
we move toward this, and I ask that we have those considerations.
Again, I hope the language that Senator Stevens has proposed is
something that can be worked out because I think that would be amenable
to all of us.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would just make a couple of points.
Norm Mineta of the Department of Transportation signed this report on
October 21, 2005--the Secretary of the Department of Transportation--
the Federal Radionavigation Plan. So for the Department of
Transportation to claim now that they didn't agree with this report,
when their Secretary and his staff signed off on the report, there is
something amiss. There is some miscommunication.
What I would like to do is note the absence of a quorum in the hopes
that I could work with the Senators from Alaska and Washington to come
to a compromise on this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I would
like to make one point with a letter I am quoting from, dated April 18,
2006. It was addressed to Assistant Secretary of Policy at Homeland
Security, and it says:
The future of LORAN should be determined by reference to
the broader national interest. Might LORAN serve as the
backup to GPS contemplated by the mandates of NSPD 39? Apart
from its potential as a backup to GPS, does its robust, low-
frequency, penetrating signal offer potential value in our
effort to secure the international supply chain? Are there
other possible backups to GPS that offer clear advantages
over LORAN?
None of that has been answered.
Now, certainly, this is after the Secretary signed off on that plan,
but the idea of abandoning LORAN prematurely was not signed off on by
the Department, to my knowledge.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would note that in the report, the
considerations for backups are very well and very explicitly listed,
including Alaska's backup system. So I agree that there is some
confusion and there certainly is some difference in what was signed off
on the report and what we are hearing now.
I would ask to note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I would
suggest that we move on to another amendment. Senator Biden is here, he
could proceed with his amendment, and during that time Senators could
perhaps work something out.
Mr. COBURN. I have no objection.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4553
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4553.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment
numbered 4553.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase amounts for the rail and transit security grant
programs, and for other purposes)
On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert
``$3,493,500,000''.
On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert
``$2,272,000,000''.
On page 92, line 13, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert
``$1,250,000,000''.
On page 92, line 16, before the semicolon, insert the
following: ``, of which--
(i) $670,000,000 shall be for tunnel upgrades along the
Northeast corridor;
(ii) $250,000,000 shall be for passenger and freight rail
security grants;
(iii) $100,000,000 shall be for research and development of
bomb detection technology; and
(iv) $65,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail
security upgrades, of which $25,000,000 shall be used--
(I) to provide a 25 percent salary increase for existing
Amtrak Police personnel; and
(II) to expand the Amtrak police force by 200 officers
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize that particularly the Presiding
Officer and my friends from New Hampshire and Washington State are
probably tired of hearing me stand up year after year since 9/11 and
talk about rail security or the lack thereof in the United States of
America. This amendment is about rail security.
The funding made available in this amendment is, unfortunately,
something that I have, with others, fought for without success since 9/
11. In fact, immediately after 9/11, I introduced legislation that is
very similar to the amendment I am offering today that would provide
critical resources to enhance rail security and rail infrastructure.
Almost 5 years later, after introducing the legislation in the 108th
Congress and the 109th Congress, we have done virtually nothing.
In March of 2004, our allies in Spain suffered an attack on their
rail system that killed 191 people. We did nothing. We did nothing at
home. Just over 1 year ago, terrorists in London killed 52 people and
injured over 700, mostly on rail. We did virtually nothing. The attack
in London occurred just 1 week before we had a debate on the 2006
Homeland Security budget. Unbelievably, we approved only $150 million
for rail and transit, with only $7 million going to Amtrak, which
carries, by the way, 64,000 passengers per day--hardly, I would say, a
serious effort.
Just yesterday, in Mumbai, India, there was another attack on rail.
So far there are 190 confirmed dead, 714 people injured. To state the
obvious, I am sure every one of my colleagues feels as I do, but our
thoughts and prayers are with those who were harmed in yesterday's
attack. As they described in today's New York Times and I am sure every
other paper in the Nation, there was baggage and body parts strewn for
hundreds and hundreds of yards around the site of the explosion.
Coincidentally, here at home we are debating again the appropriations
bill for Homeland Security.
I wonder how long we can dodge the bullet. I wonder how long it will
be that we can avoid accountability for what we are not doing to
protect our rail and transit system. I don't know what it is going to
take for us to wake up and take this threat seriously. Certainly
everyone understands here at home that the threat is real and it is at
home. The FBI has warned us of the threat to our rails. In fact, the
Central Intelligence Agency has found photos of rail stations and rail
crossings in safe houses in Afghanistan. I am sure they weren't doing
that for a geography project for their kids. It was about looking at
targets in America.
Remember when we saw that they had taken photos of American
buildings, what we did? We immediately mobilized our security forces
around those buildings here in the United States, because we knew if
they had photos of those buildings tacked up on the walls they must be
thinking of them as targets. What do we need? Do we need someone from
al-Qaida to write us a note and say: ``By the way, folks, we are
planning on attacking your rail system''? ``We are not going to tell
you when, but we are going to attack your
[[Page S7378]]
rail system.'' What do we need? What do we need to be able to jog the--
not ``conscience,'' that may be the wrong word--jog this body into a
sense of reality?
We have still done virtually nothing. Since 9/11 the administration
invested over $25 billion in aviation security, primarily to screen
passengers. I voted for that, I agree with that--$25 billion. During
the same period, less than $600 million has been allocated for rail and
transit systems that carry a whole heck of a lot more passengers. This
year's budget includes an additional $6 billion for aviation security,
which I support. Only $150 million has been allocated for rail and
transit security. Out of the $150 million allocated for rail and
transit funding this year, $7 million went to Amtrak. I don't think
that is a serious effort--again, 64,000 people a day.
I understand you can't protect every single inch of our vast rail
structure but we can do some pretty commonsense things, some block-and-
tackle things that we know will make us a lot safer. I can't stop
anyone, nor are we likely to be able to stop anyone, from putting an
IED that is fashioned in America on a track somewhere between here and
Wilmington, DE, when I take the train every day. I am not asking for
that. But I will tell you what we can do. What we can do is go to those
areas we know are prime targets, where hundreds if not thousands of
people could die if al-Qaida or any of their copycat organizations
decided to move on rail and were successful.
Take a walk over to Union Station. Union Station is just down the
street in that direction. I walk to it or drive to it every single
night the Senate is in session. I come from it every day. It is the
single most visited place in Washington. Do you hear me? The single
most visited place in Washington, DC. More people are in and out of
that station than are at any museum, than visit the Congress, the White
House, the FBI. It is the single most visited place in Washington, DC.
Take a look. As I say to security people, get with me on an Amfleet
train. Not an Acela, because they don't have the old kind of caboose on
it. Stand in the last car and look out the window as you pull out of
the train station. Tell me how many cameras you observe. Tell me how
many cops you see. Tell me how many bits of protection--whether it is
fencing or alarm systems--that are on the switching devices that are in
that yard. Tell me how many folks you see wandering the yard where you
see trains stacked up, where people can cross around just a plain old
chain-link fence and put some C2 up underneath an existing train.
Or travel from Washington south. You go underneath the Supreme Court.
You go underneath one of the House office buildings. Tell me what you
see. Are there any guards patrolling that area? I am not going to say,
because people will say to me, You are just giving terrorists
information. I promise you, they already know it. You would be stunned
how few law enforcement officers are on duty at any one time in that
entire infrastructure.
My amendment simply makes the investment that the experts who have
testified have repeatedly told us is needed. It would provide an
additional $1.1 billion for rail security upgrades. Out of this amount
we would provide $670 million to upgrade the tunnels along the
Northeast corridor to add ventilation, lighting, escape routes, in some
cases cameras, and the ability to be able to patrol those tunnels.
I will not take the time because my colleagues have heard me do it
1,000 times. The tunnel that goes from here heading to Boston--in fact,
it goes through the State of Maryland, through Baltimore--it was built,
I think, in 1869. Next time you ride through it, look and see if you
see any ventilation. Tell me what you see in terms of lighting. Tell me
what you see about any prospect of someone being able to escape from
that tunnel. Tell me if you see any security going in and out of that
tunnel.
It seems like a long time ago, I have been doing it so long, there
was a fire in a tunnel. It was just a plain old fire, not a rail
tunnel, another tunnel going into Baltimore. The fire shut down all the
harbor, and it shut down all of south Baltimore.
If you go up into New York, you have six tunnels sitting under New
York City without any appreciable work being done on any of them since,
roughly, 1918. Ask any expert about ventilation. Why am I talking about
ventilation? Drop sarin gas in that tunnel, drop another chemical in
that tunnel, and tell me what happens without any ventilation to suck
it out. Tell me what you see in those tunnels. Ask those experts what
chance there is of escape. I will go back to that in a minute.
There is $250 million to be allocated to general security upgrades
for freight rail operations, including transport of hazardous material.
I had an amendment here on another bill not long ago because I asked
the Naval Research Institute, NRI, to answer a question for me. Again,
I apologize to my colleagues from Washington and New Hampshire for
continuing to repeat this, but I asked the question: What would happen
if a chlorine gas tanker exploded in a metropolitan area?
Remember, I guess it was a year or year and a half ago, one exploded
up in the Dakotas--not near any big city. They had to evacuate several
towns in the region. I said, What would happen?
The standard chlorine gas tanker on rails is about 90 tons. What
happens if one of those were exploded? They said it would kill or
injure up to 100,000 people.
I had an amendment. Why don't we allow the cities to be able to
divert these hazardous cars around the cities. It got voted down--I
actually did get a vote on it--because it would somehow increase the
cost of doing business. It would increase the cost of doing business.
Maybe I am missing something here. The only thing I can believe is
that most of my colleagues also think that this is not likely to
happen, that these guys aren't going to go after transit, they are not
going to go after freight rail, they are not going to go after
passenger rail. They really don't mean it so we don't really have to
worry.
It reminds me of that Calypso song that was popular about a decade
go, ``Don't worry, be happy.''
Yet if we look around the world, bombings and attacks on rail systems
are becoming increasingly sophisticated. They are carried out by
terrorist groups. Before 9/11 when we saw these terrorist activities
happening in Europe and other parts of the world, we just seemed
impervious to it. ``It can't happen here. It won't happen here.''
I made a speech on September 10. I ask unanimous consent that a copy
of it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Defining Our Interests in a
Changing World
My mother wanted me to be a priest or a politician, and for
the longest time I didn't think you could do both. But you
can. Any rate, obviously not a lot of Irish-Catholics in this
room.
Well, what I want to know before we begin is--Chestnut Hill
Academy is here, I'm told, from Philadelphia. And what I want
to know is, when I went to a Catholic boys' school in
Claymont, Delaware, called Archmere, Chestnut Hill Academy
used to occasionally beat us--more occasionally than was
necessary. And I want to know, are you guys here in support
or opposition? What's the deal?
Welcome, fellas. I don't know why you're here, but it's
nice to see you all here. Thank you for being here.
It is true, I am now the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee--through no fault of my own. My dad has an
expression: It's better to be lucky than good. I am chairman
because one man in Vermont decided he was going to leave one
political party and giving my party the ability to organize
the Senate. For that, I am grateful, but I want you to know I
understand that this could change any day.
By the way, the president and I agree on a lot of things,
and we sincerely do. I thought the president's first trip to
Europe quelled a lot of concerns and nerves on the part of
our European friends, who are always upset and always nervous
with any transition in power in the United States. I think
the president did an extremely good job in the incident
relating to our, quote, ``spy plane'' being down. I think the
president has done some very, very good things.
I do have a profound disagreement with the president's view
of national missile defense and whether or not, at the end of
the day, it would make us more or less secure.
At the end of the Cold War, when the wall came down, we
found ourselves on the brink of extraordinary changes. All of
us were wondering what it would mean and where this would
lead. Was it the beginning of something or the end of
something? And if it was
[[Page S7379]]
the beginning, were we, the United States, the only remaining
superpower, going to get it right?
On that night, we were all idealists, but a new day dawned
and a harsh reality came into focus. It became clear that
long-standing ethnic, religious, tribunal and nationalistic
divisions had not changed, while America's place in the world
had changed profoundly.
From that day on, we inherited a profound obligation of
leadership, and an even more profound obligation to get it
right in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Europe and Asia,
in our hemisphere, in our commitments, our treaties and in
our defense policy--missile or otherwise.
Now, the spotlight remains on us and is brighter than ever.
We're at a pivotal moment when American values and principles
have taken center stage like no other time in our history in
the global theater. How we perform on that stage is as much
about our honor, our decency, our pride, as it is about our
strategic policy.
So before we go raising the starting gun that will begin a
new arm's race in the world, before we dip into the Social
Security trust fund to satisfy the administration's almost
theological allegiance to missile defense at the expense of
more earth-bound military and international treaties, before
we watch China build up its nuclear arsenal and see an arm's
race in Asia and in the sub-continent, before we squander the
best opportunity we've had in a generation to modernize our
conventional nuclear forces, let's look at the real threats
we face home and abroad. Let's re-engage and rethink and meet
our obligations with a strength and resolve that befits our
place in this new world.
American foreign policy should not be based primarily on
the principle of national self-interest that defines strength
as rigid adherence to inflexible theory, or positive results
as emotionally satisfying unilateral action.
I don't believe our national interests can be furthered,
let alone achieved, in splendid indifference to the rest of
the world's views of our policies. Our interests are
furthered when we meet our international obligations and when
we keep our treaties. They're furthered when we maintain
an unequal military, able to deter any threat at any place
at any time and anywhere, when we keep our economy strong,
when we make wise choices that solves real problems, when
we stand bound together as democracies--multi-racial,
multi-ethnic, multi-religious beacons of hope--not some
dark house next door.
President Reagan's image of a ``shining city on a hill''
held out America as an ideal to millions and millions of
people around the world, a nation that reaches out to its
allies and adversaries alike, with undiluted, unequivocal
message that democracy works, freedom is worth the fight, and
that America will always be a reliable friend of those who
take the risk of achieving the goals of democracy.
We can't forget or simply disregard the responsibilities
that flow from our ideals. We can't lose sight of the fact
that leadership requires engagement, and partnership demands
inclusivity. Let there be no mistake, America must remain at
the table because walking away comes at a price. Our European
allies should never think that America ignores international
opinion or that we're ready to go it alone when we feel like
it. They should never think that our commitment to a vital
multi-national institutions, or projects, which are built
upon common values and common concerns--and that includes
NATO--has diminished.
We became a European power in the 20th century, and out of
our self-interest, we must remain a European power in the
21st century. We've got to get it right in Europe. We have to
stay engaged in the Balkans--as this administration appears
to be doing--and bring them, the Balkans, into the European
community. It's in our naked self-interest.
But let's understand that our foreign policy is as much
about American values as it is about complex multinational
treaties or arcane intricacies of strategic policy.
When I think of the moral imperative of American
leadership, I think of an America founded upon the
unshakable, bedrock democratic principles, but willing to
accept the principal ideals and cultural dynamics and genuine
concerns of our allies; a nation that has a powerful sense of
place in the geopolitical scheme of things--one that is
tough-minded when it comes to our own security, yet has broad
enough vision and a strong enough will to contribute to
peaceful solutions where age-old strains of nationalism and
religious-based divisions wreak havoc; a government that
doesn't abandon arms control treaties with the excuse that
they are relics of the Cold War.
I might note parenthetically, I think many of those
uttering that phrase are in fact themselves the relics of the
Cold War. They have not come to understand the wall is down
and the last time they were in power it was up. Half this
city doesn't realize that.
And not abandon these agreements as relics of the Cold War
because it's (inaudible) to honor them because we've
negotiated them in good faith, we signed and ratified them,
and because they have stood the test of time in serving our
national interest and other nation's expect us to keep our
promises; a unique and strong nation that isn't confused
about its role and responsibilities and doesn't walk away
from the table, but sits down, rolls up its sleeves and
convinces the world of our position; a nation that thinks big
and sees freedom in global economic growth as consensus
ideals.
I think of America vastly different--so unburdened of the
old Cold War fears and feelings that it's willing to do a
little soul-searching. Are we a nation of our word or not? Do
we keep our treaties or don't we? Are we willing to lead the
hard way, because leadership isn't easy and requires us
convincing others? Diplomacy isn't easy. Multilateral policy
initiatives aren't easy.
Or are we willing to end four decades of arms control
agreements to go it alone--a kind of bully nation sometimes a
little wrong-headed, but ready to make unilateral decisions
in what we perceive to be our self-interest, and to hell with
our treaties, our commitments and the world?
Are we really prepared to raise the starting gun in the new
arms race in a potentially more dangerous world? Because,
make no mistakes about it, folks, if we deploy a missile
defense system that's being contemplated, we could do just
that.
Step back from the ABM Treaty, go full steam ahead and
deploy a missile defense system, and we'll be raising the
starting gun. If the president continues to go headlong,
headstrong on this theological mission to develop his missile
defense system, if he does what he says and drops
objections to China's missile buildup, not only will we
have raised the starting gun, we'll have pulled back the
hammer.
Let's stop this nonsense before we end up pulling the
trigger.
China now has about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles,
but according to press reports, the National Intelligence
Council thinks that China might deploy up to 200 warheads,
develop sophisticated decoys and perhaps move to multiple
warheads in response to a missile defense system.
It seems to me it's absolute lunacy for us to invite China
to expand its arsenal and resume nuclear testing, not to
mention that moving forward with missile defense could
jeopardize Chinese cooperation on the Korean Peninsula.
Let me remind you all that there are two types of
modernization they talk about. And there's no doubt the
Chinese are going to modernize. But up to recently, what most
people thought the modernization meant and our community
thought it meant was moving, for example, from liquid fuel
rockets to solid fuel rockets. Moving from systems that were
not mobile at all to more mobile systems.
Not increasing, as the press has reported, 10-fold more
than they would have if we build a national missile defense.
Not MIRVing their missiles, meaning put more than one atom
bomb or hydrogen bomb on top of an ICBM. The most
destabilizing weapon that exists.
I found it interesting, on MacNeil-Lehrer, Secretary
Rumsfeld saying that it wasn't the question of MIRVing that
was important, it was a question of the total number of
missiles.
Well, George--President Bush, the first President Bush--
understood that it was more than that. We fought for years
and years to do away with the big SS-18 Soviet missiles. Why?
Because they're what we saw, I say to the gentleman from
Chestnut Hill Academy, they're what we call a use-or-lose
weapon.
Because they have such an incredible concentration of
power, you assume that they will be struck first. Therefore,
if there is a warning that you're under attack, which
sometimes they're mistaken, they're on a hair trigger and you
must launch them or lose them.
That's why we're so fearful that the Russians will keep
their MIRVed systems, because they have such a porous defense
system. They have such a porous early warning system. And as
a nun I used to have would say, in a slightly different
context, ``the only nuclear war that's worse than one that is
intended is one that wasn't intended.''
In Seoul, I spoke with President Kim Dae-jung of South
Korea about ways to bring North Korea, which is the new
bogeyman that we're all looking at now, which is the
justification for this pell-mell race to produce the
international missile defense, how to bring them into the
family of nations.
He urged me to encourage the administration to engage North
Korea in senior-level dialogue and not allow a theological
commitment to missile defense to blind us to the prospects of
signing a verifiable agreement to end North Korea's
development, deployment and export of long-range missiles.
Yesterday, Dr. Rice, on Meet the Press--she and I were on
Meet the Press--she talked about how ubiquitous these long-
range missile systems were. I don't know what she's talking
about. We're getting briefed by two different groups of CIA
people, I guess, because none of these rogue nations have
that capacity yet. They may get it. It is maybe within their
reach, but it does not exist now.
If we spur on an aggressive Chinese buildup, including the
need to test--and you know why they will have to test. When
you put more than one--I know most of you know this, but it's
worth repeating--you put more than one atom or hydrogen
weapon on top of a rocket, it requires more throw weight in
that rocket. It has to be more powerful.
So practically what you have to do is you have to make
smaller, more compact missile warheads. And in order to be
able to be sure they work, you've got to test them. So if, in
fact, the Chinese are going to move to a modernized system
that requires--that's going to contemplate MIRVed ICBMs,
they're going to have to test.
[[Page S7380]]
That's why I got so upset by the statement read by the
press account that we appeared to be willing to trade off, in
return for them not objecting to our building the national
missile defense system, the possibility that we would look
the other way when China tested and that we understood they
were going to have a considerable buildup.
That's what I call a self-fulfilling prophesy.
And let me ask you the question: Consider what India is
likely to do if China tests. Those of you who know the
subcontinent know that there's been an incredible political
tug to have another test of their, quote, ``hydrogen
weapon,'' because they believe the world does not believe
that they successfully tested one, and they want the world to
believe they have one.
And what do you think happens when India tests, if China
tests?
What do you think happens in Pakistan? Pakistan, I believe,
would ratchet up its production. And consider that Taiwan,
the two Koreas or Japan or all of them could build their own
nuclear weapons. Japan has the capacity within one year to
become a nuclear power.
That greatest generation that Tom Brokaw speaks of, my
mother and father's generation, did two incredibly good
things, and I mean this as not an insult, to particularly my
German friend. Germany is a non-nuclear power and Japan is a
non-nuclear power. That's good for the world. I want to be no
party to setting in motion a series of events that will cause
the Japanese Diet to reconsider whether they should rely upon
the nuclear umbrella of the United States.
And as the former chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt,
once said to me, sitting in his office 15 years ago, he said,
``You don't understand, Joe, my son's generation does not
feel the same sense of obligation or guilt that mine does.''
Are we so dead set positive that a missile defense system
furthers our national interest that we're willing to risk an
arms race? So sure of the science that we're willing to
weaponize space and nuclearize Asia?
Are we so sure of the feasibility that we'll divert
potentially hundreds of billions of dollars from the real
needs of our military?
Look, the fact is we could weaponize space or we could buy
339 F-22s to replace our aging F-15 fleet for $62 billion. We
could replace aging F-16s, A-10s, A-14s with a Joint Strike
Fighter for the cost of $223 billion. We could replace the
Cobra and Kiowa warrior helicopters for $39 billion. I could
go on and on.
But in short, we could provide our Army, our Navy, Air
Force and Marines virtually everything they need in the
immediate future for a more stealth, more significant lift
capacity military to deal with the real threats we face and
still spend less on all of that than we will spend on the
national missile defense system.
We're facing a difficult budget fight with a consequence of
the turndown in the economy, the business cycle, the $1.3
trillion tax cut, or all of the above, and we can't have our
cake and eat it too. The administration would like us to
think it's all possible, but it's not all possible.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, we may have
already dipped into the Social Security trust fund, which we
used to do regularly in years past, but which we all promised
we wouldn't do anymore, we would have a lock box. And that
$21 billion or more will be consumed from that lock box in
the next three years. This is a very different economic
picture than projections of just a few months ago.
Missile defense has to be weighed carefully against all
other spending and all other military priorities, which we're
not debating or doing right now. And in truth, our real
security needs are much more earthbound and far less costly
than national missile defense.
If you combine the $1.3 trillion tax cut with what we've
spent on a full-blown missile defense shield, we could start
to modernize our conventional forces, build a stealthier,
more mobile, more self-sufficient military that I believe is
needed in the 21st century, and make significant impact on
rectifying what is going to be a gigantic problem in 10
years in Social Security.
Let's be clear: When it comes to defense, it's not the
president's missile defense or nothing, as the way it's being
posed. We should improve military personnel retention and
overall readiness; bring on the next generation of fighter
aircraft, the next generation of helicopters, the next
generation of destroyers; and be fully prepared for the next
generation of engagement.
And while we're at it, we may fix the plumbing in the
barracks at Taipei, which I just visited, which the night
before I came, because they are so aged and we don't have the
money to fix them, they had to bring in water hoses from
outside to allow the women and men in there to be able to
shave, to be able to use the bathrooms, let alone drink any
water. Visit the conditions in which our active military are
living now--two and three in a room. You think when you drop
your kid off at a college dormitory and you're paying 30
grand to send him to a prestigious school is hard to take,
take a look at the conditions they live in. And why are we
not responding to it? We don't have the money, we are told.
My dad used to say, and still says, ``Son, if everything is
equally important to you, nothing is important to you.'' Our
priorities, I think, are a little out of whack. I've said,
and I'll say it again, we should be fully funding the
military and defending ourselves at home and abroad against
the more likely threats of short-range cruise missiles or
biological terrorism.
Last week, the Foreign Relations Committee began hearings
on how to build a so-called ``homeland'' defense and to
protect our military from bioterrorism pathogens and chemical
attacks; on how we can deploy a missile defense system that
doesn't trade off conventional modernization of our military
for a fantasy of some system that remains more flawed than
feasible; on how we can jump-start the destruction of
Russia's massive chemical weapons stockpile and secure all
our nuclear materials.
The very day they send up a budget that tells they are
going to increase by 8-point-some billion our missile defense
initiative, they cut the program that exists between us and
Russia to help them destroy their chemical weapons, keep
their scientists from being for sale and destroy their
nuclear weapons.
I've said, and I'll say it again, we should work with
Russia and China and all of our allies to stem proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction; we should try to rely on some
mutual deterrence, rather than thinking we can replace it,
because, in fact, deterrence works.
We should support research and development in boost phase
interceptors that would avoid the countermeasures and would
be more acceptable to Russia and China, limiting the
possibility of ending Russia's adherence to START II and
lessening the prospects of a new arms race in Asia than what
we are now proposing.
We should strive through hard-nosed diplomacy to delay and
eliminate the long-range ballistic threat by ending North
Korea's program and its sale of long-range missile
technology. We should build a combined offensive and
defensive system that we know works before we deploy it. And
we should amend the ABM Treaty and not walk away from it.
Having said that, let's put the cost and the effectiveness
of this missile defense system being discussed today in some
context so that everyone understands exactly what we're
talking about. The cheapest realistic system suggested,
national missile defense system, limited national missile
defense system suggested by this administration, which relies
on the same midcourse interceptors the Clinton administration
proposed, would cost at a minimum $60 billion over 20 years
and most suggest it would be closer to $100 billion.
And remember, this is only for a system that's incapable of
shooting down a missile carrying biological weapons,
incapable of shooting down a missile carrying chemical
weapons, at least for now incapable of shooting down a
missile with an unsophisticated tumbling warhead that will
look just like a tumbling trajectory.
In order to combat what are known as countermeasures, such
as those decoys or the submunitions that carry biological
weapons, the administration proposes a layered defense. That
means, a missile defense that begins with a boost phase
interceptor, that is, catching the rocket as it takes off
from behind, at its slowest point and nearest point;
continues with a midcourse interceptor, that is, getting
it out there in the atmosphere and a bullet hitting a
bullet; and finishes with a terminal defense as it's
coming down.
Now, you think the midcourse system we're working on is
expensive. Help me calculate the cost of a layered missile
defense, where we haven't even begun some of the research.
One recent estimate for that system is a quarter trillion
dollars, and I think that, too, is a conservative figure,
because the truth is that the administration has yet to
comprehend the full complexities and the technological
challenges of a layered defense. If you doubt me, ask folks
like General Welch and others who used to run the show.
In my view, that full-blown layered missile defense system,
which doesn't address a single real issue on the ground, is
more likely to cost a half a trillion dollars. And what will
it get us? For half a trillion dollars we may get a layered
defense system that's not been defined yet. If it includes
space-based lasers, you've now weaponized outer space, which
invites other countermeasures to attack the satellites on
which we depend for information and communications.
But it still won't be 100 percent effective. Secretary
Rumsfeld, speaking about our national missile defense system
on the Lehrer NewsHour earlier this year, said that a system
would not have to be 90 or even 80 percent effective, but
only 70 percent effective. Secretary Rumsfeld, in referring
to a, quote, ``0.7 success rate,'' said, and I quote,
``That's plenty.''
Folks, 30 percent failure for any national defense system
could be called plenty of things, but plenty successful is
not one of them. Think about it.
(Applause)
Let's say President Richard Ryan becomes president of the
United States. And the head of a rogue state tells him, which
is how the scenario goes, ``I'm invading my neighborhood
today. And if you try to stop me, I'll fire my ICBMs at
you.'' Never mind that he won't do that because he knows he'd
be annihilated within a matter of 30 minutes. But President
Ryan turns to his national security adviser, as I always do,
Carl Wiser, and says, ``Carl, what do I do?''
And Carl says, ``Don't worry, we have a missile defense
system. And unlike Rumsfeld's 0.7, ours is 0.9 effective.''
[[Page S7381]]
President Ryan says, ``Oh. There's a 10 percent chance then
of losing Detroit?''
And Carl says, ``Well that depends. If they fire seven
missiles, the odds of losing at least one city will be 50-50.
Because guess what: 0.9 means that not 90 percent fired will
get through, 0.9 means that for every missile fired, that
single missile has a nine out of 10 chance of getting
through. You get to seven, it's about a 50-50 chance that one
gets through. If you do the 0.7, you fire two missiles,
there's an equal chance one is going to get through.''
So now President Ryan says, ``You know, these guys that
designed this system are right. This enables me to not be
blackmailed. I'm supposed to feel like I have freedom of
action thanks to this defense.''
And Carl says, ``Hey look, Rumsfeld told Jim Lehrer that 70
percent effectiveness would be enough, at least initially.
And with that system there's a 50-50 chance of losing at
least one city if that rogue state fires two missiles. We're
better off than we were.''
And I assume that this scenario which they lay out means,
where Ryan is president, he's going to say, ``You know, I
really have some flexibility now. I'm only going to lose
Detroit or San Francisco or Cleveland or Dallas, so I can
really move here with dispatch. I've got flexibility. I don't
have upon deterrence.''
Now, I know you think I'm being a wise guy here, but
sometimes it's useful to reduce this complex nuclear
theological discussion to reality. If I'm president, does
that give me more flexibility?
Does that allow me to say, ``I'm only going to lose one or
two population centers, therefore I have more flexibility to
do anything other than say, `If you do, we will annihilate
you'?''
I also find it fascinating, this whole premise is based
upon the notion that defense no longer works. Deterrence no
longer works.
Now, I say this, and there's a television audience
listening: Help educate me. Name me a time in the last 500
years when the leader of a nation-state has said, ``I know I
face virtual annihilation if I take the following action, but
I'm go ahead, and I'm going to do it anyway.''
Saddam Hussein, the certifiable maniac--when George I said
to him, ``If you do we will take you out,'' what did he do
with 500,000 forces marching on Baghdad? He had those Scud
missiles everybody talks about as a justification for
building the system. He had chemical weapons. He had
biological weapons. Why did he not use them if deterrence
does not work?
I just find the basic premise upon which this whole
argument rests and the sense of urgency a little wanting.
Think about it. We will have spent potentially up to a half a
trillion dollars for a system that might work nine out of 10
times, assuming the administration knows how to build it,
that, one, won't give the president the freedom of action.
One, that won't give the Pentagon what it really needs,
won't modernize our conventional forces, and without being
able to say, ``Yes, we've saved Social Security for even one
more day.'' That's the system we're going to build.
Remember now, folks, they don't know what it looks like,
they don't even have it on paper, they have tested a system
in one mode that, God bless our incredible technology, it
worked, and I vote to pay for them to continue to do that
research. But they're willing to pull out of an ABM Treaty
that sends the signal to the rest of the world the end of
arms control has arrived. And what protection do we have in
the near term, let alone down the road?
Sure, we'll do all we can to defend ourselves against any
threat, nobody denies that, but even the Joint Chiefs says
that a strategic nuclear attack is less likely than a
regional conflict, a major theater war, terrorist attacks at
home or abroad, or any number of other real issues. We'll
have diverted all that money to address the least likely
threat, while the real threat comes to this country in the
hold of a ship, the belly of a plane, or smuggled into a city
in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack.
And I ask you, you want to do us damage, are you more
likely to send a missile you're not sure can reach us with a
biological or chemical weapon because you don't have the
throw weight to put a nuclear weapon on it and no one's
anticipating that in the near term, with a return address
saying, ``It came from us, here's where we are?'' Or are you
more likely to put somebody with a backpack crossing the
border from Vancouver down to Seattle, or coming up the New
York Harbor with a rusty old ship with an atom bomb sitting
in the hull? Which are you more likely to do? And what
defense do we have against those other things?
Watch these hearings we're about to have. We don't have, as
the testimony showed, a public health infrastructure to deal
with the existing pathogens that are around now. We don't
have the investment, the capability to identify or deal with
an anthrax attack. We do not have, as Ambassador to Japan
now, Howard Baker, and his committee said, the ability to
curtail the availability of chemical weapons lying around the
Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union and Russia, because
they don't know what to do with it.
They showed us a report where they showed us photographs of
things that look like large outhouses, clapboard buildings,
with no windows and padlocks on the door, that have as many
chemical weapons in that building to destroy the bulk of the
East Coast--and we're not spending the money to help them
corral and destroy that in the name of this search? The cost
estimate was $30 billion over 10 years in this bipartisan
commission, and it was listed as the most urgent threat to
the United States of America.
The truth is, technology will keep outpacing our capacity
to build an effective system, which may well be obsolete or
penetrable by the time it's done. And that means we'll
continually increase our capability, and in turn, so will
those who are trying to penetrate it. And so the new arms
race begins.
Forty-nine Nobel Prize-winning scientists sent a letter to
President Clinton last year opposing the deployment of the
limited antiballistic missile system the president was
contemplating, and I'll quote from the letter. Quote: ``The
system would offer little protection, would do grave harm to
this nation's core security interest,'' end of quote.
They went on to say, and I quote--these are now, we're
talking about 49 Nobel laureates--``We and other independent
scientists have long argued that antiballistic missile
systems, particularly those attempting to intercept reentry
vehicles in space, will inevitably lose in an arms race of
improvements in offensive capability.''
That night in 1989 when the wall came down and we wondered
where it would lead, another arms race was the furthest thing
from any of our minds. The idea that our allies would
question our commitment and our resolve, even our motives,
was unthinkable.
Our place in the world seemed secure. The world was looking
to us to demonstrate leadership, and it still is.
Let's think about how we felt that night. The feeling that
something good was happening and something even better was on
the horizon. It was as if the world had awoken from a long,
bad dream into a new era in which old values and old
prejudices would no longer prevail, and new values and new
ideals, wherever they were to be found, would be found and
make us all more secure.
Folks, let's not now raise the starting gun on a new arm's
race that is sure, I promise you, to make my children and my
grandchildren and these students assembled here feel less
secure than we feel today.
Thank you very much for listening.
Mr. BIDEN. On September 10, the day before the attacks on the towers,
I made a speech to the National Press Club where I warned about a
massive attack on the United States of America from terrorists; why I
thought it would happen and why I thought our priorities were
misplaced--the day before 9/11. I had no knowledge of 9/11, but I have
been working in this field, like my colleagues on the floor, for 30
years. There was an inevitability to it. But we did nothing.
I feel like we are in that same ``Alice in Wonderland'' suspension
when it comes to rail. It is either it is so big you can't protect
everything so don't protect anything--like it was before. Our country
is so big and so open there is nothing much we can do about terror. And
the second subparagraph before 9/11 was: By the way, it is not likely
to happen here.
Why? Why is it not likely to happen here?
There is $250 million to be allocated to general security upgrades
for freight rail operations. That includes things like putting cameras
in freight yards so you have somebody watching who is wandering around
those yards and maybe sticking something up underneath 90-ton chlorine
gas tanker cars or putting in a boxcar a dirty bomb, a home-made
weapon.
It also provides $65 million to go specifically to Amtrak security
upgrades for hiring officers. We had an interesting thing. We have a
relatively small number of officers on Amtrak. If you go from here to
fly out of Reagan Airport, if you go out of Dulles or Reagan Airport or
the Philadelphia airport or LaGuardia or Newark or L.A. or O'Hare or
Atlanta, you are going to go through, en route to your gate, probably
as many security officers, including the folks inspecting your bags, as
exist in all of Amtrak.
Did you hear me? Let me say that again.
I guarantee you that going through the screening area you are going
to run into not just the people looking at you in the area you go
through, but you are likely to run into more TSA screeners than exist
in any one station in the United States of America.
I received a note indicating that I am needed urgently. If I could
suspend for a minute and come back and pick up where I left off, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
(Ms. Murkowski assumed the Chair.)
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, rather than suggesting a quorum, I will
protect the Senator's position.
Does the Senator have a modification to his amendment?
[[Page S7382]]
Amendment No. 4585, as Modified
Mr. COBURN. I do. I have a modification of amendment No. 4585.
The amendment will remain intact with the following added at the
bottom which says ``except in Alaska, far Northwest, and far Northeast
Continental United States of America.''
I want to be clear that the Record show what that means; that is,
they can dismantle LORAN everywhere except there. And that would
protect specifically Nantucket, Caribou, George, and all six in Alaska.
The study would still go forward for those areas only, not for the rest
of the country. The dismantling of these areas that are not used would
be able to continue as the administration and the Federal Radio
Navigational Plan suggests.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 4585), as modified, is as follows:
After section 539, insert the following:
Sec. 540. None of the amounts available or otherwise
available to the Coast Guard under title II of this Act under
the heading ``United States Coast Guard'' under the heading
``operating expenses'' may be obligated or expended for the
continuation of operations at Long Range Aids to Navigation
(LORAN) stations nationwide, except in Alaska, far northwest,
and far northeast continental United States of America.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I say to my friend, I do support his
amendment now as amended to preserve the rights of people who currently
rely on the LORAN-C--the LORAN system, not just the LORAN-C.
Thank you very much.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, is that amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not pending.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware be set aside and the
amendment which has just been modified be pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Unless there is objection, I ask unanimous consent that
amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4585), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. COBURN. Madam American, I thank the chairman and ranking member
for the acceptance of the amendments today and the cordial way in which
they have worked with us. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
Amendment No. 4553
Madam President, is the regular order the admendment proposed by the
Senator from Delaware?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Biden amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I apologize. It
was an unusual request--an urgent message which turned out not to be
urgent. I apologize.
The point I was making is $65 million goes specifically to Amtrak
security upgrades. Specifically, things such as hiring officers,
increasing K9 patrols, increasing fencing, lighting, and cameras in
areas where the security experts indicate they are badly needed.
There is $100 million for R&D. I will not take the time of the Senate
to go into any of the ways in which to deal with tunnels and innovative
ways to deal with detection of chemicals, et cetera, and biological
agents.
Before I close, I would like to point out a very troubling problem
relating to rail police which this amendment addresses. We are all
aware of the problems that this agency faces due to budget shortfalls.
In particular, the police force is woefully inadequate for the job it
is assigned to do. The amendment would add 200 Amtrak police officers
and will provide a 25-percent salary increase for existing officers.
You ask: Why is that the case? This funding is critical because the
Amtrak police department cannot pay anything remotely approaching the
competitive wage rate of other police officers. This contributes to an
incredibly high turnover.
An entry-level Amtrak police officer makes only $31,000 with a
maximum, no matter how long he or she stays on the force and no matter
what responsibility, of $51,000. By contrast, a Boston police
department entry-level officer makes $49,000, and a U.S. Capitol Police
officer entry level makes $46,746.
This presents a problem with recruiting and turnover.
Between 1997 and 2003, Amtrak lost 190 of its officers, with only 20
percent to retirement, and hired only 184. As a result, Amtrak has only
300 officers in the entire system nationwide, 20 percent below its
inadequate authorized level.
I have been working with the Amtrak police department and the
Fraternal Order of Police for some time to address the disparity.
This amendment sets aside $25 million to add 200 police officers and
gives existing officers a 25-percent pay raise. And still they will not
be competitive enough relative to other agencies.
This funding is critical. We have neglected rail security since 9/11,
and we have had wake-up call after wake-up call.
This year, just as last year, our strong ally has experienced a
deadly attack at the same time we are addressing homeland security
appropriations at home. I pray to God that next year, as we address
this, we are not responding to what might happen to our rail system.
When are we going to wake up?
I would like to draw attention to the 9/11 Commission's report card
issued this past December.
I think it was December 5. Don't hold me to that exactly, but it was
in December. It found, in respect to our Nation's critical
infrastructure, the following:
No risk and vulnerability assessments have actually been
made, no national priorities established, no recommendations
made on the allocation of scarce resources, and all key
decisions are at least 1 year away.
It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually set
them.
With this amendment, we establish rail security as a priority.
I urge my colleagues to finally, for Lord's sake, deal with this. At
any one moment today in New York City, there will be, in an aluminum
tube in a tunnel underneath that city or standing on a platform, over
20,000 people. How many people are on a 747--500, 600? I don't know the
number, but 20,000 people in a relatively confined space at any one
time sitting in aluminum tubes in tunnels where there is virtually no
protection--and standing on platforms. We all go to New York. Go on up
there and look at Penn Station. Get off the train. Walk around and tell
me how many police officers you identify. You will find more in your
hometown.
We have to do something.
I thank my colleagues for listening to me once again. I hope I will
not make this speech again next year as a consequence of another
serious rail attack. I pray to God it is not at home.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the Senator from Delaware makes a strong
and effective case for the need of stronger rail security. He puts it
in the context of what is happening in other nations, what has happened
in England or what happened yesterday in India. There is no question--
and the most recent instance that was potentially here in the United
States involving New York. There can be no question but that rail is a
threatened infrastructure and a target of opportunity.
The problem with his amendment is, as he knows, we are constricted by
certain rules that we have in allocation. We funded rail security at
more than we funded last year--not a lot more and certainly nowhere
near what the Senator from Delaware has asked for.
But we have used up all the allocation to take care of what we
consider to be appropriate needs that have to be addressed--threat
issues, mass destruction, border security, and things we have already
discussed.
His amendment, as it is structured, would add $1 billion on top of
what we have received as an annual allocation, which means that it
would break other allocations, exceed the agreed-to number, and that is
something we can't do.
As much as I recognize the legitimacy of many of the points he makes,
I think it is, however, important to put in context what is happening
in rail.
The number in this bill--and we have about $187 million for rail
security--is not the only commitment to rail. In fact, if you look at
the amendment that the Senator from Delaware has
[[Page S7383]]
put forward, a big chunk of the money, I think, goes to tunnel security
or other construction. We talked about it quite a bit. Amtrak and the
northeast corridor, which is Amtrak, gets its funding through another
subcommittee. That subcommittee has, in its appropriation, a lot of
money for Amtrak. In fact, it has $770 million for capital improvement
which can be used for tunnel security.
It has $440 million, I believe, for operating costs which can be used
for security. That comes through a different committee. And it is
available for many of the things which these dollars would be used for.
In addition, I think it is important to note how our priorities are
set by States and communities which have a large amount of rail and get
the funds which we give them with great flexibility to be used to
address threat. We distribute billions of dollars under this bill and
the prior homeland security bills to major urban areas, especially
along the northeast corridor. Those funds go out on the basis of
threat. And communities such as New York, Washington, Baltimore,
Boston, and Philadelphia have the opportunity to use those funds for
rail security, if they wish to. But what we have seen from these
communities is that they don't prioritize rail security at that level.
They use it for other things.
For example, in 2005, of the grants that went to States and to
communities, they spent only 2 percent of their discretionary pool on
rail security; in New York, a little more, 12 percent. But on average,
it was 2 percent.
The State of Washington actually was the most aggressive. They spent
29 percent of theirs on transportation security. In the largest urban
areas, the average has been around 8 percent. Communities which have
the opportunity to make the choice, do we put it into our subway
systems and bus systems or do we put it into some other area where we
see threat, we have decided that their commitment will be at this
fairly small level of the overall dollars that are available. But the
dollars are there in rather large sums--literally billions of dollars--
and $5 billion approximately is still in the pipeline which could be
used in these areas. There are other resources that can go toward rail.
Those that are specific, such as the Amtrak funding that will come
through for capital improvement, $770 million out of the Transportation
bill or the operating account, which is $440 million, or those which
are more general but could be reallocated toward rail, which are the
city and State discretionary funds. So there is money and a lot of it
that is available to move in this direction and address these needs.
Assume for the moment there is not enough, which is the argument of
the Senator from Delaware. I am willing to accept that more money could
certainly be used in this area. What is the way we should approach
this? It is not to break the cap. It is, rather, to tie it to a fee
system, much as we have done with the airlines.
The Senator from Delaware mentioned the airlines. We have a
transportation fee in the airline system, which essentially funds the
TSA activities which involve a lot of capital activities in the area of
airport security and obviously all the personnel. There are 22 million
people who ride Amtrak. If you put a $5 transportation fee on their
tickets, which is about the same as the airline fee, that would
generate almost exactly the amount of money the Senator from Delaware
is requesting.
If the Senator wanted to bring his amendment back with that type of a
fee system which would allow for the extra money and then allocate it
the way he is suggesting it be allocated, rather than these other
sources of revenue, I could agree to that, potentially. But in its
present form as a cap buster, as a budget buster--because it takes the
top off the appropriations bill--we cannot agree to this.
It is not that we do not feel there aren't needs there. There are
needs there, but we feel there are other sources to fund those needs.
We feel we make a strong commitment, relative to rail in this bill in
the context of what has been done historically, and to the extent the
Senator from Delaware feels an even stronger commitment has to be made
beyond what Amtrak and cities and towns have as discretionary funds and
beyond the $187 million in this bill, should do it the same way we are
doing it with TSA, which is to use a fee system. Those are our
thoughts.
It is subject to a point of order because it is $1 billion over the
budget and would essentially blow the 302(b) cap. At the proper time, I
will make that point of order, unless it is amended.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator permit me to respond, briefly?
Mr. GREGG. The floor is the Senator's.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, let me deal with a piece at a time, to
the cogent arguments my friend from New Hampshire has made and thank
him for the acknowledgment that there may be a need to do more on rail.
First of all, I find the whole debate about homeland security, which
is beyond the purview of this debate, somewhat fascinating. The 9/11
Commission tells us we should be spending over $42 billion over the
next 5 years to deal with what they believe and identify as serious
threats which are woefully inadequate, where they give the mark to the
Congress and the Senate of a D or an F, in terms of how they grade the
area of concern. We are $42 billion behind the curve to begin with.
I find the argument, by the way, a little akin to the argument my
friend from New Hampshire just made, a little akin to the false
argument about whether, of $740 million allocated in the last round,
there should be a 40-percent cut in money for New York and Washington
to be sent to St. Louis and Omaha. The question isn't whether it should
have been cut to be sent to Omaha, the money is needed in New York and
Omaha and in St. Louis.
The debate should be, why are we only spending, in that allocation,
$740 million? The single most primary and primitive function of
Government is to protect its citizens, to physically protect them. In
my view, it comes before civil rights, civil liberties. It comes before
education. It comes before health care. If you are not safe in your
home, safe in your street, safe in your Nation, the rest of it does not
matter a whole lot.
So we get into a false debate. Take Amtrak, all the money in Amtrak,
$740 million for capital expenditures. That $740 million for capital
expenditures still leaves Amtrak about $4.5 billion behind on capital
needs. What are we talking about? Rail maintenance, rail improvement,
the catenary wire above it, the actual cars, the actual engines that
have to be upgraded. We have forced Amtrak, by underfunding so badly
for so long, to cannibalize its own system in order to be able to pay
salaries to keep the trains operating. There is no money.
It is a little bit similar to my saying, in the education budget,
there is a whole lot of money there in order to be able to provide for
eliminating the additional cost of the loans to college students
because the education budget has X number of dollars. That means you
have to go cut something out of education that is already underfunded.
I find it to be a false argument.
The point about the basis of the threat, I know of no other area
where there has been as many consistent, specific threat assessments
made by the FBI, by the CIA, by our intelligence agencies than rail. I
may be mistaken, but I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong. The
threat is there.
Lastly, TSA does not pay for the doors on the aircraft. We still
spend billions and billions of direct dollars in taxpayers' money.
Again, it sounds good but irrelevant.
The arguments are very well made and very irrelevant. We are still
only spending about $150 million.
You say: Well, the States have this money. What have they chosen to
do? Guess what. How much money have the States had to spend on airport
security when they choose that? The Federal Government has come in and
taken on th lion's share of that responsibility. I am confused. Why
does Reagan Airport, which has fewer people visiting every day, have a
higher priority than Union Station? I don't get that. I don't
understand that.
[[Page S7384]]
The bottom line is, we do not have the commitment to deal with this.
I acknowledge, as the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend gets an
allocation. But, again, that is a false argument. It is true he gets an
allocation. Why is the allocation not bigger? The allocation is not
bigger because our priorities in this country are backward.
Let me give one example, and I realize it is just one. About a month
ago, we had the six major oil companies before the Judiciary Committee.
During that time, the chairman, Republican Chairman Senator Specter--
and the issue was price gouging--swore all six CEOs in under oath.
Everyone asked about price gouging.
It got my turn in the order of asking questions, and I said I would
like to not ask about price gouging, I would like to ask you about tax
breaks. You have an Energy bill last year that I voted against, that,
at a minimum, there are $2.5 billion worth of tax breaks to encourage
you to explore. I looked at the chairman of the board of ExxonMobil. I
am paraphrasing, and I will later in the day come back with the actual
record of that exchange and ask it be printed in the Record at that
time. I said: You made $35 billion in profits. My mother would say: God
love you, that is wonderful. I am not arguing about your profit. That
is great. Do you need any of the $2.5 billion per year you are going to
get? He put his head down, if you take a look at the film. I said: Sir,
you are under oath. And he looked up and he said: No, we don't need it.
I said: Good. And I went down the list of the other five oil
executives. Do you need it? No, no, no, no, no.
Then I asked another question. I'm going to propose to eliminate that
tax cut, and I am going to use it for homeland security. Do you object
to that? Would you support it? I said: You are under oath. The CEO of
ExxonMobil said: I would support it. They all supported it.
So $2.5 billion we are wasting--wasting--in giving energy breaks to
oil companies.
I say to my colleagues, parenthetically, you do not hear me stand up
here and demagog. I am happy they are making all that money. But they
acknowledge they do not need it. For $2.5 billion, we could restore my
entire COPS Program, which we have eliminated. We could add 1,000 more
FBI agents to deal with homegrown terrorism. We could fund every penny
of this.
I realize, as the joke goes, that is above my friend's pay grade. It
is not his responsibility. But we get put in these positions where guys
such as me vote against budget priorities that are set, allocations are
limited, and, understandably, under the rule, we are then put in a
position of points of order.
I respectfully suggest that if anyone said: What should be the
priorities of this Nation and how much money should we be spending to
protect the American people, my guess is a whole lot of things,
including some social programs, would come after a basic fundamental
requirement to protect the American people from what we are told is a
reasonable probability that it will happen.
I accept everything my friend said in terms of the caps, et cetera. I
acknowledge this, in fact, would be subject to a point of order. I find
it frustrating I am consistently left in the position of having to
argue. It is a little bit similar to what we used to do in local
office. You cut the budget, and we would make the hearing impaired
compete with the physically impaired, who compete with the blind, for
the limited amount of money we gave them. We would say: We cannot use
more money for the hearing impaired because within this allocation we
do not have enough money. We will have to cut it from someone else or
go find it somewhere else. That is how I feel.
I apologize for my frustration. The record will show, although when I
speak in the Senate someone suggests I am mildly energized about what I
speak about, I don't often rise in the Senate to speak.
Folks, we are going to regret this. We are going to regret this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at 2 p.m. today
the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to waive the budget with
respect to the Biden amendment No. 4553, with no amendments in order to
the amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4589 Withdrawn
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment of Senator Coburn,
No. 4589, be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I now understand that the Senator from
South Dakota has an amendment he wishes to offer, and we will proceed
to that. If there are other people who wish to bring amendments over
prior to the 2 o'clock vote, we would be happy to hear from them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, maybe this has already been done, but I
ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4610
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, and
Mr. Talent, proposes an amendment numbered 4610.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows
(Purpose: To establish a program to use amounts collected from
violations of the corporate average fuel economy program to expand
infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative
fuels)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 5__. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REFUELING SYSTEMS.
(a) Establishment of Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a
fund, to be known as the ``Energy Security Fund'' (referred
to in this section as the ``Fund''), consisting of--
(A) amounts transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2);
and
(B) amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (3)(C).
(2) Transfers to fund.--For fiscal year 2006 and each
fiscal year thereafter, there is appropriated to the Fund an
amount determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be
equal to the total amount deposited in the general fund of
the Treasury for the preceding fiscal year from fines,
penalties, and other funds obtained through enforcement
actions conducted pursuant to section 32912 of title 49,
United States Code (including funds obtained under consent
decrees).
(3) Investment of amounts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
(C) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund in
accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(4) Use of amounts in the fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall
be made available to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency for use in carrying out the reimbursement
program for alternative energy refueling under section
9003(h)(13) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
(b) Alternative Energy Refueling.--Section 9003(h) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(13) Alternative energy refueling systems.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Alternative energy refueling system.--The term
`alternative energy refueling system' means a system composed
of 1 or more underground storage tanks, pumps, and pump
fittings or other related infrastructure that is used to
refuel motor vehicles with--
``(I) compressed natural gas;
``(II) E-85 ethanol;
``(III) a fuel described in section 30C(c)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(IV) any other alternative fuel, as determined by the
Administrator.
``(ii) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
refueling vendor or other person that is an owner or operator
of a service station or other facility at which an
alternative energy refueling system is located or proposed to
be located.
``(iii) Energy security fund.--The term `Energy Security
Fund' means the Energy Security Fund established by section
[[Page S7385]]
5__(a)(1) of the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007.
``(B) Reimbursement program.--
``(i) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall
establish a program to provide to eligible entities, for each
of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, reimbursement from the
Energy Security Fund of a portion of the costs of purchasing
and installing 1 or more alternative energy refueling
systems, including any alternative energy refueling system
intended to replace a petroleum refueling tank or system.
``(ii) Application.--An eligible entity that seeks to
receive reimbursement described in clause (i) shall submit to
the Administrator an application by such time, in such form,
and containing such information as the Administrator shall
prescribe.
``(iii) Timing of reimbursement.--Not later than 30 days
after the date on which the Administrator, in consultation
with the appropriate State agency, verifies that an
alternative energy refueling system for which reimbursement
is requested by an eligible entity under this paragraph has
been installed and is operational, the Administrator shall
provide the reimbursement to the eligible entity.
``(iv) Limitations.--
``(I) Prohibition on receipt of dual benefits.--An eligible
entity that receives a tax credit under section 30C of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for placing in service a
qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property (as
defined in that section) may not receive any reimbursement
under this paragraph for an alternative energy refueling
system on the property if the cost of the alternative energy
refueling system was taken into consideration in calculating
the tax credit.
``(II) Number of systems.--An eligible entity may not
receive reimbursement under this paragraph for more than 2
alternative energy refueling systems for each facility owned
or operated by the eligible entity.
``(III) Amount.--The amount of reimbursement provided for
an alternative energy refueling system under this paragraph
shall not exceed the lesser of--
``(aa) the amount that is 30 percent of the cost of the
alternative energy refueling system; or
``(bb) $30,000.
``(C) Further appropriation.--Reimbursement authorized
under this paragraph shall be provided by the Administrator
without further appropriation.
``(D) No effect on other responsibilities.--Nothing in this
paragraph affects any obligation of an owner or operator to
comply with other provisions of this subtitle.''.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the amendment I offer is something I feel
very strongly about. A threat to America's energy security is a threat
to our national security. Our dependence upon OPEC and foreign oil
entangles us in the Middle East and makes us dependent on countries
that are hostile to America and to American interests. The greater
America's dependence upon foreign energy, the greater the threat to
American national security.
Two decades ago, America alone drove the world's economy. We had
Western Europe as competitors, but our economy was clearly on top and
unchallenged. But things have changed. Right now, China is growing at
about 10 percent a year in GDP. That is almost three times the rate of
growth here in America. They do not have 300 million citizens; they
have over a billion. People in that growth rate create an incredibly
strong economy with serious economic demands; and one of those demands
is oil.
China is not alone. India is also growing at a double-digit rate.
They, too, are a huge economy. And both countries are expanding their
manufacturing, expanding their technology, and, therefore, expanding
their demand for oil.
The challenge for American consumers and, frankly, for American
industry is that the supply of oil has not kept up with the demand for
oil. When you have an essential economic commodity, and you are not
producing a sufficient supply, then prices tend to go up, which is what
we see happening across the country today. We are all fighting for the
same gallon of oil. Until that changes, either we will need to increase
supply or we are going to face higher prices.
In my view, the long-term strategy and solution is to power our
automobiles with something other than gasoline. Technology is the way
to help change America for the better. Years of investment in fuels
such as ethanol have put us on the threshold of major breakthroughs.
Those breakthroughs are becoming a reality for consumers here in this
country.
In my home State, the community of Aberdeen, SD, is, right now,
selling E85 fuel for under $2 a gallon when other fuel prices are going
for $3 a gallon and sometimes higher because they have an abundant
supply of ethanol. It is produced locally, and the fuel retailers have
made the investment to install the tanks. That is the very thing we
want to see happen in other places across this country because American
consumers and Congress realize we have to do more to reduce our
dependence upon foreign sources of energy.
The amendment I am offering would significantly help in providing
alternatives for the American consumer while lessening our dependence
upon foreign oil. This amendment, very simply, would allow station
owners around this country to be reimbursed for 30 percent--not
exceeding $30,000--of the expenses related to the purchase and
installation of alternative refueling systems.
This amendment provides partial reimbursement for eligible
alternative refueling systems, such as E85--which, I mentioned, is
something we are starting to see more of in my State--biodiesel,
natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas, hydrogen, and other alternative fuels as defined by the
Environmental Protection Agency. This amendment utilized penalties that
are primarily paid by foreign automakers who violate CAFE standards.
Last year, these penalties generated about $20 million. It will
complement the growing number of alternative fueled vehicles across our
country, protect the environment, and allow our country to reduce its
dependence upon foreign sources of oil.
The car companies in this country have announced recently they are
going to double the number of flex-fuel vehicles they are going to put
on the roads here in the future. If you look at already what we have on
the roads today, there are more than 5 million flexible-fuel vehicles
on the road that can run on either E85 or regular gasoline. However,
the problem is that we have 180,000 gas stations across this country
and only 800 currently offer E85 ethanol. In short, this means that
less than 1 percent of all stations in America today offer E85 as an
alternative.
The average cost of purchasing and installing an E85 refueling system
is approximately $40,000 to $200,000, depending on the geographic area
and the size of the tank. Ethanol production is at an all-time high of
4.5 billion gallons per year. Nationwide, there are currently 103
plants producing ethanol, with 35 more under construction. Those 35
additional plants will add an additional 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol
production by next year. The Energy Policy Act, passed last year,
requires the annual use of 7.5 billion gallons of alternative fuel by
the year 2012.
The amendment is very straightforward. It acknowledges the fact we
have auto manufacturers who are producing more and more automobiles
that are capable of using alternative sources of fuel such as E85. It
acknowledges the fact that we have production in this country going,
with 2.3 billion additional gallons becoming available this year of
ethanol. And it also acknowledges there is a consumer out there in the
country today who is looking not only to get the very best possible
price per gallon for the fuel they put in their vehicle, but also to do
something about the long-term problem that faces this country; that is,
this enormous appetite for oil that furthers our dependence upon
foreign sources of energy.
What we need in this country is American energy and American
independence so we do not have to worry about getting all that fuel,
all that oil, from places outside the United States that are hostile to
this country and to American interests.
This is about energy independence. It is about closing that
distribution gap, so that now that we have the supply, we have the
demand for ethanol, that we have the fuel retailers in this country
moving in a way, putting policies in place, that would make it possible
for them economically to install the very pumps that would provide the
fuel that is being increasingly demanded by American consumers and
which those in the ethanol industry in this country are continually
gearing up, in terms of production, to meet.
So this is a very straightforward amendment. It applies to this
particular piece of legislation, I believe, for a lot of reasons, one
of which is, as
[[Page S7386]]
I said earlier, it is a very, very clear and established connection
that a threat to America's energy security is a threat to our national
security.
We talk about protecting our homeland and making sure America is safe
and secure going forward for future generations. A key component in
that debate ought to be: What steps are we taking as a nation, what
policies are we putting in place that will enable our country to become
energy independent, to have American energy meet the needs and the
demands that our economy has to grow in this country?
So, Madam President, I offer this amendment to this legislation.
There are others who I believe are interested in this issue. I
introduced a bill that is very similar to this amendment. I have made
some slight modifications to it, which was cosponsored by Members on
both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. A similar bill is
calendared for action in the House of Representatives.
I believe it is high time as a nation, as a U.S. Senate, that we put
as a priority getting away from that dependence upon foreign sources of
energy, having an abundant supply of an American energy, so we can
provide the supply that is necessary to fuel our economy, keep it
growing, keep it strong, and make sure that it is affordable for
American consumers.
Madam President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be laid aside, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from North Dakota be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning
business, and upon completion of his statement the Senator from
Louisiana be recognized to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Amendment No. 4615
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 4615.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency
or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited
under Federal or State law)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 540. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.
None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
temporarily or permanently seize any firearm during an
emergency or major disaster (as those terms are defined in
section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) if the possession
of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law,
other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal or State
law or as evidence in a criminal investigation.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this involves gun confiscation during
major disasters or emergencies. My amendment is very simple and
straightforward. It would prevent any sort of confiscation of legally
held guns protected by the second amendment during major disasters or
emergencies.
In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, local and Federal law
enforcement officials were overwhelmed in many ways by the tragedy that
unfolded. That is understandable. During the chaos, a criminal element
took advantage of the tragedy and started to commit serious crimes
against persons and property. In many cases, law-abiding citizens took
action and defended their property and themselves through the
constitutionally guaranteed second amendment right to bear arms.
There is probably no more important or significant moment in normal,
everyday American life where that second amendment right meant
something. In some cases, it was literally the difference between a
law-abiding citizen's life or death and between that citizen's ability
to protect his property or have it completely taken away. Yet in the
midst of that situation, where that constitutionally guaranteed right
was so important, even far more important than in an everyday
situation--although it is certainly crucial then--certain law
enforcement authorities confiscated legally held firearms by law-
abiding citizens. Not a few, not a dozen, not two dozen, but literally
thousands were confiscated by law enforcement officials.
In fact, even well after the hurricanes, the Federal court ordered
the city of New Orleans to return all guns unlawfully seized during
Hurricane Katrina. Even after all that, the New Orleans police
superintendent, Warren Riley, stated in a June 6 radio interview that
his officers would confiscate guns again if another similar disaster
should strike New Orleans.
This is ridiculous and should not be tolerated. We are talking about
a constitutionally protected second amendment right. And even more so,
we are talking about a situation where those rights are vitally
important for the law-abiding citizen when the police are not there and
are unavailable, when there is no phone service, and literally that
citizen's second amendment right is the key to protecting his own life,
his family, and their property.
I am proud to say that in Louisiana, our State legislature acted on
this issue, as I am attempting to do today. In June of this year, in
time for the new hurricane season, a law was passed to clarify that the
emergency powers granted to the Governor and to local officials ``do
not authorize the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, weapon or
ammunition from any individual if the firearm, weapon or ammunition is
being possessed or used lawfully.''
I am supportive of that action by the State legislature. It was
signed into law by the Governor. Unfortunately, there is still room for
Federal authorities to act inconsistent with that. That is the problem
and the issue and challenge I want to solve. My amendment is very
simple and straightforward. It is a limitation of funds saying that no
Federal funds in this act can be used to temporarily or permanently
seize any firearm during an emergency or major disaster, if the
possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State
law. The amendment also allows for the forfeiture of firearms in
compliance with Federal or State law or as evidence in a criminal
investigation.
I hope this will be noncontroversial, that all Senators will accept
the amendment as an important, commonsense clarification of the law and
what the law certainly should be.
I understand our law enforcement officers are under intense pressure
in these extreme situations following a major disaster or a major
emergency. But particularly in those situations, when their services,
quite frankly, are unavailable to the populace as under normal times,
when all communication is shut down, officers should not be
confiscating legal firearms from law-abiding citizens protected under
the second amendment.
That is the nature of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be added as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators
Inhofe, Enzi, Thune, Burns, Brownback, Martinez, Domenici, and Gregg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. VITTER. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S7387]]
Amendment No. 4553
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to
the Biden amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Biden amendment is now the pending
amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I will raise a point of order against the pending
amendment. The amendment would cause the bill to violate section 302 of
the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of
the Budget Act on this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NAYS--50
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 50, the nays
are 50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained. The amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendments Nos. 4558, 4554, 4552, and 4569, en bloc
Mr. GREGG. I have four amendments--by Senators Lautenberg, Salazar,
Kerry, and Feingold--all of which have been cleared on the other side.
I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc and agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows
AMENDMENT NO. 4558
(Purpose: To prohibit the expenditure of appropriated funds to enforce
or comply with the limitation on the number of Transportation Security
Administration employees, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
CERTAIN TSA PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS NOT TO APPLY
Sec. __. No amount appropriated by this or any other Act
may be used to enforce or comply with any statutory
limitation on the number of employees in the Transportation
Security Administration, before or after its transfer to the
Department of Homeland Security from the Department of
Transportation, and no amount appropriated by this or any
other Act may be used to enforce or comply with any
administrative rule or regulation imposing a limitation on
the recruiting or hiring of personnel into the Transportation
Security Administration to a maximum number of permanent
positions, except to the extent that enforcement or
compliance with that limitation does not prevent the
Secretary of Homeland Security from recruiting and hiring
such personnel into the Administration as may be necessary--
(1) to provide appropriate levels of aviation security; and
(2) to accomplish that goal in such a manner that the
average aviation security-related delay experienced by
airline passengers is reduced to a level of 10 minutes.
amendment no. 4554
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare a
report on the conduct of activities to achieve communications
interoperability)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives with an
assessment of short-term (defined as within 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act), intermediate-term (defined as
between 2 years and 4 years after such date of enactment),
and long-term (defined as more than 4 years after such date
of enactment) actions necessary for the Department of
Homeland Security to take in order to assist Federal, State,
and local governments achieve communications
interoperability, including equipment acquisition, changes in
governance structure, and training.
AMENDMENT NO. 4552
(Purpose: To repeal TSA's exemption from Federal procurement law)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. TSA ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT POLICY.
(a) In General.--Section 114 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (o) and redesignating
subsections (p) through (t) as subsections (o) through (s),
respectively.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
AMENDMENT NO. 4569
(Purpose: To require reports to Congress on Department of Homeland
Security use of data-mining)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 540. DATA-MINING.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Data-mining.--The term ``data-mining'' means a query or
search or other analysis of 1 or more electronic databases,
whereas--
(A) at least 1 of the databases was obtained from or
remains under the control of a non-Federal entity, or the
information was acquired initially by another department or
agency of the Federal Government for purposes other than
intelligence or law enforcement;
(B) a department or agency of the Federal Government or a
non-Federal entity acting on behalf of the Federal Government
is conducting the query or search or other analysis to find a
predictive pattern indicating terrorist or criminal activity;
and
(C) the search does not use a specific individual's
personal identifiers to acquire information concerning that
individual.
(2) Database.--The term ``database'' does not include
telephone directories, news reporting, information publicly
available via the Internet or available by any other means to
any member of the public without payment of a fee, or
databases of judicial and administrative opinions.
(b) Reports on Data-Mining Activities by the Department of
Homeland Security.--
(1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or
agency in the Department of Homeland Security that is engaged
in any activity to use or develop data-mining technology
shall each submit a report to Congress on all such activities
of the agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The
report shall be made available to the public.
(2) Content of report.--Each report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall include, for each activity to use or
develop data-mining technology that is required to be covered
by the report, the following information:
(A) A thorough description of the data-mining technology
and the data that is being or will be used.
(B) A thorough description of the goals and plans for the
use or development of such technology and, where appropriate,
the target dates for the deployment of the data-mining
technology.
(C) An assessment of the efficacy or likely efficacy of the
data-mining technology in providing accurate information
consistent with and valuable to the stated goals and plans
for the use or development of the technology.
(D) An assessment of the impact or likely impact of the
implementation of the data-mining technology on the privacy
and civil liberties of individuals.
(E) A list and analysis of the laws and regulations that
govern the information being or to be collected, reviewed,
gathered, analyzed, or used with the data-mining technology.
(F) A thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, and
guidelines that are in place or that are to be developed and
applied in the use of such technology for data-mining in
order to--
(i) protect the privacy and due process rights of
individuals; and
(ii) ensure that only accurate information is collected,
reviewed, gathered, analyzed, or used.
(G) Any necessary classified information in an annex that
shall be available to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(3) Time for report.--Each report required under paragraph
(1) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the end
of fiscal year 2007.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
[[Page S7388]]
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent my name be added as a cosponsor to
Senator Vitter's amendment No. 4615.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4620
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment to strengthen
chemical facility security.
As Yogi Berra once said, ``this is like deja vu all over again.''
This is the fourth appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland
Security, and every summer, I have offered an amendment to provide
incentives to the chemical sector to secure their facilities by
establishing a chemical security grant program.
Unfortunately, at every turn, the administration opposed my
amendments and those amendments were defeated. The administration
claimed that it was partnering with the chemical sector and that they
were doing enough to secure their facilities.
In my State of West Virginia, there are 73 chemical manufacturing
plants and 100 chemical distribution plants. If there were an attack on
one or more of those facilities, the potential loss of human life and
damage to the local and national economy would be devastating. The same
can be said for facilities in New Jersey, New York, Texas, Michigan,
California, Pennsylvania, and many other States.
The Department of Homeland Security's National Strategy for Securing
the Chemical Sector states that ``the value of the sector to the
Nation, as well as the potentially high consequences associated with
some chemical facilities, make the Chemical Sector a potentially
attractive target for terrorists.''
Despite the multitude of warnings that the chemical sector is
vulnerable to attack, including its own warnings, the administration
has shown a great reluctance to make security at chemical facilities a
priority.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office concluded that for 93
percent of the chemical industry, it is uncertain whether facilities
are improving security at all. Only 1,100 of the 15,000 chemical
facilities identified by the Department of Homeland Security are known
to adhere to voluntary industry security procedures.
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 123 chemical plants
located throughout the Nation could each potentially expose more than a
million people if a chemical release were to occur.
I was encouraged last summer when the DHS Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security testified before
Congress that a system to enforce and audit security standards must be
put in place for the chemical sector. Unfortunately, no action has been
taken since his testimony.
This year, in its National Strategy to Secure the Chemical Sector,
DHS says, ``legislation that would provide the Department of Homeland
Security with overarching regulatory authority for the Chemical Sector
security should be enacted.'' If the administration were serious about
chemical security, it would have submitted legislation to back up this
tough talk. Yet, the administration has not submitted such legislation.
Nor has it played an active role in encouraging the congressional
leadership to work with the various committees with an interest in this
matter to resolve their differences and bring a bill to the floor. This
morning, the administration submitted its statement of administration
policy on the bill that is before the Senate, and once again the
administration is silent on this matter. For the life of me, I do not
understand why this administration does not take securing our chemical
facilities seriously.
I applaud the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
for reporting legislation on this matter, and I thank Senator Joe
Lieberman for cosponsoring this amendment.
My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue
interim final regulations for chemical facilities that he determines
present the greatest security risk. The substance of the regulations
would be established by the Secretary.
I believe this is a strong first step. Any regulations issued by the
Secretary under this authority would only be applicable until final
regulations issued under other laws are established.
We have waited too long. The potential devastation--the terrible loss
of life, the huge hit to the Nation's economy, the irreparable harm to
our air and water--the potential devastation demands that we take steps
now to secure these chemical facilities. There has been enough talk; it
is time to act. I urge all colleagues to support this amendment.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an
amendment numbered 4620.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure adequate safety at high-risk chemical facilities)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. 540. (a) Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall hereafter issue interim final regulations that
establish homeland security requirements, including minimum
standards and required submission of facility security plans
to the Secretary, for chemical facilities that the Secretary
determines present the greatest security risk and that are
not currently regulated under Federal law for homeland
security purposes.
(b) Interim regulations under this section shall apply to a
chemical facility until the effective date of final
regulations issued under other laws by the Secretary, that
establish requirements and standards referred to in
subsection (a) that apply with respect to that facility.
(c) Any person that violates an interim regulation issued
under this section shall be liable for a civil penalty under
section 70117 of title 46, United States Code.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I support the Senator's amendment. I
understand there may be some Members who wish to speak to it, so I
suggest we lay it aside and move on to the amendment of the Senator
from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 4621
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment
numbered 4621.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct
tests of unmanned aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the
border between Canada and the United States)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. 540. Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish and conduct a pilot program at the Northern
Border Air Wing bases of the Office of CBP Air and Marine,
United States Customs and Border Protection, to test unmanned
aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the
international marine and land border between Canada and the
United States.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the
Homeland Security appropriations bill to address an area that needs
more attention, the northern border. We have 5,526 miles of border
between the United States and Canada. That is about double the length
of our southern border with Mexico. Along that border, about 560 miles
of it is in the State of Montana. The terrain is remote in many cases.
It is mountainous. Passage is somewhat difficult in some areas. In
others it is easy; it is wide open.
This amendment will help our Border Patrol cover this vast area by
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot
program using unmanned aerial vehicles along that border.
In addition to personnel training, we must also employ the latest
technologies. The border patrol has already
[[Page S7389]]
conducted successful tests using UAVs along the southwestern border in
Arizona for aliens and detection of those attempting to enter our
country illegally. It requires some of the UAVs already provided for in
this bill be used to run a pilot program on the northern border similar
to that conducted on the southern border.
We do not want to compete with our friends in the Southern States,
but we want to make it clear that the northern border also needs
increased attention. As you can imagine, as the southern border of the
United States is tightened, our northern border, which used to be
America's back door, is quickly becoming a front door.
Customs and Border Patrol report that their No. 1 concern on the
southern border is illegal immigration. What is the No. 1 concern on
the northern border? Terrorism. Border gangs are going international
and admit having ties to al-Qaida and smuggling al-Qaida members into
the United States.
In Montana, markings from these gangs have been found in the
correctional systems, within the walls of our jails, in our detention
facilities.
Surveillance of our ports is happening daily by nefarious people. It
appears that our procedures for checking out vehicles both leaving and
entering our country are being looked at by criminals, and it has been
reported that these ``dry runs'' are being conducted near Glacier
National Park. All of these activities are made easy due to the wide
open space and insufficient numbers of law enforcement personnel along
our northern border.
The ability of our Border Patrol to successfully carry out their
daily duties is of critical importance, obviously, to the safety of all
Americans. This amendment will give us the tools we need to protect our
borders. UAVs are a safe alternative to placing civilians in harm's
way, and by introducing a pilot program that helps us patrol our
northern border, we are getting on the right track to fighting the war
on terrorism and keeping our home front safe.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Cantwell and
Murray as cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this
amendment offered by my colleague from a northern border State, and
want to emphasize that homeland security along our northern border is
of the utmost importance.
I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana is a very
important amendment for us to add to this legislation because of both
its efficiency and effectiveness in helping us secure our northern
border. For us, with great transportation crossings as we have in
Washington State, including ferry transportation crossings, there was
the instance in the Northwest where a terrorist was caught coming
across from Canada into Port Angeles who was detained.
But we are here today to talk about the vastness of the northern
border that sometimes is penetrated by people who are not checking in
at various checkpoints but try to sneak into the country along the
vast, rugged areas of our Northwest terrain.
So it is very important we get tough on border security by passing
this amendment, which has cutting-edge technology that will actually
help save this country dollars and provide greater border security.
The unmanned aerial vehicles, as Senator Baucus has talked about, are
already being deployed on dangerous patrols in the Middle East and in
some places along our borders here at home. But the UAVs, I believe,
are already in limited use on the southern border, and they have proven
their effectiveness. To me, it is something we ought to expand on for
our overall capability to help respond to incidents.
With their extended range, these UAVs can conduct prolonged
surveillance, sweep over remote border areas, relaying information to
border agents on the ground. As has been described by some of the
people I have met with on this issue, they literally create a
communications network from the air to the ground that can get vital
information to those who are involved in border security who can more
effectively, then, do their job.
This process provides critical intelligence about the areas that have
previously gone unsecured for so long, and it allows our agents to
better prepare and respond to incidents involving both illegal
immigrants and drug smugglers.
Now, I know there has been the Insitu Group from our State that has
provided this technology in our Operation Iraqi Freedom and the global
war on terror. They have flown many hours and been very effective with
that technology. So I believe it is important for us to now get
aggressive about using this same technology--that has been proven so
successful--on our northern border and to have the continuation of its
use on our southern border so we can modernize the patrol capabilities
and reach hundreds of miles that have previously been unguarded.
As I said, we do this at a much more effective rate than could
possibly be done with any other tools and technology or manned efforts.
So we will be giving our agents the best technology possible for them
to guard our southern and northern borders, using improved
intelligence. That is why I am so happy to work with Senator Baucus to
direct the Department of Homeland Security to do a pilot on this UAV
surveillance along the northern border.
I will continue to work with him and many of my other colleagues to
encourage Homeland Security to run this pilot program in affected areas
throughout the Northwest and making sure that the investment here is
realized so we can continue the expansion of this operation.
As I said, the technology will help law enforcement at every level do
their job, and it will help us in fighting this influx of drug problems
we are also facing in the Northwest as well. And it will certainly give
our citizens at home more security.
We cannot turn our backs on the needs of the northern border while we
are looking at some of the issues on the southern border. So let's make
sure we are effective in covering both areas of our country and giving
law enforcement the broadest tools possible to do their job.
Mr. President, I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I advise Members and their staff who are
listening that we have put out a request for anybody who wishes to
address the amendment from Senator Byrd to get in touch with us, and if
they have an objection to get in touch with us. Otherwise, at 3
o'clock, I intend to move to accept that amendment--just so people are
aware of that, unless we hear an objection.
The Senators from Montana are working on making sure the language of
this pending amendment--I understand Senators Burns and Baucus from
Montana are working to make sure the amendment is correctly drafted.
Once they work out the correct drafting of the amendment, then I would
expect we would accept that amendment also.
Pending that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4614
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I call up Senator Byrd's amendment No.
4614.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 4614.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows
(Purpose: To establish procedures for grants for State and local
programs)
On page 93, line 4, before the period insert the following:
``: Provided further, That for
[[Page S7390]]
grants under subparagraphs (B) through (F), the applications
for such grants shall be made available to eligible
applicants not later than 75 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, eligible applicants shall submit applications
not later than 45 days after the date of the grant
announcement, and the Office for Domestic Preparedness shall
act on such applications not later than 45 days after the
date on which such an application is received''.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Byrd, in offering an amendment to the Homeland Security
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 that would require the
Department of Homeland Security to issue interim regulations to help
secure the most dangerous chemical facilities around the country.
Since 9/11 opened our eyes to the threats we face on U.S. soil from
Islamist terrorist groups, we have moved to improve security for many
of the critical elements of our society and economy. But somehow we
have not yet protected one of our greatest vulnerabilities--the
chemical sector.
Chemicals are vital to many of the processes that feed us, heal us,
and power our economy. Yet the very pervasiveness of the chemical
sector makes it vulnerable to terrorism. Thousands of facilities
throughout the country use or store potentially lethal materials, often
near large population centers.
We know that terrorists are interested in targeting these facilities.
The Congressional Research Service reports that during the 1990s both
international and domestic terrorists attempted to use explosives to
release chemicals from manufacturing and storage facilities close to
population centers. The Justice Department in 2002 described the threat
posed by terrorists to chemical facilities as ``both real and
credible,'' for the foreseeable future.
When homeland security expert Richard Falkenrath testified before our
committee last year, he said that one asset above all others stands out
as being acutely vulnerable and uniquely dangerous: toxic-by-inhalation
chemicals. He said the Federal Government had done virtually nothing to
secure the facilities manufacturing and storing these chemicals and
called on the 109th Congress to give the executive branch the authority
to mandate and enforce security enhancements for these facilities.
I think Congress has the responsibility to enact a strong and
comprehensive chemical security program, and I believe we have started
down the right road to do so. Last month, the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved the Chemical
Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which Senator Collins and I
introduced last December. I think this legislation--which was crafted
and approved on a bipartisan basis after four hearings and extensive
input--is the best way to address the vulnerability posed by chemical
sites. The bill would authorize DHS to issue final regulations to help
secure the Nation's most at-risk chemical facilities.
I urge the administration--which has said it wants legislative
authority to regulate chemical security--to actively support this
strong, bipartisan legislation and the majority leader to give it with
immediate consideration on the Senate floor.
But we cannot afford to take chances where chemical security is
concerned and every day of additional delay on chemical site security
places the American people at unacceptable risk. So while it is my
great hope that we will enact the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act
of 2006 soon to establish a permanent chemical security program, this
amendment is critical to ending the long drought of inaction on
chemical security by the Federal Government and ensuring we will move
swiftly to begin to close this critical homeland security gap.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4614) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the regular order is the Baucus amendment;
is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Baucus amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 4620
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Baucus
amendment be set aside and that the Byrd amendment be returned as the
regular order. It is amendment No. 4620.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4620 will be
made the regular order.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4620) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of an
extremely important provision in the pending bill. That funding
provision is the $40 million to support the Counter-MANPAD program.
This is a program initiated by Congress to develop technology to
protect commercial aircraft from man-portable air defense systems or
MANPADS, known to many as shoulder-fired missiles or portable anti-
aircraft weapons. Congress originally included $110 million in funding
for this program in the fiscal year 2006 budget and there is currently
$40 million in the pending fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations bill. This funding will allow for the completion of
Phase III of this important program. This phase includes testing of the
technology in real-world operations, a final report on the findings to
Congress and the termination of the program.
Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security has decided to
complete the program and report its findings based on Phase III flight
testing on cargo aircraft only. This is a decision that I question
because it runs counter to the program's original objective of
developing a system that would protect primarily passenger aircraft,
but also protect cargo aircraft.
Operations in the cargo and commercial aviation industries are very
different and I believe that any final reporting or evaluation must
include an assessment of the potential deployment of a Counter-MANPAD
system on passenger aircraft as well as cargo aircraft. Without the
actual flight testing of the Counter-MANPAD system on passenger
aircraft, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the system.
Moreover, future policy decisions on aircraft protection would be
based on findings that many could argue are incomplete. Prior funding
has already gone a long way towards approving this important
technology, and adding a passenger aircraft study would validate the
original objective set forth by DHS and Congress, and in no way delay
any final reports from the program office.
I commend the work of the subcommittee for including this funding as
well as those who participated in the program through the Department of
Homeland Security, phases 1, 2, and 3. I also commend the many
participants in the private sector: from the scientists, engineers, to
those who test the equipment to ensure that it is the strongest, most
competitive, most viable system.
I thank the committee for its work and yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. What is the regular order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is the pending
question.
Amendment No. 4621, as Modified
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
[[Page S7391]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 4621), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct
tests of unmanned aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the
border between Canada and the United States)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. 540. Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish and conduct a pilot program at the Northern
Border Air Wing bases of the Office of CBP Air and Marine,
United States Customs and Border Protection, working
expeditiously with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to test unmanned aerial vehicles for border
surveillance along the international marine and land border
between Canada and the United States.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the modification to the amendment I
offered is including the phrase, ``working expeditiously with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.''
The purpose is to make sure that the Department of Homeland
Security's efforts in operating the pilot program along the northern
border is one that can work with the FAA because the FAA will probably
have to give clearance for air traffic taking off. In addition, the FAA
will need to, it is my understanding, offer a waiver for these types of
aircraft as they have at the southern border. It is my hope, in working
with Senator Burns, that this will clear up potential problems that may
arise. I urge adoption of the amendment.
I have already spoken about this and why I think it is important. The
efforts on the southern border are to combat illegal immigration, and
on the northern border they are more to combat terrorism. There are
many more reports of potential terrorist casing and transporting of
people into the United States from the northern border. It is becoming
quite alarming.
It is our hope that this will help control the northern border and
help with the additional personnel really needed on the northern
border. We don't have that personnel. I think this will help make our
country more secure. I thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns,
for making this suggestion. This is a good suggestion. It will
strengthen this amendment. I hope it will be agreed to.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Montana. The reason we filed that amendment on Monday was for this
particular reason: The FAA controls all air space. Just like we found
out a little while ago, they only have one area where a waiver has been
granted, and this instructs that the Secretary of Homeland Security
will work with the FAA, and the FAA will work with the other agency in
order to allow this pilot program to move forward. It has already been
established in Great Falls. That northern border security that we
already have there and this pilot program can move forward with the
UAV.
So I thank my colleague for including that language. That is the
reason we filed the amendment in the first place. He already put
language in the immigration bill, but we needed that language that
still recognizes the FAA as controller of our air space and is probably
key in this pilot program moving forward.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask uanimous consent that Senators Craig and Coleman
also be cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. Is there further debate?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the unmanned aerial vehicle program is
something the subcommittee is supportive of. This concept of having one
on the northern border is something we also support. The Senators have
a good amendment. I think the addition of language on the FAA makes it
an operable amendment. If FAA were not engaged, it would not be an
operable amendment. It merges well with the initiative in the bill
which is to stand up the northern airway, which initiative Senators
Burns, Dorgan, Conrad, and Baucus asked be started. This bill funds two
aircraft out of North Dakota to make sure that we have manned aircraft
on the border.
So this is an attempt to tool up the northern border. It is something
that is going to take a lot more work. Certainly in the long run there
is going to have to be more than one unmanned vehicle on the northern
border. There will have to be quite a few.
As was mentioned by Senator Baucus, the northern border appears to
have a high risk of terrorists coming across it. We know numerous
instances now of the northern border being used for potential terrorist
crossings. Therefore, we cannot ignore that border; we are not ignoring
the border. But the issues there are a lot different than the southern
border because of the length of the border. In fact, it is heavily
wooded wilderness and difficult terrain to surveil. So I believe these
unmanned vehicles will be critical in the long run.
I congratulate the Senators for bringing this amendment forward. I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified,
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4621), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we await further amendments. The Senator
from Illinois wishes to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator
from New York is going to offer an amendment at this time. I ask
unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 o'clock be divided as
follows: The Senator from New York have 40 minutes and that I have 15
minutes in opposition. I think that adds up to the right time--
actually, now, it doesn't--that I have 20 minutes in opposition.
Whatever is left after 40 minutes, that is what I have in opposition,
and at 5 o'clock we proceed to a vote on the amendment of the Senator.
There will be 40 minutes for the Senator from New York, 20 minutes
will be reserved to myself, and at the conclusion of that time we will
proceed to a vote, or earlier should the time be yielded back on the
time of the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Amendment No. 4576
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4576 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself, Mr.
Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Obama, and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered
4576.
Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
[[Page S7392]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To restore funding to States and local governments for
terrorism prevention activities in the Homeland Security Grant Program
to fiscal year 2005 levels)
On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert
``$3,183,500,000, of which $790,000,000 is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res.
83 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2007, as made applicable in the Senate by
section 7035 of Public Law 109-234''.
On page 91, line 8, strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert
``$1,100,000,000''.
On page 91, line 9, strike ``$350,000,000'' and insert
``$400,000,000''.
On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert
``$1,312,000,000''.
On page 92, line 1, strike ``$745,000,000'' and insert
``$885,000,000''.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Obama and Akaka be added as original cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, nearly 5 years ago, as we all remember,
on September 11, 2001, terrorists murdered 2,819 Americans, including
2,752 in New York; 343 firefighters and paramedics and 608 police
officers lost their lives. It was the single deadliest attack on
American soil in our history.
We are here debating how much money our country is ready, willing,
and able to spend to protect our homeland. What is clear, what has been
clear, is that the threat posed by terrorism requires a great
mobilization of American might, muscle, resources, and ingenuity. I do
not believe that mobilization has yet occurred.
Just in last December, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission,
reported that we should get failing grades for how we are responding to
the challenges of homeland security. Governor Tim Kaine said when it
comes to protecting America, it is not a priority for the Government
right now. The urgency may have faded, but the threat has not. We only
need to look at the news and see what happened in Mumbai, India,
yesterday to be reminded that terrorists strike anywhere, at any time,
at innocent people.
There are many problems with the strategy, or lack thereof, that we
have been pursuing on behalf of homeland security. I regret that we
have not done more, we have not had a comprehensive strategy, we have
not put the money to work in smart, effective ways, and we have
witnessed dangerous incompetence with respect to the failed response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have gotten a lot of tough talk, but I
would take tough action anytime. We got a lot of rhetoric, but I would
take resources. We have had campaign slogans, but I would rather have
real security.
What has been the No. 1 recommendation by every independent group,
every expert who has analyzed the threats we face and the challenges we
confront when it comes to homeland security? Threat-based funding, that
was one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Sadly, all
too often funding decisions have been based on politics as usual.
I have been championing threat-based funding ever since 9/11. I
introduced the Homeland Security block grant bill as well as the
Domestic Defense Fund Act, both of which provided direct and threat-
based homeland security funding to our communities and our first
responders. I have personally made the case for threat-based funding to
Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Ridge before him. Even funds
supposedly distributed based on risk have been administered
incompetently. We just saw an inspector general's report from the
Department of Homeland Security listing all of the alleged threats
around the country. With all due respect, you can read that list and it
just causes your head to shake in bewilderment.
In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced its 2006
Homeland Security grants. Cities and States facing high terrorist
threats suffered considerable funding cuts, a decision that can be
largely attributed to a series of highly questionable risk assessments.
New York City and Washington, DC, remain at the top of any intelligence
that we get with respect to threats. Yet they were given drastic
reductions. Funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative alone was
slashed in New York City by more than 40 percent, and in Washington,
DC, by 43 percent. New York State has been struggling since 9/11 to
come up with a comprehensive State plan and has been trying to scrape
together funds for what are shortfalls from the Federal Government.
Today, I am joining my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and my partner,
Senator Schumer, in introducing an amendment to the fiscal year 2007
Homeland Security appropriations bill to restore the Homeland Security
Grant Program funding. This amendment provides an additional $790
million in Homeland Security funds so that next year's levels of
funding will match those of 2005. That is all this asks for--bring back
the funding to what it was 2 years ago.
We have already heard eloquent statements on the floor about port
security. We have already heard about how difficult it is to get the
kind of inspections and screenings we need at our ports. That is why I
cosponsored Senator Byrd's port security amendment, and I am delighted
that it actually passed by unanimous consent. I only hope that we will
fight for that when this goes to conference and that the administration
will listen and support this extra funding for port security.
We are still fighting for border security. We know that we have not
done enough. We have had weeks of debates about immigration that are
really about border security. What are we going to do to keep our
borders secure? Not enough. Under this administration, despite the 9/11
attacks, our borders have become less secure.
According to a May 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service, the U.S. Border Patrol grew at a faster rate and
apprehended more undocumented immigrants each year under President
Clinton than it has under President Bush. We have the technology and
the tools. Americans are certainly telling us they want us to make our
borders secure. So let's get serious. Let's employ new surveillance
equipment, like detection centers, unmanned ground and infrared
cameras. Let's enlist and deploy the manpower we need.
We just voted on, unfortunately unsuccessfully, putting more money
into securing our mass transit systems: our roads, our rails, our
tunnels. We know how important that is. I cosponsored Senator Biden's
rail security amendment which would have provided an additional $1.1
billion to enhance rail security, upgrade tunnels, provide for more
Amtrak police. But it failed.
Today I am joining Senator Schumer to submit an amendment to provide
an additional $300 million for transit security nationwide. I hope it
succeeds. Anybody who rides mass transit should know we are doing
everything we possibly can to take care of and eliminate the
vulnerabilities that our mass transit systems have.
Beyond our financial investments, we also need new strategies and
creative ideas. We have been talking about an interoperable
communications system since 9/11. The 9/11 Commission recognized the
essential critical nature of such a system. But year after year we
don't do it. We bring amendments to the floor, we make speeches, it
doesn't happen.
In May of this year, I introduced legislation to set up a Federal
interoperable communications and safety system to create a national
emergency communications strategy, to make sure that when police and
fire departments respond they can talk to each other; when the Federal
Government sends help through the Coast Guard or the military or FEMA,
they can talk to each other, and they can talk to State and local
officials as well.
I have also been fighting for several years to make sure that we have
a nationwide emergency 9-1-1 system so that when you call from a cell
phone people will know where you are.
Can you imagine being caught in a terrorist attack or a natural
disaster and calling for help and people can't hear you, can't know
where you are, can't send help to you? It happens all the time.
I was at an event this morning where an emergency response director
made two horrifying calls that went unanswered in one case and a late
answer in another because the cell phone couldn't be tracked.
[[Page S7393]]
We have a lot to do. We can just stand here and list the problems. It
is not just all about terrorism. Are we truly ready for a pandemic flu?
Do we have adequate security at our chemical and nuclear facilities?
Are we prepared for the potential of a dirty bomb attack in a major
population center?
I was encouraged that legislation I authored to create a national
system to track radiological materials that could be used to make a
dirty bomb was finally passed. I thought: OK. Great. I can check that
off my worry list, which is a pretty long list being a Senator from New
York.
Then I find out that the administration announced a national plan,
which was the whole idea behind tracking radiological materials. They
wanted to have a State-by-State approach. In a nutshell, that is what
is wrong. It is a national problem. The attacks of 9/11 may have
happened in Washington, in New York, and in a field in Pennsylvania,
but they were attacks on every single American, on our way of life, on
our values, on our freedom. I don't think we want State-by-State
responses. Do you think terrorists are going to stop at a State border
or a county border? I don't.
We have to restore confidence and competence as we approach this
problem of homeland security. We have made some progress but not nearly
enough. Sadly, I think we have put different priorities ahead of
securing our country. I regret that. I hope we make amends. I hope we
get back on the right track with a comprehensive plan, with the right
strategies, with the appropriations we need, and with the distribution
of those taxpayer dollars in a smart and effective manner, not politics
as usual.
I see on the Senate floor my colleague and friend, one of the great
leaders on homeland security, the Senator from Maryland. I yield to her
whatever time she needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, once again I rise with great pride to support the
amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as she
has so often in the past stood for the fact that funding to fight
terrorists and to be ready for any kind of major disaster should be
based on risk. In other words, money should go to where there is the
greatest risk. The Senator from New York has been a longstanding
advocate of this from September 12 to standing here today.
I support this amendment, as I, too, have done in the past. I am so
frustrated with the Department of Homeland Security. It can't get its
act together. It can't get the job done. It makes poor decisions on
allocation, and it is saturated with waste and fraud.
The last straw was when I opened the paper and saw that the
Department of Homeland Security was slashing funds for high-threat
urban areas. The money was leaving the Capital region and New York to
go to States such as Nebraska. I respect the people of Nebraska. If
they are in danger, I want them protected. I don't know about the
threats of Montana and Minnesota, but I sure do know about the threats
in Maryland. We are part of the Capital region, the home of the
President of the United States, the home of the Congress of the United
States, the home of the Cabinet that runs Government, the home of the
Supreme Court, and the FBI.
In the Capital region we have the Pentagon, we have the Central
Intelligence Agency. In Maryland, we have three intelligence agencies
gathering technical information--and they say we are not a high threat?
On September 11, we lost 60 Marylanders at the Pentagon, mostly
African American, mostly who worked in the clerical positions. And we
said a grateful nation would never forget. Just like the other
Marylanders who died at the World Trade Center, we said a grateful
nation would never forget. And the way that we are never going to
forget is to make sure it doesn't happen again--to protect against
attacks and, second, that we were going to do whatever we could to be
able to be ready and respond to any of these attacks.
When we saw that smoke here at the Capitol that day, it just wasn't
on television. I was so proud of the fact that it was Maryland first
responders who were first on the scene because they work together in
the Capital region. Rescue One out of Chevy Chase, MD, dashed across
the Potomac to be first on site at the Pentagon. They were worried in
northern Virginia because they didn't know what else would happen.
I visited that site. Again, on a bipartisan basis, I and Olympia
Snowe toured the site together. We saw the rubble of the Pentagon. We
saw them working to save lives. We saw how they had worked together in
the Capital region. Obviously, Homeland Security, its agencies, and its
database doesn't get it. They don't get it. They do not get the fact
that the 9/11 Commission recognized the threats facing our urban areas
and said target the resources at the areas of greatest need.
The Senate recognized the threat facing the Capital region when they
worked with Senators Warner, Allen, Sarbanes, and myself to establish
an Office of the National Capital Region so we could coordinate in the
most effective way. It enabled the Capital region and also New York and
other major areas to receive extra resources. However, the Department
of Homeland Security that gave us the Katrina aftermath ignored
Congress and ignored the Commission, and they slashed the resources for
New York and the Capital region by 40 percent. They said we had gotten
money. Oh. Right.
They said: Our database shows you don't deserve it. Thank God for the
Department of Homeland Security's IG. There they go again over there at
Homeland Security. They can't get it right. Their own inspector general
said the Department's ability to assess risk is seriously flawed.
Guess what. They count an insect zoo and a bourbon festival as
critical infrastructure.
When you listen to the fact that an insect zoo ranks up there with
the Supreme Court, doesn't that bug you?
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security failed to list
the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building.
They do not know the difference between a bourbon festival and the
Statue of Liberty. They don't seem to know the difference.
This is the data that the Department of Homeland Security used to
allocate the funding for Homeland Security grants.
There were in the State of Indiana over 8,000 assets listed, and in
New York over 5,000. Just come with me down the Baltimore-Washington
corridor as you pass these agencies that are helping people. There are
the threats. We have high-threat targets because of what they do in
national security, such as the National Security Agency.
We have threats of the heart, like the National Institutes of Health.
Can you imagine the blow to research if something happened to NIH? Then
come with me over there to Calvert Cliffs where we have a nuclear power
plant, and then come up along the bay and see the U.S. Naval Academy.
How does that rank? That is Maryland. Then, of course, there is New
York. We all know that New York showed up on every single list.
I commend the Senator from New York for offering this amendment. I
believe that as we have organizational reform for Homeland Security, as
the Collins' amendment did, and the Clinton amendment made such a
strong point, we should have resource funding reform, and the heart and
soul of that is the resource funding should follow risk.
The Department of Homeland Security along with FEMA should be
operating on a risk-based strategy with confident professional people
who have to learn the difference between an insect zoo, the Supreme
Court, and the White House. If they can't get that straight and they
didn't know how to build lessons, and they say: Don't worry
``Brownie,'' you are doing a good job, there they go again. I am fed up
with it.
If I could vote one more time to dissolve the Department of Homeland
Security, I would. I can't quite do that. But what I can do is make
sure that the right resources go to the areas with the greatest risk.
Baltimore would benefit. The Capital region would benefit. New York
would benefit. But it is not about money. It is about saving lives and
saving people.
[[Page S7394]]
I want to enthusiastically support the Clinton amendment and know
that we are here to try to do this, to save lives, to save communities,
and to protect the United States of America. If they do not know how to
be the Department of Homeland Security, let us in Congress be the ones
who understand it and properly fund it.
In conclusion, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire because under
his leadership the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee was the first
committee to hold comprehensive hearings on terrorism. He remembers the
questions and who was in charge. Obviously, you can see that the
Department of Homeland Security is not.
I support the Clinton amendment and am happy to be a cosponsor.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 18 minutes and 38 seconds.
Mrs. CLINTON. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, to be
followed by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
6 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for
yielding time.
What the Senator is attempting to do is make sure we react
appropriately to the threats we face. We talk about making sure our
citizens are safe. We want to make sure they are safe from terrorist
attacks around the world, but it has to be focused on protecting our
homeland from yet another terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the amounts
dedicated to State and local Homeland Security grants in this bill fall
far short of that goal.
Senator Clinton's amendment is crucial because it restores $790
million that has been slashed from Homeland Security grant programs
over the past 2 years. This amendment will help ensure our high-risk
States and cities get what they need to protect their citizens and to
defend our country.
How can we justify cutting Federal Homeland Security funds at this
time? The administration has been warning us about terrorist plots
targeting the passenger rail tunnels between New York and New Jersey.
They have broken up another plot that targeted the Sears Tower in
Chicago, areas that are under considerable risk. How do we justify
cutting funds?
We are going to spend some $500 billion on the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan before this year is out. We should be making sure we
protect ourselves from an attack from abroad. But how about attacks
within our boundaries? Almost 3,000 people lost their lives on
September 11. Nothing could have been worse than to see the
consequences of that, as we did from the State of New Jersey. We could
see the smoke from the towers. We could see the disappearing World
Trade Center facilities.
The Clinton amendment restores funding for the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program, and the urban area security initiative to the fiscal year 2005
levels.
New York and New Jersey bore the brunt of the attacks on September 11
and continue to be the most at risk. Just recently, a Lebanese citizen
was taken into custody with two other individuals for plotting to bomb
the PATH railway tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey
and New York.
We have seen terror strikes all over the world. Just yesterday, bombs
went off on 7 different trains during rush hour in India, killing 160
people and wounding over 460. We do not yet know who is responsible for
that atrocity, but coming on the heels of the London and Madrid transit
system bombings and the two attacks on the World Trade Center, it is
clear that terrorists strike in places that are vulnerable, where they
can maximize the number of innocent civilians who will be killed or
wounded.
The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark
and the Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most
at risk area in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack. Yet my
State's Homeland Security funding was cut by $4.6 million when the
fiscal year 2006 grants were allocated. And New Jersey got off
relatively well, with an 8 percent cut, compared to New York, which
lost 37 percent of its funds, or Texas, which lost 31 percent of its
funds.
Are we truly protecting our citizens if we keep cutting homeland
security funding? No, we are not. Have we already won the war on
terror? Has the mission been accomplished?
We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We want to make
sure our troops on the front lines there have everything they need to
do the job. But the other front line is the home front line. We have to
make sure our States and our cities and particularly those places most
at risk have everything they need to do the job.
What are our priorities in the Senate? Reducing inheritance tax for
multimillionaires or providing our communities with Homeland Security
funds? This is the choice we face on this amendment.
We may disagree on whether it is appropriate to have nonrisk-based
formulas apply to Homeland Security grants, but we can all agree that
cutting overall funding year after year is not making anyone safer.
I urge my colleagues to support Senator Clinton's amendment. I
proudly support it. We desperately need this restoration of funding for
homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on behalf of this
amendment to strengthen our homeland security efforts--specifically the
ability of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and
recover from terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters. I
commend my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Schumer and Mikulski, for
authoring this critical amendment and am proud to join them as a
cosponsor.
September 11, 2001, changed our lives forever. We face new and
dangerous threats from our enemies that we must be prepared to deal
with. Furthermore, the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are still a nation unprepared for
catastrophe. We know our first responders lack the training, equipment,
and frequently the manpower they need to do their jobs. Most don't even
have the basic capability to communicate with one another across
jurisdictional and service lines, and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated
that sometimes during a major catastrophe they can't communicate at
all.
Yet the Bush administration seems to have turned its back on the
lessons of September 11, 2001, and of August 29, 2005, the day
Hurricane Katrina made landfall. The President's budget proposal did
nothing to indicate otherwise. That proposal eliminates a number of
first responder programs and cuts others, leaving those on the
frontlines of the war against terror or on the frontlines of a
hurricane, struggling to make do with less. It was the latest chapter
in an ongoing assault on these vital programs: this is the third
straight year the administration has sought dramatic cuts in first
responder funding, down from $3.95 billion in fiscal year 2004 to just
$1.97 billion in this year's request.
The appropriators have done what they could to restore the worst of
the proposed administration cuts, but their bill still leaves some
programs below current levels. We simply cannot continue to shrink
these accounts that form the backbone of our homeland defense. This
amendment calls a halt to this dangerous slide. It would provide $790
million to restore the key first responder accounts to fiscal year 2005
levels. Specifically, the amendment would: Add $600 million for the
State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, the fundamental building
block of States' homeland security efforts, to bring it to $1.1
billion; add $50 million for the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention
Program, LETPP, to restore it to $400 million. This program helps
empower our first responders to prevent terrorist attacks, not simply
respond after the fact. Add $140 million for the urban areas security
initiative, UASI, to restore the program to the FY 2005 total of $885
million. This program targets additional resources to urban centers
that bear particular risk of terror attacks.
Frankly, we can and should do more. Interoperability--the ability for
our first responders to talk to each other--is an urgent need and one
that will cost
[[Page S7395]]
far more than even this amendment will provide. In 1993, an expert task
force chaired by our former colleague Senator Warren Rudman concluded
that the Nation needed to invest nearly $100 billion more in equipping
and training our first responders. Instead of heeding that call, this
administration has instead led us down a path of shrinking resources
for first responder programs. This amendment would be an important step
to reverse the erosion of these critical accounts.
Our enemies are ruthless and choose their own battlefields in the
communities where we live and work. Nature, too, can be ruthless and
will strike in unpredictable ways year after year. We must have first
responders who are trained and equipped not just to prepare for and
respond to catastrophes but to work to prevent them, as well.
We worked with a real sense of urgency after September 11, 2001, to
secure our nation. We must summon that same sense of urgency now to
close the security gaps that remain. I wish there was a cheap way to do
that. But there isn't. It takes money--more money than the
administration's budget offers and more money than this appropriations
bill currently provides. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment
so that we can make additional headway toward our goal of being better
able to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the
terrorist attacks and natural disasters that are sure to come.
Mrs. CLINTON. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes and 53 seconds.
Mrs. CLINTON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Amendment No. 4587
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I call up my amendment No. 4587.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr.
Menendez, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 4587.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase the amount appropriated for transit security
grants by $300,000,000)
On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert
``$2,693,500,000''.
On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert
``$1,472,000,000''.
On page 92, line 13, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert
``$450,000,000''.
On page 92, line 16, insert ``: Provided, That not less
than $50,000,000 shall be made available for grants for
transit and intercity passenger rail security research and
development: Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000
shall be made available for grants for overtime compensation
in high threat areas'' after ``transit security grants:
Provided further, That the amount provided under this
subparagraph is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007,
as made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public
Law 109-234'' after ``security grants''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues
from New York and New Jersey. We are doing three amendments together.
One, Senator Clinton's amendment, increases the threat money. The
second, the amendment of Senator Menendez, which I believe will be
offered within the hour or shortly thereafter, will change the wording
in the formula. My amendment increases money for transit homeland
Security by $300 million. All of these amendments are important to our
New York-New Jersey area.
We have seen, in the last few months, two things. First, the New
York-New Jersey area, of course, continues to be, unfortunately, a
target of choice. When terrorists talk about creating devastation to
our homeland, unfortunately, New York comes first to their minds. It
means that our city has to be extra vigilant. Our State has to be extra
vigilant. Our friends across the river have to be extra vigilant.
Frankly, while there are threats everywhere, New York has to be more
vigilant than anywhere else. Yet in a deep disappointment that still
wounds us, the Homeland Security Department dramatically cut back on
our funding.
The amendment Senator Clinton is offering with which I am proud to be
her partner, along with Senator Menendez and Senator Mikulski,
basically increases the overall pot because we have two problems. The
pie is not large enough, and the way the pie is distributed,
maldistributes the money. Senator Menendez' amendment deals with how
the money is distributed.
It is an outrage that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who
promised Congress before he was nominated that he would be fair to New
York, has cut back so dramatically. He has used the most foolish of
formulas. He had a peer review process. I have great respect for the
sheriff of a small town in the Rocky Mountain States, but in all due
respect to that sheriff, he should not be the judge of how New York
needs money.
Today we saw the list of terrorist sites. It reaches the point of
absurdity. The Old McDonald Petting Zoo is a target for terrorists. I
have been to petting zoos when I was a kid. I took my children to
petting zoos, but I never saw a terrorist hiding behind one of the
sheep in Little Bo' Peep's flock. Then they have the Amish Popcorn
Factory as a terrorist site.
Why did this happen? It is because of the careless and sloppy
attitude at Homeland Security that reflected itself in the formula by
which our city and our State were dramatically cut.
The amendments we are talking about would both increase the size of
the pie desperately needed when we know the war on terror is real and
the threat to our homeland is not subsiding. It is desperately needed
because we are one Nation. Just as the mayor of New York City is not on
some peer review panel to determine whether New York City should get
corn subsidies, the small town officials, who are very good people in
defending their city, are not the folks to determine how much New York
needs and where it needs it. We will be having other amendments later
that deal with some of the specific issues.
My amendment is the third leg of this stool. New York has been
targeted repeatedly, whether it is releasing cyanide on a New York City
subway car or trying to blow up the PATH that Senator Lautenberg talked
about that brings millions of commuters during the course of each year
across the river from New Jersey to New York.
The terrorists know what we are doing. The Internet allows them to
know it. They look for our weakest pressure point.
We have done virtually nothing on rail security. Nothing. We spend a
couple of pennies for each mass transit rider while we spend $7 or $8
on each person who flies. And I am glad we spend the $7 or $8 on the
people who fly. But mark my words, the terrorists know if air travel is
pretty well protected they will look somewhere else.
The most logical place they look, unfortunately, is to the rails,
where millions of people are in unguarded entrances, coming together.
We saw it in Madrid. We saw it in London. Unfortunately, once again, we
saw it in Mumbai yesterday. We will see it again. I wish that were not
true. God forbid, but it will happen.
This is a modest amendment. My colleague, Senator Biden, asked for a
large amount of money. This is just $300 million, but it will go a long
way. Right now we only spend $150 million. What we would do in our
amendment is double, add $200 million, grants on rail security, the
personnel, the dogs. Talk to terrorist experts. They say dogs that can
smell explosives or biological or chemical weapons are the best
anecdote. This would pay for things like that.
We also put aside $50 million to develop detection devices.
Technology allowed terrorism to occur. Technology can protect us. But
we are not availing ourselves of that technology. One of the things I
have been pushing for for years is the money to develop a detection
device, much like a smoke detector, that could sit on the ceiling of a
subway car or in the entrance of a railroad station. When someone came
by with a great deal of explosives or biological or chemical or nuclear
material on their bodies, it would go ``beep,
[[Page S7396]]
beep, beep,'' and the police would be able to make an arrest before
damage was done.
This amendment sets aside a modest $50 million to begin that
research.
Finally, the amendment provides $50 million for overtime
reimbursement. Every time we hear of a threat in a different part of
the world, the New York City police department must put men and women
on overtime to guard the subways and the dog squads and everyone else.
This is a Federal responsibility.
The bottom line is, the soft underbelly of subways, buses, and
tunnels are highly vulnerable to the kinds of terrorist attacks we have
seen in London and Madrid and Mumbai. Unless we take real steps to beef
up mass transit security immediately, the bottom line is, we spend more
than $7 per airline passenger on air security but little more than a
penny per mass transit rider.
In the wake of these most recent threats and yesterday's tragic
attacks in India, we need to be doing a lot more to even the score.
This week, we have increased funding for border security and port
security. I ask my colleagues to do the same for rail systems. I will
ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment at an appropriate time.
I yield back the remainder of my time to my friend and colleague from
New York.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York. Sadly,
today is an all too appropriate day to be offering an amendment to
increase transit funding. Yesterday, the savage bombing of eight
commuter trains in Mumbai--densely packed during the evening rush hour
by people just trying to make their way home--showed once again that
terrorists find public transportation to be an extremely attractive
target. Currently, the Indian government reports that over 200 people
died in the blasts, and the death toll is rising. And so our thoughts
and prayers are with the people of Mumbai, and our minds should be
riveted back here in the United States.
Two years ago, we saw tragic bombings in Madrid; last year, in
London; yesterday, Mumbai. Each of these should have served as a wake-
up call to this country, a call to action for Congress to act to secure
the over 14 million Americans who use public transportation to get to
work each day. The recently disclosed plot against the tunnels under
the Hudson River highlights the need for action. One of the targets was
the PATH subway tunnel that carries over two hundred thousand people a
day back and forth between New York and New Jersey. And yet, we
continue to spend a virtual pittance on transit security. The Federal
Government spends about $9 on security for each airline passenger, but
only about 1 cent for each bus or train rider. While we need to secure
our airways, we also need to secure our streets, our rails, and our
subways.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, our
Nation's transit systems need over $5 billion in capital equipment and
$800 million per year in annual operating expenses in order to
adequately meet security needs. One hundred and fifty million dollars a
year is not going to get us there. The Schumer/Menendez amendment
provides $300 million--not the entire amount we need but a crucial
increase over what we are currently providing. In addition to adding
$200 million for additional transit security grants, the amendment also
provides money for research into new security technologies for transit
and intercity rail. We all know that airport-style screening of
everyone boarding a train isn't going to work. But that doesn't mean we
can simply give up. New technologies offer the promise of being able to
detect explosives and chemical weapons far quicker and less obtrusively
than we do now, but we need to put the money into researching those
technologies. This amendment will do that. This amendment also provides
money to help local law enforcement authorities out with overtime when
their region is declared to be a high threat area, which is sorely
needed in high-risk areas such as the New York and New Jersey
metropolitan region.
I never want to be standing here and discussing an attack that
happened a day earlier on an American subway system, on American
trains, or on American buses. It is bad enough that I have to stand
here today and discuss yesterday's tragic events in India. But this is
one more wake-up call to a Congress that has continued to hit the
snooze button when it comes to transit security. I want my colleagues
to ask themselves what they would be willing to do, what commitment
they would be willing to make, if yesterday's news had been about
trains in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Denver, Houston,
Buffalo, or any other American city. Well, we don't need to wait for an
attack on American soil. We can make that commitment now, we can
provide the resources now so we don't look back some day and ask
ourselves, ``Why didn't we do then what we need to do today?'' And we
should ask ourselves now, ``How much more would we be willing to spend
after the fact?'' It is far more expensive to respond to an attack than
to try to prevent one. The Schumer/Menendez amendment is not the final
step, but it is a necessary step, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4576
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 12 seconds.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Boxer be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I think this debate must be very
confusing to people around our country who might be tuning in or
sitting in the galleries because we should be spending an appropriate
amount of money, not wasting it. We should have it focused. We should
not be thinking of funding places and institutions like those referred
to by both Senators Schumer and Mikulski. And I think it is bewildering
for us even on the floor.
It has been so difficult to get a straight story out of the
Department of Homeland Security, to get any kind of clear sense of what
the strategy is. What is it we have to do to make a case based on
threats and risks? And why is money being cut from the places that are
at the top of the terrorists' hit list?
I do not have an explanation. The closest I can come is that we have
other priorities in this Congress and on the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue. We would rather spend money on tax cuts for the wealthiest
among us. I just do not get it.
But we have a chance to send a very clear message with this
amendment, to say: Look, there is not anything more important. Let's do
it right. Let's require the highest level of competence from this
administration and particularly the Department of Homeland Security.
Let's not spend money wastefully, but let's spend money where we know
it will give us the best results to protect our country.
I make a special plea on behalf of New York. We have spent billions
of dollars in New York City and New York State. It is not like we have
been waiting around. We have created a 1,000-person intelligence unit
with the NYPD, with detectives all over the country. We have spent a
lot of money beefing up the personnel and putting in equipment. But we
need help. We cannot take a 40-percent cut and protect everything that
needs to be protected in New York City--from the mass transit system,
to the Statute of liberty, to the United Nations, to the ports, to
bridges, to the tunnels; you name it.
So I hope we will have a bipartisan vote in favor of going back to
the amount of money we spent in 2005, and making sure we spend it in
accordance with threat and risk.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 4576, and
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back her time.
Is there a sufficient second for the yeas and nays?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. GREGG. This is on the Clinton amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Clinton amendment.
[[Page S7397]]
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 20
minutes.
Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that when I read the
article that was in the paper about the decision to basically transfer
a significant amount of dollars from New York and Washington, I was
surprised and quite shocked. I said to myself: That doesn't make a
whole lot of sense. Because I think most of us understand that New
York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a couple of other spots
which are probably better not to mention, are truly the No. 1 targets.
Certainly, New York is at the top of every list, as is the city of
Washington. So I thought: Why are we doing that? Or why was the
Department doing that? They did not advise us, obviously.
I looked into it, and they have a peer-review process for the
application of these funds. All these funds go out under a threat-based
concept. This has been the insistence of this committee. There are
funds that do go out under the formula. I do not happen to be a big fan
of the formula. It is not a lot of funds compared to the entire block
of funds. But the vast majority of the funds flow out on the basis of
threat-based decisions.
Now, what happened was, of the 46 cities that were in competition for
these funds, New York came in 44th and the District of Columbia came in
42nd in evaluation of their proposals. And their proposals, in fact,
were just plain poorly written; not only poorly written, they were
poorly structured, and they did not have behind them the backup that
was necessary to make them viable proposals.
In that context, the decision was made to take these funds and move
them over to other applicants who had put in better proposals. I guess
if I had been managing the Department, what I would have said is:
Listen, we know that Washington and New York are the primary targets.
We also know these proposals, as they came forward, were just not very
good proposals and really did not accomplish the goals we are seeking
in the issue of addressing threat and effectiveness. And effectiveness
should be part of this. We should not take effectiveness out because
there is no point sending money out if we are not going to get results
for it.
Probably, if I had been in charge, had the magic wand, I would have
said, escrow this money until we can work with these two cities, and
regions in the case of New York and Washington, and get the plans in
order. But that is not the decision that was made. The decision was
made to move the dollars to other locales. So there are equities, in my
opinion, in the arguments made by the Senators from New York and the
Senators from Maryland and New Jersey. And the equities are strong
enough that we actually put language in our report that requests that
the Department place a higher priority on risk and that they focus on
dealing with this type of a situation. And I am certainly expecting it
will not happen again the way it happened this year.
But that is not the essence of this amendment. The essence of this
amendment offered by the Senator from New York is to increase funding
above our allocation--I guess it claims it as an emergency--and to
basically put additional dollars on the table for the purposes of these
types of threat-based grants.
Now, I think it is important to understand that since we started this
program we have put $14.6 billion into the pipeline to try to assist
the cities and areas of highest risk, and that in this bill we have
$2.4 billion to accomplish that. That is a lot of money. And of that
money, only $6.1 billion has actually been taken down. In other words,
there is still literally close to $9 billion when you consider this
year of money available to address these issues. And to put another big
chunk of money on top of that, really, I do not think is going to
improve the situation from the standpoint of what New York and
Washington are concerned about, because I think there is enough money
in the pipeline to accomplish much of what they desire.
The right way to correct this problem relative to New York and
Washington is to have the Department understand these are the priority
sites, and that if the proposals coming in from these two regions are
not of a quality that give the Department confidence that the money is
going to go out and be used effectively, then they should sit down with
these two regions and work out the process so we do it right--escrow
the money, sit down, work out the problem, figure out how the money can
be used so everybody knows it is being use effectively. So that would
be the way I would resolve this issue.
To simply put more money in the pipeline, when we have this much
money in the pipeline, I do not think is going to resolve it. For all
we know, they might still not get the money if they went through this
same approval process they had this year. Hopefully, they won't. I did
note comments by the mayor of New York--and I respect him for this--
where he said he recognized the proposal they sent down here was not up
to snuff. That is my characterization, but that is the way I read it.
And he is right. It was not. But that did not mean they should not have
gotten the money. It should have meant the Department should have sat
down with them and figured out how to get it right. However, that is,
as they say, history.
As we have moved forward, I believe we have put in adequate language
to make it clear. And certainly this floor discussion, I hope,
illuminates the issue further, that we expect these two regions to
receive the resources which are in the pipeline, and to receive them in
a robust way, but under the condition that the various programs which
they send down here have been worked through so both sides have
confidence the money is going to be used effectively.
I will, however, have to make a point of order against this amendment
from the Senator from New York because I do not believe the best
approach at this time is to simply bust the budget, put more money in
the pipeline, declaring an emergency, in order to address what was
really a programmatic issue and a failure of communication, to be quite
honest--a massive failure--between the city of New York and the city of
Washington and the Department of Homeland Security as to how they
should have handled the funds which were in the pipeline.
So when the proper time comes, I will make a point of order that this
amendment busts the budget and is not an appropriate use of the
emergency designation.
Amendment No. 4587
As to Senator Schumer's amendment, which is a follow-on to Senator
Biden's amendment, I would just renew the comments I made under Senator
Biden's amendment. We have again increased the funding for rail. It is
not anywhere near where I would like to be able to put it, but it is an
increase. But, more importantly, there is a large amount of money again
in the pipeline coming through the funding for Amtrak--$770 million,
which is available for capital improvement.
On top of that, it is very interesting, if this is such a high
priority, why has the discretionary money which we are sending to these
major metropolitan communities been used in such a minor way to address
rail security?
The average, I believe I said earlier, was like 2 percent, and in New
York's case they are using 8 percent of their discretionary money for
rail security. They get a huge amount of money. In fact, New York--and
I think this should be mentioned for part of the Record--gets
dramatically more money; even when they lost the funds in this
competitive grant process, they still get, I think, about twice what
any other community gets, twice what any other community in the country
gets. And they deserve it, quite honestly. They are where the basic
threat is. So I do not begrudge them that.
But the fact is, they get a large amount of resources, and they could
take much more than 8 percent of
[[Page S7398]]
those resources and put them toward rail, if they wanted to. But they
do not. And to simply put more money on top of this, and, thus, once
again go well beyond our allocation, is a mistake and not the fiscally
prudent thing to do, nor is it the best way to approach the threat in
the context of the dollars which are coming from other areas and can be
used to address the threat--such as the underlying Amtrak funding, such
as the grants program, which is billions of dollars, and the basic
funding in this bill for rail security.
So I will also make a point of order against that amendment.
I have suggested--and I suggested it to Senator Biden and to Senator
Schumer--if rail really feels it needs a significant increase in
resources, they could do it the same way the airlines have done it, by
assessing a fee on passengers. That is how we pay for the airlines.
That is how we are paying, basically, for TSA. A $5 fee would generate,
essentially, the number that Senator Biden wanted. About a third of
that would generate the number that Senator Schumer feels is necessary.
And that is one way they could redress their issue and still stay
within the budget, if they felt it was that important a question.
Amendment No. 4576
So at this point, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my
time, unless the Senator from New York--she used up all her time. I
didn't know if the Senator wanted to respond to anything I said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has yielded back her
time.
Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator want any of my time to respond or is the
Senator all set?
Mrs. CLINTON. Two minutes if I could.
Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator 2 minutes of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mrs. CLINTON. It is my understanding that a point of order has been
made against my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has not yet been made
against the amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire suggested he
would make a point of order but has not made such a point of order. The
Chair has not heard a point of order formally put to the Chair against
the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I inform the Chair that pursuant to the deeming language
of Public Law 109-234, I raise a point of order against the emergency
designation of the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator, a point of
order is made appropriately at the end of the debate. The Senator from
New York was asking a question whether a point of order had yet been
made.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I hear a point of order that I will then
respond to.
Mr. GREGG. I yield back the balance of my time, unless the Senator
from New York wants 2 minutes. I renew the point of order.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House
Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent
resolution for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Collins
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NAYS--53
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained. The emergency designation is removed.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the
pending amendment because it would cause the bill to violate section
302(f) of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Amendment No. 4587
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we now move to the Schumer amendment. At
the conclusion of the debate, I reserve the right to make a point of
order against the Schumer amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It adds $300
million to probably the most woefully neglected area of homeland
security, and that is security on the rails, whether it be mass
transit, whether it be long-term passenger rail, or freight.
We have seen in the last year that transit rails are a target of
choice for terrorists. We saw it in London, we saw it in Madrid, and we
saw it just yesterday, unfortunately, once again in Mumbai. Our rails
are very vulnerable. We spend over $7 per air traveler for homeland
security; we spend about a penny for mass transit. And the terrorists
always look for our vulnerability. Transit is vulnerable. Passenger
rail is vulnerable. Freight rail is vulnerable. There are miles and
miles of unguarded track and thousands of people entering unguarded
entrances. If there were ever a place we needed help, this is it.
There are, obviously, things we are doing on port security. The
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia increased that funding. It
makes no sense, given that the rails have been the target of the last
three major terrorist attacks around the world, to have a paltry $150
million for rail security.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from New York yield? I believe we had a
1-minute agreement.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thought it was 2. How much time do I have remaining,
Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 seconds remaining.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thirty-four seconds. In the interest of moving things
along, I yield back the remainder of my time and urge an ``aye'' vote
on this important amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, also in the interest of moving things
along, the debate in opposition to this amendment has been made
relative to the Biden amendment. It is basically a ``little Biden,''
and it is in excess of the ability of this committee to fund it at the
levels being suggested.
Pursuant to the deeming language in Public Law 109-234, I raise a
point of order against the emergency designation in the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I
move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of
the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:
[[Page S7399]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NAYS--50
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the emergency designation is removed.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the
pending amendment. The amendment would cause the bill to violate
section 302 of the Budget Act.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We can't hear, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator repeat the motion.
Mr. GREGG. I raise a point of order the amendment would cause the
bill to violate section 302 of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Amendment No. 4556
Mr. REID. I ask for the regular order with respect to the Feinstein
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 4557
Mr. REID. I make a point of order against the Cornyn amendment. It is
legislation on an appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is this the second-degree amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree amendment falls on the point
of order.
The Feinstein amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 4556
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the game plan now is to recognize the
Senator from New Jersey to speak on his amendment. Then we will go to
the Senator from Alabama to speak on amendments which he is going to
offer. There will not be any more votes tonight. Those will be the only
amendments offered this evening. I will formally ask unanimous consent
to that point. Then tomorrow morning we hope to structure it so we
begin voting around 10 or 10:30, initially on the amendment of the
Senator from New Jersey and potentially, or hopefully, on the amendment
of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Pennsylvania, which
they will have a chance to debate in the morning prior to the
amendments. Then, around 12 o'clock, we know we are going to have an
amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio and we will go to that
amendment. In the interim, there will also be an issue of the
amendments of the Senator from Alabama and other amendments which
people may wish to bring forward.
At this time I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New Jersey be
recognized, followed by the Senator from Alabama, to offer their
amendments, and that those be the only amendments offered this evening,
and at the conclusion of the debate on their amendments we go to a
period of morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Amendment No. 4634, As Modified
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4634, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) proposes an
amendment numbered 4634, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that appropriations under this Act may not be used
for the purpose of providing certain grants, unless all such grants
meet certain conditions for allocation)
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
appropriations under this Act may not be used for the purpose
of providing--
(1) formula-based grants or law enforcement terrorism
prevention grants, unless all such grants are allocated based
on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence,
to the maximum extent praticable, with no State receiving
less than 0.25 percent of the funds available for each such
grant program, and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, each
receiving 0.08 of the funds available for each such grant
program;
(2) discretionary grants for use in high-threat, high-
density urban areas, unless all such grants are allocated
based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and
consequence, to the maximum extent practicable.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on July 7, just last Friday, media
outlets across the Nation reported the news that the FBI had apparently
foiled a plot to bomb the transit systems that connect New York and New
Jersey.
The revelation of this latest plot paints a clear picture of where
the terrorists intend to target their actions. Clearly, they want to
strike where they can create the greatest loss of life and economic
damage. Time and time again, we see that areas like New York, New
Jersey, Washington State, California, Chicago, and others are high on
the target lists of terrorists.
These most recent threats against New York and New Jersey are only
one example of this in one key area.
Why had the terrorists chosen to attack the tunnels and rail system
that connect the city of New York with the citizens of New Jersey?
Because they wanted to inflict great damage, not only to the tunnels
and the trains and the people on them, not only to the city of New York
and the citizens of New Jersey, not only to the metropolitan area that
encompasses New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut--no, the terrorists
chose to plan their attack on the New York-New Jersey transit system
because they wanted to inflict great damage on the entire country.
More than 100,000 people use the Holland Tunnel everyday. More than
200,000 people ride the PATH trains every day.
Mr. President, 18.7 million people live in the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area, nearly 6.5 million of whom come from New Jersey. New
York is home to the financial heart of our country, with key financial
institutions housed right across the river in New Jersey. Imagine what
would happen to the Nation, not just New York or New Jersey, if these
financial institutions were shut down.
The port in New Jersey, the largest container seaport on the east
coast, the third largest in the Nation, handled more than $132 billion
in goods in 2005 and creates over 200,000 jobs. Imagine what would
happen to the Nation, not just New York or New Jersey, if commerce were
shut down in this port.
The greatest ``zone of vulnerability'' in the U.S. is in South
Kearney, NJ, where 12 million people live in proximity to a chlorine
chemical plant. An explosion at the facility would endanger the life
and health of people caught in the path of the prevailing winds to that
great extent.
[[Page S7400]]
The FBI has placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the
``National Critical Infrastructure List'' and has called the area
between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport the ``most
dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.''
An article in the New York Times pointed out that this 2-mile area
provides ``a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major
portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries,
pipelines, air traffic, communications networks and highway system.''
Imagine what would happen to the Nation, not just New York and New
Jersey, if the most dangerous 2 miles in America was attacked.
Clearly, as we saw last Friday, the terrorists can imagine exactly
what would happen if they attacked New York and New Jersey.
If the terrorists understand that New York and New Jersey are
targets, why can't the Department of Homeland Security?
The recent inspector general report on Homeland Security's National
Database shows that we have it wrong. Certainly the Department of
Homeland Security has it wrong, once again.
According to a recent article by the New York Times, the report
``reads like a tally of terrorist targets that a child might have
written: Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn
factory, the Mule Day Parade.''
The inspector general found that the list included items ``whose
criticality is not readily apparent'' but are still included in the
Federal antiterrorism database and that ``the presence of large numbers
of out-of-place assets taints the credibility of the data.''
The fact that this database is being used to help determine risk-
based funding simply makes no sense.
The bottom-line is that States and municipalities across the country
that actually are under the greatest risk should receive the greatest
number of homeland security dollars based on that risk. I cannot
understand why the Department of Homeland Security would not use a
truly risk-based formula when awarding their grants.
That is why I am offering the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment today.
The amendment states that no funds in this bill should go to homeland
security grants unless they are based on an ``assessment of threat,
vulnerability, and consequence, to the maximum extent practicable.''
Not exclusively, but ``to the maximum extent possible.''
The amendment also allows, in specific cases, for each State to
receive a minimum of .25 percent of the grants. Let me be clear; while
I would prefer to give all funds based on risk, I believe that this
compromise which makes this amendment different than previous
amendments based on risk, will allow more support for this amendment.
It also moves in the direction of where the White House has said they
want to see us go on the question of homeland security funds. This is
also the same minimum percentage included in the House legislation
recently endorsed by the former Chairman and former Vice Chairman of
the 9/11 Commission.
I certainly hope with this minimum percentage guarantee that our
Senate delegation will be able to support this amendment.
Since we only have a finite amount of money, this is not a place
where revenue sharing should be the policy. Just as Senators from
agricultural areas of the country call on those of us who may not have
much agriculture for our support, just as the Senators from ravaged
flood areas call on us for our support, just as Senators from areas hit
by hurricanes call on us for our support, those of us who come from
high-target areas across the country call on the rest of the Senate for
equal treatment when it comes to risk-based funding.
Many of us in the Senate have been fighting for risk-based funding
for years. I know Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Schumer, and others
have led the fight in the Senate. I know our senior Senator from New
Jersey has been a leader over and over again. We are thankful to him
for his leadership. I fought for risk-based funding as a former Member
of the House of Representatives. I included risk-based funding in the
Menendez substitute to the intelligence reform bill in 2004 which was,
unfortunately, voted down by my Republican colleagues. I fought for
risk-based funding in the conference report on that legislation. I
continued to fight for risk-based funding when I introduced the risk-
based Homeland Security Funding Act in the House, which Senator
Lautenberg also introduced in the Senate. Most recently here in the
Senate, we have introduced legislation to make sure we fully and
finally implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which
includes risk-based funding. But today we are here to fight the next
round of this battle.
I am proud to have Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, and Schumer as
cosponsors of this amendment.
It is important when we talk about homeland security. We have seen
the votes on a host of these funding issues. You can't have the
administration talking tough on homeland security and then acting weak.
Cutting funds to homeland security grants simply makes no sense.
For those from New York and New Jersey and from other parts of the
country--Pennsylvania or Washington, DC--for those from those areas
where loved ones were killed on September 11 of 2001, this is not an
abstract policy discussion. This is not an abstract policy discussion
for us. This is personal. Over 700 people from the State of New Jersey
were killed. My former congressional district looks directly at the
site where the Twin Towers once stood. In New York and New Jersey, we
still live with the aftermath of these attacks on a daily basis. Just
today, we learned in a Quinnipiac poll that 77 percent of New Jerseyans
expect a terrorist attack in the United States in the next 6 months.
The No. 1 role of our Government is to keep us safe. That is what
Americans expect. That is what the people of New Jersey have been
saying to me all along. They believe--and we can see from the nature of
these revelations of the plots--they are going to be attacked, and they
need the Government to meet its No. 1 responsibility to them; that is,
to keep them safe.
How can we keep them safe if we allow the funding for homeland
security grants to be underfunded? How can we keep them safe if we
aren't making sure that the places at greatest risk of attack get the
most money to protect against those attacks? And how can we come to a
conclusion that we don't assign--even with this compromise amendment
which still provides 2.5 to all of the States but still takes the
majority of that money to where the greatest risks are, how do we not
hold the view that this is one country and these attacks, in fact,
would affect the entire Nation?
The Senate has both an obligation and a moral responsibility to
protect the people of the United States. The only way to do that is to
take all possible steps to prevent terrorist attacks.
One of the critical ways is to follow the 9/11 Commission's report, a
unanimous and bipartisan conclusion that homeland security funding
should be based strictly on risk. We have taken that as a foundation,
amended it somewhat to create, hopefully, a greater groundswell of
support but still with the fundamental principle that ultimately the
majority of our homeland security funding should go to where the
greatest risks in our country are and the greatest risk that ultimately
would affect the Nation in its commerce, in its security, and in its
ability to sustain itself.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished
chairman.
Mr. GREGG. I am intrigued by the amendment. We have worked very hard
on the committee to have a threat-based funding formula, so that is my
goal. I have no problem with the reduction to 2.5 even though it would
prejudice my own State. But my view is that the target should be where
the funding goes.
I just wanted to be sure that when the Senator uses those terms of
art here, that it is not his intention to undermine the capacity of
peer review groups to look at the issue. The Senator used the term
``unless all such grants are allocated based on threat, vulnerability,
and consequence to the maximum extent practical,'' which seem to be
pretty good words of art.
[[Page S7401]]
For the record, I would like to make it clear that the Senator is not
trying to adjust the peer review process which looks at threat and
effectiveness of the plan. Is that correct?
Mr. MENENDEZ. That is correct. We are silent on effectiveness because
we think effectiveness is very important as part of that equation.
Mr. GREGG. In light of that, I probably will support the amendment,
although I suspect there are others who will oppose the reduction of
2.5. In any event, I think the amendment is a good amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished chairman.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first I commend my colleague, Senator
Menendez, for his persistence on this issue. We both come from the
northern part of the State of New Jersey, which is the most dense
portion of the most densely populated State in the country.
Seven hundred of our fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives on
September 11, 2001. It would be hard to find people whose lives were
not touched by the events of that day--whether immediate neighbors,
friends, family, all of us knew someone who was killed or injured on
that fateful day. From our part of New Jersey, you could see the smoke
rising from the World Trade Center where many of our friends,
neighbors, and loved ones worked.
The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of the attack on 9/11,
and to this day it remains the area of our country that is most at risk
of another attack. We were reminded of this just last week when
authorities disrupted a plot by eight terrorists to blow up commuter
train tunnels connecting New Jersey and New York. Each day, nearly
200,000 people travel through these tunnels.
Since we don't have unlimited resources for homeland security,
homeland security must be targeted to those parts of the country most
at risk of another terrorist attack. But that isn't currently the case.
Why? Because this Congress is treating homeland security funding as
just another pork project rather than sending the resources based
solely on risk, as has been recommended by the 9/11 Commission. And in
section 25:
Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on
assessments of risks and vulnerabilities.
[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a
program for general revenue sharing.
This is by the authors of this Commission report which was adopted
wholeheartedly in this place.
Because each State gets a minimum guarantee of funding regardless of
risk or population density, we take resources from States known as
major terrorist targets and give them to low-risk areas.
Politics rears its ugly head.
I saw the prevailing view on the Homeland Security Committee on which
I sit--the committee of jurisdiction. I called the attention of the
committee to the report of the 9/11 Commission very specifically and
asked the committee to endorse fully the risk-based distribution
mechanisms for funding. Perhaps my argument wasn't persuasive, but the
vote was 15 to 1 against it, solely basing this distribution of grants
on risk. It was painful for me to see that.
I want to give you an example. In fiscal year 2006, New Jersey
received $1.92 per capita spending for State homeland security and law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants. Wyoming received $14.73. New
Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, received $1.92
in per capita spending; and Wyoming--a beautiful State, though I think
it is fair to say that their risk of a terrorist attack is
substantially different or not even this in terms of what terrorist
planning is typically doing--Wyoming, $14.73. Are the people of Wyoming
seven times more likely to be the victims of a terrorist attack than
the people of New Jersey? I don't think so.
The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of New York
and Newark-Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most
inviting target in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack because of
the huge amount of damage that could be inflicted. It is believed--this
isn't secret, it has been published many times in many places--it is
believed that a terrorist attack in this area could kill or injure more
than 10 million people because of the density of population there and
the presence of so many chemical facilities.
The way we fund homeland security flies in the face of the 9/11
Commission recommendations. We see it on this placard. It is a stark
reminder of what we ought to be doing and how much it differs from what
we are arguing.
Today, nearly 5 years after 9/11, nearly 40 percent of the State
Homeland Security Grant Program is given out as ``general revenue
sharing'' to each and every State and territory regardless of the
danger they face from terrorism. The system is broken. We have to fix
it. I have been trying to reform this grant program for several years.
In February 2005, I introduced a bill called the Risk-Based Homeland
Security Funding Act, which would require that all homeland security
grants be based strictly on risk, threat, and vulnerability. My
colleague, Senator Menendez, did similarly when he was a Member of the
House of Representatives. The amendment offered by my colleague today
moves us in that direction. That is why I so strongly support it.
Under the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment, the Senate minimums will be
reduced from .75 percent of Homeland Security funding to .25 percent.
That lower amount, .25 percent, is the same as the allocation President
Bush recommends. Even the Bush administration confirms the .75 minimum
is inappropriate and puts our security at risk. Secretary Chertoff has
consistently advocated Homeland Security funding be risk-based.
By reducing these State minimums, we can better protect the Nation by
getting more funding to areas that are actually under threat and risk.
If Congress will not eliminate State minimums, the best way to proceed
is to reduce the State minimums so that as much money as possible is
directed toward the highest risk areas.
If we review past terrorist attacks, it is clear terrorists want to
attack densely populated areas, areas where they can inflict the most
damage. We heard my colleague, Senator Menendez, talk about the damage
it could do to our national economy if we have a major attack in this
very sensitive area. They want to kill as many people as they can,
disrupt economic life as it exists.
I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment. A
vote for this amendment is a vote in support of the administration's
position, the 9/11 Commission position, and plain common sense.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be offering some amendments to
the Homeland Security bill that I think are important. I thank Senator
Gregg for his leadership and his interest and his hard work in meeting
some of the demands of this Nation with regard to homeland security.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to meet all of those demands.
America, we have a problem, a very real problem.
This Senate and its action concerning immigration with relation to
the bill that just passed this Senate is beginning to create a
circumstance that in every respect looks like 1986, the year we passed
the last immigration bill. We must not allow a repeat of 1986. This
Senator will do all that he can to see that does not happen.
It goes to the very heart of our service in this Senate. It goes to
the integrity of the Senate. It goes to the respect with which we want
to be held by our constituents around this country. We must not repeat
what happened in 1986. We must not allow a repeat of the 1986
immigration bill.
Back when the immigration bill started moving through the Judiciary
Committee, I raised this very point. It came about in an interesting
way. I offered an amendment in the committee
[[Page S7402]]
to expand bed space. It was accepted. I offered another amendment, and
it was accepted. I began to think: It is easy to authorize, isn't it?
It is very easy to pass a bill that authorizes more bed space. It is
very easy to pass a bill that authorizes a fence to be built along the
border to improve our security. It is easy to authorize more Federal
agents to be hired, more workplace enforcement to be put in place. It
is easy to authorize the expansion of the US-VISIT Program, which is
central to an entry-and-exit system. It is easy to authorize interior
enforcement agents around the country.
But an authorization is merely an authorization. Those agents do not
get hired, they will not be paid, the VISIT system will not be in
place, the fences will not be built until money is appropriated. This
is the bill we would expect that appropriation to take place.
That is the problem we have. The bill does provide some additional
expenditures for Homeland Security and for border enforcement and for
other things. For that we are grateful. But the big matters that go to
the heart of whether we are going to have a lawful system have not been
funded adequately. It is something we have to confront and deal with in
an effective way.
In 1986, we promised we would just have amnesty one time. It was the
amnesty to end all amnesties, unlike today, when we deny we are
offering amnesty. In fact, the proposal we passed in the Senate does
just that. It is very similar to 1986.
What was the promise? The promise is we will have enforcement in the
future and we will not need another amnesty. They said in 1986 it was
an amnesty to end all amnesties. That was the argument. That is what we
tried to do. That is what they tried to do at the time.
What happened? The promises that were made about enhanced enforcement
did not occur. I point out, 2 million people were expected to claim
amnesty; 1.5 million people were expected to claim amnesty. When it
concluded, 3 million people had claims. Almost double the number of
people came forward to claim the amnesty, many of them with fraudulent
documents and inadequate proof. But they got it because it could not be
disproved, and the numbers were so large.
That system did not work well, but the amnesty was part of the
immigration bill. It became law. Everyone entitled to that amnesty got
it. It openly was called amnesty. I note for the record that Black's
Law Dictionary, in its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' lists the
1986 immigration bill as one of its definitions.
These people got their legal status, their citizenship track, the
benefits of welfare, earned-income tax credit, and all the other
benefits that accrue for people in the United States, but the
enforcement never came.
Remember, we said it was not going to happen again not too long ago,
just 20 years ago. Where are we today? We now have an estimated 11
million people in our country illegally. We say we have to do something
about this, but we cannot call it amnesty. But we will create this
little system where they pay $1,000 or $2,000 and they are on a track
to full citizenship--but it is not amnesty. Mind you, there is hardly
any difference between what we did in 1986, but this year it is not
popular to talk about amnesty because people have been around the
country listening to their constituents, and the people of America are
not happy with amnesty. They do not like it.
Many Members of this Senate have promised not to vote for amnesty. So
all they do when they vote for this bill is redefine the meaning of
words and say it is not amnesty. They just say it is not amnesty. They
vote for it and say: I didn't vote for amnesty.
They have to wait a while before they get citizenship. They have to
pay $1,000. And if they held back taxes for 5 years, if they pay taxes
for 3 of those years--and they pick the 3--then they have paid the
price. They have paid the penalty. They earned their amnesty by paying
back taxes. Yet American citizens pay their taxes all 5 years. How are
you going to prove the back taxes anyway?
This is nothing more than amnesty. I drive this point home. What is
the point? The point is, that has been put into law by the bill we
passed in this Senate. Now they say: We will have enforcement this
time; we are going to do the things that are necessary to have
enforcement.
A lot of people say we really do not like a fence, but after they
talk to their constituents back home--and I offered the amendment to
have 350 miles of fences and 500 miles of barriers, and we had a vote.
It passed 83 to 13--we passed an amendment to build the 350 miles of
fences, 500 miles of barriers. We have authorized it, colleagues. That
is all we did was authorize it.
I have heard the comments: I voted for the Sessions amendment. I
voted to build a fence. I am for enforcing immigration laws. When do we
build this fence? Where do we get the money to build this fence? What
bill is it that the money has to come out of? It is a Homeland Security
bill. That is the one in the Senate. We have been looking through the
bill, reading the fine print, and it is not in there. The money to
build the fence is not included.
We should be ashamed. We trumpeted this. The majority leader said he
was supportive of this. Everyone was supportive of building a fence.
When it comes time to pay up and actually buy the bricks or buy the
wire and pay the people to do it, where are we?
I raised this in the Judiciary Committee. I offered an amendment sort
of like the Isakson amendment at that time. Senator Isakson offered his
amendment in the Senate that said: We see this problem coming,
colleagues. This has been the pattern. We authorize things, we make
promises, but we do not follow through, so let's do the Isakson
amendment which says none of this amnesty takes place until the
enforcement takes place at the border and we follow through on the
things we promised to do.
That is a pretty clever little amendment. Why would anybody object to
that? Why would anybody who voted and promised to build fences, to add
detention beds, to add agents--why in the world would you vote for
those kinds of things and then not want to follow through on them?
I think it was troubling to me--troubling to a lot of Americans; I
know troubling to Senator Coburn, the Presiding Officer--when Senator
Isakson's amendment did not pass. Why? Why did Senator Isakson's
amendment not pass? Well, the American people are pretty cynical now
about our commitment and our integrity when it comes to matters
involving immigration. And I suggested at the time and worried at the
time that the reason the Isakson amendment did not pass was there was
never any intention to fund the fence, to fund increased bed space, and
fund the increased agents, make the US-VISIT program work--never any
intention.
Now, wouldn't that be a bad thing? Wouldn't that reflect badly on the
integrity of the U.S. Senate, when the whole Nation is looking at us?
They are frustrated with us. They have not forgotten 1986. People
remember that. They remember that. And they are looking at us: Are we
going to do this again? And the first bill that comes up, we don't have
money in it to fund the fence that we voted 83 to 16 to build. That is
just breathtaking when you think about it.
It was a highly debated issue. It was probably one of the more
noteworthy amendments in the entire debate. People thought it might be
a close vote. As it turned out, it was an overwhelming vote. But it is
easy to vote to authorize, isn't it, if you never intend to fund. That
is an easy vote. I see the young people and the pages and those around
here. Learn something about the U.S. Senate. It erodes public
confidence in the integrity of the Government when you brag and speak
glowingly about taking aggressive action to improve enforcement of
immigration laws in America and then do not do it.
That is not good. That is just not good. The matter is not a little
one. This is not a little matter. The American people know that
immigration is important to our country. They know it is deeply
important to our country. They care about it. They have been watching
it. They watch it nightly on television. They write letters to their
editor. They call my office. They call other people's offices. They
complain about what is going on and how we have done our business.
They have every right to complain. They have every right to complain.
[[Page S7403]]
Why in the world would we ever suggest that somehow the American people
are not generous and fair and decent when it comes to immigration? They
really are. We are a nation that believes in immigrants. We are a
nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration.
But people are frustrated. Some people say things that are harsh
maybe about immigrants, but when you listen to most people, the anger
that they are expressing is not at the immigrants, it is at those of us
in Washington. It is at a string of Presidents, it is at a series of
Congresses that have failed, refused to do what they asked them to do.
And what have the American people asked? They have asked that we
create a lawful system of immigration and we create a policy of
immigration that is in the national interest of the United States of
America, that we allow a number of people to come in every year, that
we make a rational judgment about how many that should be. People
should not come in illegally. They should come in in accordance with
law. And if they come in illegally, they expect the Government to stop
them or apprehend them and deport them.
What is wrong with that? Is that harsh? Is it mean-spirited to say
that we need to have a legitimate legal system involving immigration in
this country? I suggest not. I have been looking at the numbers. I
think it is adversely impacting the wages of working Americans. And I
am prepared to debate it. But regardless, this is a matter we need to
deal with. We are going to maintain a flow of legal immigrants into our
country, and we should. We should set up a system that identifies
people who are most worthy of coming into our country and approve them
in a meritorious way, in an effective system.
We do not have that today. The bill we have passed pretends to be a
comprehensive bill for immigration reform, and it is an utter failure.
It should never, ever, ever become law. It is a total disaster. They
say: Well, we will just send it over to the House. The same people who
may well vote against funding this amendment say: We will just send
this bill now over to the House, the House of Representatives, who they
made fun of a few months ago for passing a border enforcement bill
first. We will send it over there, and maybe we will fix all this.
How does it work in conference? The majority leader of the Senate
appoints a group of conferees, the Speaker of the House does, the
Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate appoint conferees, and
this group of hand-picked Senators and Congressmen meet. They go meet
someplace, and they work it all out, basically in secret, without any
real input from the American people.
We have a bill from the Senate that has comprehensive review and
reform, so-called, of the entire immigration policy of the United
States of America and the House of Representatives has a law
enforcement security bill only. And these are going to be just written
out of thin air by these hand-picked people in secret? I don't think
that is healthy, not on a matter this important.
Let me ask you, do the American people have a right to expect that
this Senate and the House of Representatives are going to protect their
interests and do what they have been asking them to do for 30 years. Or
do they have a right to be cynical and expect that they will meet, plot
out some sort of immigration bill, trumpet it as solving all our
problems, bring it on the floor of this Senate, not subject to
amendment, and drive it through and pass it? And it will not work again
just like 1986.
How can you test what we do here? How can the American people have a
test of this Senate? I submit to you, one way is to watch the vote on
the funding of the enforcement issues that are dealt with in the
amendments I have offered.
So let's see. Are we going to pass a fence amendment or not? If we
pass it, maybe we are beginning to get serious over here. But even that
can be fixed in conference. That is not the final passage of the bill.
They can still go into conference and take it out. But it would be a
step.
I say this to my colleagues: If we vote down funding the agents, the
fencing, the detention beds that we have authorized in this bill, why
shouldn't the American people really look at us askance? Why shouldn't
they say: they just authorized it, and they are not even going to fund
this fence? They are not even going to add the agents? They are not
going to even add the bed spaces? I think that is what the American
people are going to ask. And the truth is, they are correct.
Now, some will say: Well, we don't have the money. We don't have the
money? We spend over $2 trillion a year in this country. What do you
mean we don't have the money? We could do a ``Cadillac'' program for $2
billion or $3 billion. That is a lot of money. We are spending $100
billion on hurricane relief, $85 billion, in the supplemental, on the
war.
Let me tell you some other things we spend money on in this country,
when people say we don't have the money to do what the American people
are demanding that we do: According to the Congressional Budget
Office--this is from March 2006--spending for Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid alone is expected to increase by $106 billion
from 2006 to 2007, a 9.5-percent increase. It is a 9.5-percent increase
in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone, with the increase
totaling $106 billion. And we can't find $1 billion or $2 billion to
make the border secure? Give me a break.
Defense spending: We spent $76.8 billion in 2005 on that. How about
$32 billion to fund this Department, the whole Department of Homeland
Security? The bill budget for the Department of Homeland Security is
$32 billion. We cannot find another $1 billion or $2 billion to follow
through on the commitments we made to make the immigration system in
this country lawful? And within that Department of Homeland Security
money is all the funding they will get. It is all the money we are
going to get to increase immigration enforcement efforts. It is just
not there. In this appropriations, the money has not been funded to
meet the authorizations we passed and made a commitment to.
I am not here to break the budget. I am tired of that. I know the
Presiding Officer is. He has fought harder than anybody I know in this
Senate to bring integrity to spending, and I have been pleased to
support him. But I will tell you, he has been a breath of fresh air and
a great addition to the Senate. He has called our attention to the
wasteful spending we carry on in this body on a regular basis. We
cannot afford everything. We are paid to set priorities.
Has anybody ever listened to the people in their States about what
they want us to do? I am telling you, they want us to make the
immigration system a legal one, not a lawless one. They want us to
spend the money that is necessary--no more but they want to spend
whatever it takes. That is a priority with the American people. It
should be a priority of those of us who are here because they are
right. In the scheme of things, the money we spend is not that great,
but it is important for us to do it correctly.
I will be offering amendments that will deal with five different
areas. Those amendments will be offset, will not add additional
spending to the budget or increase the debt in any way. We will set
some priorities. We will set some choices. That is what the people pay
us to do.
What do we need? We need strategic fencing and vehicle barriers at
the border. We need an interior investigative agent increase--that is
for the ICE agents, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents--to
increase worksite enforcement. We need to increase the detention bed
spaces.
Detention beds are critical. The reason is, we still are carrying out
a catch-and-release policy. What do you mean ``catch-and-release''?
This is what happens: Someone comes into the country from a country,
say, other than Mexico. They are referred to as OTMs, other than
Mexicans--Brazil, Central America, South America, Asia--and they are
apprehended here illegally.
What happens then? Well, you say: They try them and deport them.
Wrong. Not really. What has been happening is, these particular people
who are apprehended in this country illegally are not from Mexico, so
they cannot be readily taken back across the border. They are then
detained and then given a trial date. Since there are
[[Page S7404]]
no bed spaces, they do not have a place to keep them. What do they do?
They release them on bail. They catch them and they release them on
bail. They sign their name because they do not have any money to put up
for the bail. They just allow them a signature bond, and they are asked
to come back at a certain date to have their trial on whether or not
they are going to be deported.
How many do you think come back? They have already entered the
country illegally. They are apprehended and released. They do not come
back for trial. One reporter did an interesting article that showed
that 95 percent did not show up. What a joke that is. The only way to
end the catch-and-release problem is to have enough detention beds so
they could be detained until they could be deported from the country.
Secretary Chertoff is making some progress in this regard but not
enough. We will never get there without some more beds. So if we are
serious about making a legal system here work, then we need more bed
spaces.
Everybody says we need worksite enforcement. We have a pilot program
that has been played with for a number of years that is supposed to
work. It really has the potential to work, but it is not working today.
We need some more money for that to make that system work. If you don't
want the workplace enforcement system to work and you are President of
the United States, you don't ask for funding for a program that will
work, and if you are a Member of Congress, you don't vote for the money
to make the program work. If you are part of Homeland Security, you
don't come and demand money so you can make it work. Everybody's hands
are dirty on workplace enforcement. We know that. Let's be frank about
it.
We need agents. You have to have law enforcement agents. Those law
enforcement agents can have a tremendous impact on the worksite. It
does not take that many prosecutions, frankly, to have a complete
change in behavior. I strongly say we need that.
We need to protect the funds that were already appropriated for
section 287(g). The 287(g) program is the cooperative immigration
enforcement effort with State and local law enforcement. The Department
of Homeland Security has this program. They train local law
enforcement. They set up abilities to work together. If they apprehend
someone for speeding and find out they are here illegally, then they
call the agents and they can transfer them for processing and
deportation. Wouldn't we want to see that happen? Wouldn't we want to
take the help of State and local law enforcement agencies? Well, we
don't have the money for that. We put the money in. It was in there for
a while. Now they have spent it on something else. It is a bargain, a
real bargain to do that.
Finally, we need to fully implement the exit portion of the US-VISIT
system to track visitors who leave the country as well as when they
come in. That is what the system was set up to do. We have been working
on it for 10 years. It has not been completed, they say, because of
various problems.
Let's be frank. It hasn't been completed because Congress and the
President over the last 10 or 15 years have not wanted it completed.
There has been plenty of time to complete it. Agencies hadn't come
forward and demanded the money necessary. They haven't told us what
they needed. The President hasn't put it in his budget, and Congress
hasn't spent the money. So it hasn't been completed. That is just it. I
don't know any other way to say it.
We now can track people when they come in the country, and we need a
good biometric card so people can enter really easily. If they have a
legal right to come, they present their card. It clears immediately.
They come right on through. If they work in the United States a week,
they can go home and see their family, come back on Sunday or Monday,
travel back and forth. They can do all those things.
We would like to see this system work. It can work. We are close to
it, but we don't have the exit system working. Unless the exit system
works, you have no idea of who is in the country and who has stayed,
who did not go home when they were supposed to.
That is where we are. We will have some of those votes tomorrow. I
don't mean to be unfair in my comments or unduly harsh, but the truth
is the American people are watching us this time. They saw what
happened in 1986. They don't want that to happen again. We should not
want that to happen again. We should do what we promised to do. We
should follow through and fund the projects that we have authorized.
When we authorized these projects, we knew they were necessary to make
this system move from a lawless system, a system that makes a mockery
of law, to a lawful, decent system. It can be done. It actually can be
done. It will not take an excessive amount of money, but it will take a
significant amount of money.
Then there will be a tipping point. When people find out that the way
to come in and work in the United States is to have a biometric card to
come lawfully, that will be successful. If they wait in line, they can
work. When they find out they can't get a job and it is very hard to
get across the border, maybe impossible almost to come illegally across
the border, they will quit coming illegally. When they can't get a job
and it is too hard to get across the border, they will decide then to
wait in line and get their card and come and work in due course
lawfully. Right now the system is a mockery of the law. It is not
working. Let's fix that.
When we vote tomorrow, we will send a signal to all those people back
home that we are committed now to creating a lawful system of
immigration. We are going to follow through and put up the money, a
significant amount of money, but in the scheme of the size of the
United States budget, it is a very small amount to make this system
work.
If you went back home and asked the American people, do you want to
see us follow through, do you want to spend a few more billion dollars,
$2 to $3 billion--that would be super; maybe we could do it for less
than that--a couple billion dollars more than what we are spending
today to make us move from a lawless system to a lawful system, they
would say: Do it--in a heartbeat.
That is where we are headed. I thank the Presiding Officer for his
leadership and commitment to creating a lawful system of immigration
for the United States.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I supported Senator Clinton's amendment
to restore FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it once again as an
independent agency. In the early 1990s, as the chair of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD, we funded FEMA. Senator Garn, my
wonderful colleague, was my ranking member. We found that FEMA was a
Cold War relic, and we went to work on a bipartisan basis, transforming
it from a relic of the Cold War into a professional, prepared, all-
hazards agency.
Hurricane Katrina was the storm we all feared. In the hours and days
after Hurricane Katrina, like all of you I watched in disbelief and
absolute frustration. Why? At the Federal Government's befuddled and
boondoggled response blowing it. The people in our Gulf Coast States
were doubly victimized first by the hurricane, second by the slow and
sluggish response of our Government. And I thought: How like Hugo. How
like Andrew. I didn't know about Betsy.
So this, of course, has prompted reform. Well, back in 1989 when we
took a look at this, what did I see? What I found out as I took over
the chairmanship of that subcommittee was that FEMA was a Cold War
agency. It focused only on worrying about if we were hit with a nuclear
attack. It was out of date, out of touch, and riddled with political
hacks. If you had to give someone a favor job, whether it was at the
Federal level or the State level, put them in civil defense. It was
called civil defense. And many of us in my generation remember where we
used to practice by hiding under those desks if war came. Well that is
the way the bureaucrats were. Any time there was a question, they hid
under their desk. So we set about reform. They were focused on
something called continuity of Government. It was incompetent
leadership. They had ridiculous ideas. In the event of a nuclear war--
stop first at the post office and leave your forwarding address to
these three shelters. So you get a sense of what it was like.
But Senator Garn and I looked at it. And then what happened was
Hurricane Hugo hit the Carolinas, particularly
[[Page S7405]]
South Carolina. FEMA's response was very poor. The military had to come
in to get power back up in Charleston. The people went for over a week
without basic functions. Sound familiar? Our former colleague Senator
Hollings had to call the President's Chief of Staff, John Sununu, to
get help and call the head of the Joint Chiefs, then General Colin
Powell, just to get generators from the Army. It was like cats and
charmer cops. Are you in charge? No, I am not in charge. They had the
generators but didn't ask. It was all of that. In the meantime, there
was no water, no utilities in Charleston. We began then to begin to
examine what steps to take in reform.
Then along the way we were hit with Andrew. Andrew, again, was the
worst disaster. Yet FEMA's response was so bad and they were so inept
that President Bush I sent Andy Card, then Secretary of Transportation,
to take over. I remember seeing a woman named Katie Hale saying,
``Where the hell is the cavalry on this one? We need food. We need
water. We need people.''
Having said all that, it was very clear to Senator Garn and me. Our
job was to protect lives, protect people, and now of course protect the
homeland. Working with Garn, and then Senator Bond, we worked to change
it. We commissioned three studies, and I ask you to go take a look at
them. One was a GAO study, the other was a National Academy of Public
Administration, and then FEMA's own inspector general.
We looked at all of this, and we wanted to be able to prevent, do all
we could for prevention, and do what we could to respond. Our goals
then were: First of all, FEMA has to be professionalized. They need a
professional director and a professional staff. Whoever runs FEMA has
to have a background in crisis management, either to come from
emergency response at the State level, the way James Lee Witt or Joe
Allbaugh did, or from the military or private sector where they have
done crisis management and know how to organize large numbers of
people. But not only professionalized Washington but insist there be
professionals at each State level. And I would emphasize reform must
also be directed at the States. No matter how good James Lee Witt was,
no matter how dedicated Joe Allbaugh was, if they didn't have the State
functioning well, it wouldn't work. As we know, the genius of our
system is that each State will have a different type of threat. The
terrain is different, the threat is different. And they need to be
ready. So the professionalization and the way was that each State
submit a plan. If you don't do the right plan and do tabletops, you are
not going to get the money. I think you have to have a muscular way to
have State plans in place with professional people and where there are
benchmarks for measurement and then use the ultimate withholding. That
is tough, but let me tell you, it works. So that is why we go for the
professionalization of FEMA.
We focused on it being a risk-based agency--that means prepared for
any risk that affects the risk base--because we thought then that the
threat of the Cold War was coming to an end. The wall was coming down
in Berlin, but the wall wasn't coming down in the Federal bureaucracy.
So we said, what are the risks? The threat is natural disasters. And
our States--we are coastal Senators, I share a coast with my colleague
from Delaware--we are threatened by hurricanes. Soon as June comes, we
are on our hurricanes readiness again--regardless of what the threat
is. And now it is even more important because it could be an earthquake
in California, a tornado in the Midwest, or, of course, a terrorist
attack.
Next, be ready for all hazards. And again, it is the States that get
ready with Washington offering the command and control and the ultimate
backup of sending in the calvary should the States collapse. All
hazards need to be prepared like when we had a fire in the Baltimore
tunnel--we didn't know if it was predatory or not. A hazardous chemical
spill, a hurricane, a tornado or even a dirty bomb.
If we practice the three R's, of readiness, meaning if we are ready,
and we are ready at the State level, then we can respond where the
threat occurs and then you have the infrastructure ready for recovery.
We were able to put the State plans, professionalize the agency, in
place.
What was never really ultimately addressed, though, is the Federal
backup if there is a complete collapse. That is something I believe
needs to be very carefully examined because of two things: No. 1, I
recall Governor Giles of Florida when Andrew hit. He said: We need NASA
satellites to tell me what my coast line looks like. We can't even call
the first responders. The firehouses are underwater. And you know all
of the great tragedies that you have heard. There does come a time when
there is only the Federal Government that can bring in, under some kind
of doctrine of mutual aid, really come in and provide the resources
necessary. We lost cities--we have never lost an entire city, except
back to Betsy.
That has to be dealt with. The other is the role of the Vice
President in our earlier recommendation. The Vice President always
backs the President up, but in a big disaster, like when the big ones
hit, the Vice President should move to the Situation Room and really
take charge, to make sure the Governors can handle the job, that the
Governors next to the States affected can provide mutual aid, and so
on, because it is also an appropriate role for the Vice President
should the President be out of the country. The Vice President would be
prepared and also, should the Vice President ever have to take over for
any reason, would know the complete working of the FEMA disaster plans
and how it should work. There are those other questions, too, of legal
authority when the Government takes over. Our three R's have to be
readiness, response, recovery. To do that we have to have
professionalization, risk-based, all hazards.
You know, hurricanes are predictable. Terrorist attacks are not. And
we have to be ready. Colleagues, I am concerned that whether it is
avian flu or another hurricane getting ready for the season or
something else, we don't know the answer, Who is in charge? That
question has never been answered. Who manages the disaster? And most of
all, who manages the panic around that? And who speaks? Your health
committee members have just done a tabletop on bioterrorism. It is the
same.
So I believe, No. 1, FEMA ought to be an independent agency. No. 2,
maybe we need a disaster response agency, which handles this. But I
also think we need to take a look at what would be our response and how
we would handle these others, like avian flu. Are we going to call FEMA
in? Is FEMA going to be avian flu? I don't know if we have to respond,
but I don't think so. I would hope not. But should we have a new
framework for that? What are the legal authorities? Can a President
supersede a Governor if necessary? These are the big questions. But I
believe we can create the right infrastructure. We can be ready for the
natural disasters, and so on.
I am going to conclude by saying that when we work together, and I
don't mean just us, but really work--we know how we have worked with
Delaware. Just a couple of months ago, there was a terrible accident in
a factory in West Virginia. The closest search and rescue team with
helicopters was in Maryland with our State police. But because they had
worked together, because they had trained together, because they knew
each other, could talk to each other, trusted each other, my wonderful
Maryland State troopers were able to go fly that 90 miles. The Coast
Guard was too far away, this up near our Appalachian region. In the
pitch blackness, with power lines around them when they couldn't see,
they went down and were able to rescue two, and for the third they
weren't sure whether he was going to get in the little basket that they
have, but they stayed to make sure they were going to leave no one
behind. Our State troopers did it, but they did it because they were
professional, they were trained, they had worked together, they had
trusted.
That is what they did that terrible night in West Virginia. It should
be a model of what we need. Let's work together, train together, and
trust each other. And that is why I supported this amendment to restore
FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it again as an independent
agency
northern border air wing initiative
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
my
[[Page S7406]]
friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, regarding funds that have been
included in Senator Byrd's amendment for Customs and Border Protection,
CBP, air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and
procurement.
The northern border air wing, NBAW, initiative was launched by the
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, 2004 to provide air and marine
interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the northern border.
Original plans called for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York,
Washington, North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan.
The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been operational since
2004. Unfortunately, not all of the sites have yet been established,
leaving large portions of our northern border unpatrolled from the air
and, in the case of my home State, the water. In the conference report
accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS appropriations bill, the
conferees noted that these remaining gaps in our air patrol coverage of
the northern border should be closed as quickly as possible.
Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, and others
who seek to enter our country illegally has not diminished, I believe
approximately $12 million of the funds included in Senator Byrd's
amendment for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and
procurement should be used by Customs and Border Protection to complete
the remaining activities necessary to prepare, equip, and establish the
Michigan NBAW site as Secretary Chertoff has indicated he would like to
be able to do.
In an April 11, 2006, letter to me, Secretary Chertoff indicated that
it was his Department's plan to open the Michigan site during the 2007
fiscal year, and the Byrd amendment will enable the Department to stick
to its schedule. Mr. President, I will ask that Secretary Chertoff's
letter and enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy from
earlier this year be printed in the Record.
Mr. BYRD. I agree with my friend from Michigan. I understand that
Secretary Chertoff has said that the establishment of the final
northern border air wings will be completed in fiscal year 2007. These
funds will help the Secretary meet his goal. My amendment, which was
cosponsored by the chairman of our subcommittee and adopted unanimously
by the Senate yesterday, provides $105 million for air and marine
interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement. Certainly, $12
million of those funds could go to Michigan for the establishment of
this important and final northern border air wing. I will work with the
chairman in conference to ensure that the border security funds are
retained in conference.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned
materials be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, April 11, 2006.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter from March
10, 2006 in which you requested clarification on the
Department of Homeland Security's plan for the opening of
additional Northern Border Air Wing sites in Fiscal Years
2006 and 2007. The Department is committed to enhancing our
Northern Border security through the establishment of the
needed air wings just as soon as the ground infrastructure,
air assets, and experienced personnel can be made available.
Consistent with my earlier testimony, the activation of the
Montana air wing at Great Falls is well underway and should
be completed by the end of this fiscal year. In Fiscal Year
2007, our objective remains the activation of the Michigan
site and the initiation of activity on the site in North
Dakota. This will give us a limited presence at all five of
the primary Northern Border Air Wing sites by the year's end.
Based on the operational experience gained on the Northern
Border and our continuing evaluation of available
intelligence, we will add or relocate air assets and
personnel among the five sites to provide the most
comprehensive patrol coverage and to support ground
interdiction operations. We may also establish a series of
secondary air sites and/or deploy unmanned aerial vehicles
along our border to enhance air coverage.
We have developed a fully integrated aviation plan that is
undergoing review within the Department. The plan details our
long-range objectives for enhancing border security through
the use of our air force and how we intend to achieve the
objectives over time. We look forward to sharing the plan
with Congress as soon as the review is complete. I believe
that the plan will underscore both the extensive work
accomplished to date and the challenges that face us. For
now, please find enclosed our responses to your specific
questions.
Thank you for your continuing support of our efforts to
secure our borders. If we may be of further assistance,
please contact the Department's Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 205-4412.
Sincerely,
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
____
Questions to Secretary Michael Chertoff from the Honorable
Carl Levin, United States Senate, dated March 10, 2006:
1. Will new Northern Border Air Wing Sites be established
in Michigan and North Dakota during FY07?
a. When will specific sites in Michigan and North Dakota be
selected?
b. When do you predict step sisters will be operational?
Response: Yes, the Department will begin the activation
process for new air sites in both Detroit, Michigan and the
Grand Forks area of North Dakota in FY 2007. The site survey
for Detroit has been completed and preliminary work to assess
hangar, maintenance, and support facility requirements is
ongoing. Air assets are being identified for transfer to the
site and staffing plans are being compiled. The FY 2006
appropriation provided $2 million for the North Dakota site
assessment, which is in progress and should be completed in
late May 2006. The relocation of air assets and experienced
personnel for both sites remains a challenge, and the
Department will have to close smaller, less valuable,
interior sites to su port the Northern Border site
activations. This should enable the Department to establish
initial presence at both sites by the end of FY 2007.
2. Does the President's FY07 budget request for DHS include
funding for the opening of Northern Border Air Wing sites in
Michigan and North Dakota?
a. If so, how much money has been budgeted for the opening
of the sites?
Response: The current cost to fully activate a single air
wing site is approximately $17 million ($12 million for
infrastructure, operations, and maintenance; $5 million for
staffing salaries and relocations), depending on specific
site requirements and other factors. The Department is
currently developing funding options to support the site
activations.
3. What criteria were used to determine the order of
Northern Border Air Wing sites to be opened?
Response: The order in which the border sites are activated
was based on the known level of aviation, marine, and ground
activity in each geographical area, combined with available
intelligence on the threat. This resulted in Bellingham, WA
and Plattsburgh, NY being activated first, with Great Falls,
MT and Detroit, MI to be activated second. Grand Forks, ND
was identified as the last of the primary sites to be
established.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC, March 10, 2006.
Hon. Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to request clarification
of the Department of Homeland Security's plans for opening
additional Northern Border Air Wing sites to complement the
current sites in Bellingham, Washington and Plattsburg, New
York. You have testified before the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee on several occasions that
the Department plans to open sites in Michigan, Montana, and
North Dakota in Fiscal Years (FY) 2006 and 2007. I strongly
support the Northern Border Air Wing initiative and look
forward to all five Northern Border Air Wing sites becoming
operational in the coming years.
During your testimony before the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee on March 1, 2006, you
indicated to the Committee that the Northern Border Air Wing
site in Montana would open in FY06, followed by the North
Dakota and Michigan sites in FY07. However, an analysis of
the President's FY07 budget request for DHS does not seem to
support your testimony since there are no funds designated
for the establishment of Northern Border Air Wing sites in
either North Dakota or Michigan.
In light of these discrepancies, I would appreciate your
response to the following questions:
(1.) Will new Northern Border Air Wing sites be established
in Michigan and North Dakota during FY07?
a. When will specific sites in Michigan and North Dakota be
selected?
b. When do you predict these sites will be operational?
(2.) Does the President's FY07 budget request for DHS
include funding for the opening of Northern Border Air Wing
sites in Michigan and North Dakota?
a. If so, how much money has been budgeted for the opening
of these sites?
(3.) What criteria were used to determine the order of
Northern Border Air Wing sites to be opened?
A Northern Border Air Wing site in Michigan will provide an
additional layer of air and marine border security along a
critical section of our Northern Border. The region for which
the Michigan site will be responsible encompasses at least
three of our Great
[[Page S7407]]
Lakes and several major ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway
including Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Green
Bay. In addition, Southeast Michigan is home to three of our
nation's busiest border crossings and an unparalleled
industrial base vital to our economy and national security. I
hope you agree that the establishment of a Northern Border
Air Wing site in Michigan is a national priority and I would
appreciate your timely response to the above questions.
Should your staff have any questions, please feel free to
have them contact Michael Noblet of my staff at (202) 224-
3999.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin.
____
customs and border protection
Mr. LEVIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my
friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and my friend from
North Dakota, Senator Conrad, regarding funds that have been
included in this bill for customs and border protection, CBP,
air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and
procurement.
The Northern Border Air Wing, NBAW, initiative was launched
by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, in 2004 to
provide air and marine interdiction and enforcement
capabilities along the Northern Border. Original plans called
for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, Washington,
North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan.
The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been
operational since 2004. Unfortunately, none of the other
three sites have yet been stood up, leaving large portions of
our Northern Border unpatrolled from the air. In the
conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS
appropriations bill, the conferees noted that these remaining
gaps in our air patrol coverage of the northern border should
be closed as quickly as possible.
Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers,
and others who seek to enter our country illegally has not
diminished, I believe an adequate portion of the funds
included in this bill for air and marine interdiction,
operations, maintenance, and procurement should be used by
customs and border protection to complete the remaining
assessments, evaluations, and other activities necessary to
prepare and equip the Michigan, North Dakota, and Montana
NBAW sites with appropriate CBP air and marine assets.
This bill requires that DHS submit an expenditure plan to
the appropriations committee before any of the funds may be
obligated. I urge DHS to include in their plan the funds
necessary to stand up, equip, and begin operations at the
three remaining northern border air wing sites in Michigan,
North Dakota, and Montana.
Mr. CONRAD. I agree with my friend from Michigan. The
fiscal year 2006 DHS appropriations bill included a small
amount of funds to begin initial preparations for a NBAW site
in my home state of North Dakota, but more funds are needed
for the site to become operational. Secretary Chertoff has
told us that the establishment of the three additional
northern border air wings will be complete in fiscal year
2007.
A small portion of the air and marine interdiction funds in
this bill would go a long way toward meeting this deadline
and the goal of securing our long and currently porous
northern border. I join Senator Levin in encouraging the DHS
to include funds sufficient to stand up and equip the North
Dakota, Michigan, and Montana sites.
Mr. GREGG. My friends from Michigan and North Dakota raise
important points. I agree the establishment and equipping of
the three remaining northern border air wings is a priority.
The northern border has long been neglected compared to the
southern border. As my colleagues are aware, funds were
appropriated in the fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act to initiate funding of the third
northern border air wing in North Dakota. I am committed to
seeing that the establishment of the remaining northern
border air wings is accomplished as expeditiously as possible
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________