[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 91 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7455-S7504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5441, which the clerk will report.
  The 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 and to direct the United States Sentencing 
     Commission to modify the sentencing guidelines to account for 
     such prohibition.
       Thune/Talent amendment No. 4610, 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.
       Vitter amendment No. 4615, 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.
       Menendez modified amendment No. 4634, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, we are now back on the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. My hope is, although this is not formalized as a 
unanimous consent agreement yet--but the understanding I have with the 
Senator from Washington was that the Senator from Pennsylvania would 
speak for about 15 minutes and then the opposition, if they wish to 
speak, would speak for 15 minutes. Then the Senator from Arizona, 
Senator Kyl, would speak for about 10 minutes on his amendment. Then 
there will be 10 minutes in opposition. Then we will go to a vote on 
those two amendments. Either--if they are merged, one vote; if they are 
not merged, two votes. Then we will go back to the Menendez amendment, 
the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
  I understand Senator Collins wishes to speak on that, and Senator 
Leahy wishes to speak. I am not sure what the time understanding is 
before we can get to a vote on the amendment of the Senator from New 
Jersey, but my hope would be we could go to a vote fairly promptly on 
that amendment after completing the votes on the amendments of Senator 
Kyl and Senator Santorum.
  I see the Senator from Washington is here. Is that her understanding?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would let my colleagues know we have 
several Members who want to come to the floor to speak. We are checking 
with several of the relevant committees. I am hoping over the course of 
the next hour or so we can figure out the timing on the votes the 
chairman requests.
  Mr. GREGG. At this time, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
ready to go and we will get started.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           amendment no. 4575

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4575 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) for himself 
     and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 4575.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 number of border patrol agents, to 2,500 
agents, and offset by increasing the availability of reverse mortgages 
                              for seniors)

       On page 70, line 3, strike ``$5,285,874,000; of which'' and 
     insert ``$5,459,135,000; of which $459,863,000 shall be for 
     1,500 additional Border Patrol Agents and the necessary 
     operational and mission support positions, information 
     technology, relocation costs, and training for those agents; 
     of which''.

[[Page S7456]]

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 540 (a) Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-20) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking the first sentence; and
       (B) by striking `established under section 203(b)(2)' and 
     all that follows through `located' and inserting `limitation 
     established under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act for a 1-family residence'; and
       (2) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking `limitations' and 
     inserting `limitation'.
       (b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall by 
     notice establish any additional requirements that may be 
     necessary to immediately carry out the provisions of this 
     section. The notice shall take effect upon issuance.''

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, let me say, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Kyl, we are working on two amendments that deal with the issue 
of border security. The first I am offering is an amendment to add 500 
additional border guards to the underlying bill. The President, in his 
budget request, suggested we increase the number of border guards to be 
trained this year to 2,500. One thousand of those were provided in the 
bill, but this would add an additional 500. The other 1,000 was 
provided in the emergency supplemental, which was passed earlier this 
year, which would bring us a total of 1,000, plus 1,000 in this bill, 
plus 500, to 2,500.
  The reason the subcommittee and the committee did not provide the 
additional 500 the President requested was because the President funded 
those additional 500 with a fee on airline flights. That was something 
the committee did not include in their mark and, as a result, didn't 
have the resources the President's budget request had to be able to 
fund these additional 500 guards.
  We have been working with Chairman Gregg and the ranking member to 
try to come up with an offset, understanding this bill is incredibly 
tight. There are a lot of priorities in the Department of Homeland 
Security. Trying to find offsets and taking money away from other vital 
areas of homeland security was a very difficult thing to do. As a 
result, I worked with the committee and came up with an offset that was 
used in the House of Representatives on another appropriations bill 
over there. It is an offset with which I am very familiar because it is 
a piece of legislation I actually introduced earlier this year having 
to do with reverse mortgages.
  Reverse mortgages are a very important tool that is used by some 
seniors in our society who have a lot of equity in their home but do 
not have a lot of income. They don't have a substantial stream of 
income to be able to support themselves in their retirement, so they 
have all this equity locked up and no ability to access that equity.
  The reverse mortgage program, sponsored and directed by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development--overseen by them--is a way 
to unlock that equity to be able to get income into the hands of our 
senior population. It is a pilot program now and has a cap of 250,000 
mortgages. What this amendment does is removes the cap, adjusts the 
amount of money that will be allowed--the size of these reverse 
mortgages--based on the geographic area of the country, to reflect the 
discrepancy in pricing of houses in those different geographic areas of 
our country.
  As a result, it will, because of these transactions, result in more 
income to the Federal Government, more revenue to the Federal 
Government. It is about $190 million. This would pay for the amendment 
I am offering to increase the number of border guards.
  In addition, there would be some additional money left over, which 
Senator Kyl, in a subsequent amendment, will address, to deal with the 
detention facilities and use up the remaining part of that money and 
some additional money in an offset that he has.
  It is a combination effort to try to help the subcommittee come up 
with additional resources which I am sure the chairman would love to 
do. The chairman has been excellent in the past several years, since 
the events of 9/11, in fully funding the requests from the 
administration--in fact, in some cases exceeding the requests from the 
administration in providing for border guards. I think he has said on 
the floor of the Senate that we have seen a 40-percent increase in 
border guards, in the number of border guards being trained and the 
number of border guards, period, in this country since the events of 9/
11.
  We have seen a substantial increase. I commend him for the priority 
he has put to that. But I understood the difficulties he had in trying 
to come up with the money to add the additional 500 the Department said 
they could train this year and that they need. This is a way to provide 
the additional resources, to do so without emergency designation, to do 
so without busting the budget, to do so with a legitimate offset that 
actually raises the money that could counter the expense in providing 
for the additional border guards.
  Obviously, this is an important issue. There is no issue I heard 
about more, over the past several months in particular as I traveled 
around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as the issue of defending our 
border. We passed an immigration bill in the Senate which was an 
attempt to increase the number of border guards, increase detention 
facilities, build new fences, improve our points of entry at our 
southern border. That is wonderful, if we can get a comprehensive 
immigration bill passed. If we get a piece of that immigration bill 
passed that deals with the border, I think that is a positive step in 
the right direction.
  That doesn't mean we can't do things right now in the normal process 
to improve the situation at the border. We have done that in prior 
appropriations bills as a result of the work of the chairman and 
ranking member, and we should continue to do so, whether we get an 
immigration reform bill ultimately passed this session of Congress.
  This is the opportunity for Congress to actually do something 
concrete and positive this year to enhance our border security--to 
increase the number of border guards up to the President's request and 
up to what the Department of Homeland Security says they can use this 
year and train this year.
  I am hopeful we will get support for this--again, if it is fully 
offset. It is something we have cleared through the Ways and Means 
Committee because this does raise revenue. When Chairman Thomas was on 
the Senate floor, I asked about the potential blue slip problem. We 
have gotten word we will clear that hurdle, if necessary.
  I obviously checked with Chairman Bond and the housing subcommittee. 
They have been very helpful in that regard. We have run all the traps. 
There is a solid offset, and it provides for a definite need in a very 
critical area of our national security; that is, our border presence.
  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. KYL. Madam 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. 4643

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Santorum 
amendment be laid aside for the purposes of me laying down an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, my amendment is similar to that laid down 
by Senator Santorum in that the offset comes from the same housing loan 
program. It is an effort to reach the President's full goal rather than 
what the appropriations bill was able to accommodate, but in this 
situation to reach that goal for detention spaces rather than 
additional Border Patrol. If you combine the two amendments, what we 
will have accomplished is to achieve the funding of the full number of 
Border Patrol agents the President wanted to add and the full number of 
detention spaces the President wanted to add. That is the simple 
explanation. There simply was not quite sufficient money available to 
the Appropriations Committee to achieve 100 percent of both of those 
goals. Those goals were stated in the President's budget with respect 
to detention spaces.
  I will describe the detention space problem in a moment, but the 
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request requested an additional 
6,700 beds. The legislation before the Senate funds an additional 
1,000. The supplemental appropriations bill we passed earlier

[[Page S7457]]

funded an additional 4,000. Adding those two together, you have 5,000 
new beds. Subtract that from the 6,700 the President said he needed 
when he submitted the budget and we have an additional 1,700 beds we 
need to acquire. This legislation appropriated the funds for the 
additional 1,700 beds and uses the offset Senator Santorum will trigger 
in his bill, as well.
  Why is it important to add these detention spaces? The primary reason 
is to end, once and for all, this program of catch and release. When we 
apprehend an illegal immigrant from a country other than Mexico, you 
cannot return that person to Mexico. The person is not a citizen of 
Mexico. We have to return that person to their country of origin. This 
is a very difficult thing to do.
  First of all, some of the countries will not take their people back. 
Others will only do so after a great deal of time and effort are 
expended in paperwork to take them back. There are something like 
40,000 Chinese nationals who need to go back to China but who are not 
being sent back to China.
  What happens to those people in the meantime? The program in the past 
has been, as I said, catch and then release them because there is no 
place to detain them pending their removal to their country of origin.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security would like to have enough 
detention space available that the people who need to be detained can 
be detained. They can be put on the airplane and sent back to their 
country of origin. The Secretary would like to expedite this removal so 
that in all cases it is done within a couple of weeks, if possible. 
Today, the average is about 3 weeks.
  The problem is, many people are apprehended and simply told to return 
in 3 weeks, 90 days, or whatever the period might be. Of course, most 
of them do not come back to be removed to their country of origin. That 
is the release part of it. As a result, we have a large population of 
illegal immigrants in this country from countries other than Mexico who 
have been apprehended, have been asked to come back so they can be sent 
back to their country of origin but who never come back to be sent 
back. Without the detention spaces, that is not going to stop. Once 
those detention spaces are available, the Secretary believes these 
illegal immigrants will cease coming here because the expense of their 
getting here is not going to be worth it since they will have the 
certain knowledge they will be apprehended, detained, and then sent 
back rather than detained and then released into our society, never to 
be heard from again.
  The President's 2007 budget did describe this practice of catch and 
release and described it as an unacceptable practice that must end. If 
we are going to end it, we need to have sufficient detention spaces, as 
the President pointed out, the additional 6,700 beds to accommodate 
these people.
  A number of Members have continually talked to the administration and 
the Department of Homeland Security about this problem. For one reason 
or another, it has always been a matter of, we need more detention 
spaces and we cannot accommodate this many people. It is a major 
breakthrough; the administration has finally calculated how many more 
spaces it needs and has begun the process of acquiring those spaces. We 
need to support the administration's full request and not simply get 60 
or 70 percent of it accomplished. We are not going to solve this 
problem of catch and release until we have sufficient detention space.
  It is also a security problem for the United States because in many 
cases we do not know the identities of these people. These are not 
simply Mexican nationals coming across. They could be people from 
China, Russia, Vietnam, or countries of special interest to the United 
States in the Middle East, for example, countries from which terrorists 
have come. As a result, it is important not to simply release these 
people into the interior of our country never to be heard from again. 
They carry false documents. We do not know their true identities. It is 
important when we apprehend them to detain them.
  Let me quote from a June 22 letter from me to the Department of 
Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff:

        . . . because DHS lacks the detention space to hold OTMs 
     [other than Mexican nationals] it necessarily releases 70 
     percent of them into the interior of the United States with a 
     Notice to Appear for an immigration hearing. Approximately 70 
     percent of those released failed to appear for their 
     hearings; of those who do appear, 85 percent fail to comply 
     with final orders of removal and remain illegally in the 
     United States. In effect, therefore, our national policy 
     amounts to ``catch and release,'' and raises significant 
     national security concerns. Moreover, it does nothing to 
     deter further illegal immigration by OTM's. Indeed, it may 
     have the opposite effect: A June 4th article in the San Diego 
     Union Tribune indicates that Brazilians, who make up a large 
     portion of the OTM's, actively seek out border patrol agents 
     after illegally crossing the border, so that they may get a 
     Notice to Appear and pass unmolested into the interior.

  In other words, it is actually a benefit for these people who have a 
piece of paper with them that, in effect, frees them from additional 
apprehension during this period of time prior to their notice to 
appear. When the time period is up and they are supposed to actually 
appear, they are gone. In the meantime, they basically had a free pass 
to travel wherever they want in the United States, unmolested by the 
Border Patrol or law enforcement.
  In a November 15, 2005, letter to Secretary Chertoff, I joined 
Senators McCain, Hutchison, and Cornyn in advising the Secretary that:

       . . . the Department should immediately resolve the ``catch 
     and release'' practice, under which these non-Mexican illegal 
     aliens are released into the interior due to lack of 
     detention space.

  The result of that was an effort by the Department of Homeland 
Security to identify what was necessary in order to achieve the goal. 
As I said, their determination was 6,700 beds, the number called for in 
the administration's budget.
  I applaud the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, Senator 
Gregg, for finding the funding to add an additional 1,000 beds to the 
4,000 that were put in the supplemental appropriations bill, also due 
to his efforts. The Committee on Appropriations has gone a long way 
toward getting this funding, but we are still not quite there.
  This legislation says this must be one of our priorities. As a 
result, having found a way to pay for it from other legislation, let's 
add these 1,700 so we can accommodate the full budget request of the 
President and say we have done everything we can to resolve this 
problem of catch and release.
  There are some additional things we could talk about here, but it is 
probably relatively uncontroversial for us to complete this job. If 
there is no opposition to this amendment, I don't think it is necessary 
for me to talk about some of the additional things we could discuss to 
make the case; that it is very important to stop this program of catch 
and release. I think almost everyone agrees with that proposition. My 
amendment is what is necessary to complete that unfinished business.
  I hope our colleagues would see the benefits of adding this to the 
bill and ensure we can complete the task of resolving this problem of 
catch and release.
  If there is further debate, I am happy to respond and cite additional 
information that I think will help make the case we need to do this, 
but I don't think it is a case that needs a great deal of elaboration. 
I ask my colleagues when we have the opportunity to vote on this, to 
support this amendment, as well as Senator Santorum's amendment, which 
I also wholeheartedly join in supporting. I am an original cosponsor of 
it.
  These are the two pieces of unfinished business we need to take care 
of in this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from 
Arizona. I am a cosponsor of his amendment as he is a cosponsor of 
mine. I am very sanguine about the opportunity to get both the 
detention facilities, the beds added, as well as the additional border 
guards the President requests. I think everyone in this Chamber has 
been very clear about the need for additional border security on both 
sides of the aisle. In fact, we voted on numerous amendments in the 
past offered by Members on both sides of the aisle to increase border 
security as well as to stop the catch-and-release policy.
  Here is an opportunity to have the President's budget request 
complied with, and to offset that is sort of a bonus. It is good public 
policy. We have

[[Page S7458]]

good public policy providing streams of income for our seniors at a 
difficult time in their life through the process of reverse mortgages, 
which was a pilot program that has worked very well and has broad 
support on both sides of the aisle.
  What we have in this amendment, as well as the amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona, is the opportunity to have a win-win situation. 
My understanding is, however, that--at least there is a rumor afoot--
some on the other side of the aisle have a problem with the offset, not 
that they have a problem--my understanding is they do not have a 
problem with the offset itself but that under the rules of the Senate 
there is a germaneness issue with respect to this particular offset on 
this particular piece of legislation.
  I hope we look to the merits of actually both pieces of legislation: 
One, the funding for detention facilities and for border guards, the 
need to do that, the need to do it in a fiscally responsible way, not 
adding to the deficit. On top of that, there is the good public policy 
that can be accomplished through the Reverse Mortgage Program--which, 
again, has broad support from both sides of the aisle and has terrific 
support within the senior community, the AARP, as well as so many other 
senior organizations, lending organizations, and the like who see the 
terrific advantage. This is a program overseen by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. It is a good public-private partnership 
that has the public component to ensure that seniors are not taken 
advantage of in these transactions. So it is a good win for our 
seniors, it is a good win for our border security, as well as getting 
rid of a very bad policy which is catch and release.

  So again, the point of germaneness has not been made, and maybe on 
second thought we will see that the actual public policy benefits of 
getting something done here in the U.S. Senate, of increasing border 
security, as well as improving the living conditions of our seniors, 
will be a good one-two punch to accomplish here today in the U.S. 
Senate. I hope we can do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, when I described my amendment, I neglected 
to send it to the desk, so I send the amendment to the desk at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 4643.

  Mr. KYL. 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 increase the number of Department of Homeland Security 
          detention bed spaces by 6,700 total beds in FY 2007)

       On page 75, line 8 strike ``$3,740,357,000; of which; and 
     insert ``$3,780,357,000; of which $40 million shall be 
     authorized for 1,700 additional detention beds spaces and the 
     necessary operational and mission support positions, 
     information technology, relocation costs, and training for 
     those beds; of which''.
       Sec.  At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
     20) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n) Authority To Insure Home Purchase Mortgage--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision in 
     this section, the Secretary may insure, upon application by a 
     mortgagee, a home equity conversion mortgage upon such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, when the 
     primary purpose of the home equity conversion mortgage is to 
     enable an elderly mortgagor to purchase a 1-to-4 family 
     dwelling in which the mortgagor will occupy or occupies one 
     of the units.
       ``(2) Limitation on principal obligation.--A home equity 
     conversion mortgage insured pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     involve a principal obligation that does not exceed the 
     dollar amount limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) 
     of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a 
     residence of the applicable size.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                    Amendment No. 4615, As Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 4615 and ask that it be modified according to 
the modification language already at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to do both actions.
  The amendment (No. 4615), as modified, is as follows:
       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 shall be used 
     for the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a 
     declaration or state of emergency.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors the following Senators: Chambliss, Roberts, Bunning, Allen, 
Baucus, Thomas, and Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this slightly modified amendment is the 
same amendment fundamentally that I described and talked about 
yesterday, only now it is fully germane--a pure limitation amendment 
which clearly can be and should be and will be considered and voted on 
in the context of this underlying bill.
  It would prohibit law enforcement officers from confiscating firearms 
from those who are in lawful possession of them just because it is a 
disaster situation. It would not prevent funding for law enforcement 
officers who confiscate firearms because someone is in violation of 
Federal, State, or local law. It simply says, law enforcement cannot, 
under their powers because it is an emergency situation, start 
confiscating firearms which are completely legal, which have been 
obtained completely lawfully, by law-abiding citizens.
  As I explained yesterday--and I want to repeat it very briefly now--
we talk about second amendment rights. We talk about the right and the 
need in some cases to defend your life and property. That is why the 
second amendment offers such fundamental and important constitutional 
rights.
  Yet at no time in our ordinary experience is that more important, 
more truly important, to the preservation and defense of one's life and 
property than in the sort of disaster situation we saw right after 
Hurricane Katrina.
  In the aftermath of that disaster, there was no communication. The 
police were cut off from enforcing their duties in many neighborhoods. 
And there was no ability for law enforcement to come to a citizen's 
call in light of an emergency. So a law-abiding citizen truly did, in 
many instances, depend on his firearm, his lawfully obtained legal 
firearm, protected by the second amendment for the defense of his 
property and literally, in some cases, his life and his family's life.
  Therefore, we should never allow the confiscation of those legal 
firearms in that desperate situation when they truly are essential for 
the preservation of life and property.
  Again, my amendment is very simple and straightforward in that 
regard. As it has now been modified, it is fully germane within the 
bounds of this bill.
  I look forward to my colleagues supporting it with a strong 
bipartisan vote because it is such a clear, commonsense, right thing to 
do.
  With that, Madam President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I appreciate the amendment of the Senator 
from Louisiana. I certainly intend to support it--strongly support it. 
I think it is an excellent amendment. I believe it is going to require 
a vote, however.
  We are now going to turn to the Senator from Connecticut who is going 
to offer an amendment with 30 minutes on that amendment, the Senator 
from Connecticut having control of 20 minutes and myself having control 
of 10 minutes. At the completion of the presentation of the Senator 
from Connecticut, I would hope we would be able to work out an 
agreement where we can go to a vote on the amendment by the Senator 
from Louisiana and a vote on the amendment of the Senator from 
Connecticut. That has not yet been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 4641

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to call up amendment No. 
4641, if I may, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a second?

[[Page S7459]]

  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
this amendment be 30 minutes, with 20 minutes allocated to the Senator 
from Connecticut and 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4641 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4641.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To fund urgent priorities for our Nation's firefighters, law 
 enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, and all Americans 
   by reducing the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in 
                         excess of $1,000,000)

       On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$12,083,500,000''.
       On page 91, line 8, strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,896,000,000''.
       On page 91, line 9, strike ``$350,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,027,000,000''.
       On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,789,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 1, strike ``$745,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,315,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 3, strike ``$210,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,216,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 9, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$30,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 11, strike ``$12,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$69,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 13, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$869,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 17, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$290,000,000''.
       On page 94, line 17, strike ``$655,000,000, of which 
     $540,000,000'' and insert ``$3,794,000,000, of which 
     $3,128,000,000''.
       On page 94, line 19, strike ``$115,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$666,000,000''.
       On page 95, line 5, strike ``$205,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,187,000,000''.
       On page 96, line 6, strike ``$45,887,000'' and insert 
     ``$265,800,000''.
       On page 96, line 12, strike ``$525,056,000, of which 
     $442,547,000'' and insert ``$3,041,200,000, of which 
     $2,554,608,000''.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague 
from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, be added as an original cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if the Chair would inform me when the 
Senator from Connecticut has consumed 15 minutes, I would appreciate 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise this morning to offer this 
amendment that seeks to meet some of the domestic security needs of our 
Nation as demonstrated by a distinguished group of experts in public 
policy, national security, and public health. This is not an amendment 
that I have crafted on my own. Rather, this amendment reflects the 
tremendous work done by our former colleague, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Warren Rudman, who authored this report under the auspices 
of the Council on Foreign Relations back in 2003, along with a very 
distinguished group of Americans who brought a wealth of talent to that 
report, making significant recommendations as to how we might 
strengthen the ability of first responders in this country to deal with 
the national security threats posed by terrorist organizations.
  Obviously, all of us here are more than aware of these threats not 
only because of the events of 9/11, when we were victimized by the 
attacks of al-Qaida, but because we have witnessed the tragic events in 
Madrid and London, and most recently, the train bombings near Mumbai, 
India, where terrorist attacks have taken the lives of innocents. Once 
again, we realize that we are very, very vulnerable.
  Warren Rudman has warned us of this vulnerability. A distinguished 
group of Americans, who I will identify in a moment, have warned us. I 
will be offering an amendment now for the fourth time since 2003 urging 
my colleagues to support an effort to put some very meaningful 
resources to bear when it comes to the needs of our first responders 
all across this country.
  As I mentioned, this is the fourth year I have offered my amendment, 
along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. And I thank 
her immensely for her tireless efforts in this regard as well.
  The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to fund the 
urgent priorities of our Nations's firefighters, law enforcement 
personnel, emergency medical personnel, transportation systems, and 
critical infrastructure, such as our ports and chemical plants around 
the country.
  The amendment would pay for these vital priorities by lowering the 
tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million.
  Politics is always about choices. Choices are never easy. To pay for 
this, I have to come up with an offset. I realize that. But it seems to 
me if we cannot make the simple choice of asking those who are the most 
affluent in our society to reduce, for a period of time--not totally--
but just reduce, by a small amount, the amount of the tax break they 
would be getting over the next few years in order to fund the needs we 
have in our communities across this country--it is not a difficult 
choice to make.
  I suspect if we surveyed the Americans who are making this kind of an 
income, as to whether or not they would be willing to forego the size 
of the tax cut they would be getting in order to properly fund these 
efforts, I suspect those Americans, as patriots, would be more than 
willing to make that kind of a sacrifice, if you wish to call it such, 
in order to properly fund the efforts that have been identified by 
Americans who know what they are talking about when it comes to our 
national security needs.
  Four years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations--which I mentioned 
already--convened an independent task force to identify the challenges 
faced by our Nation in preventing and responding to acts of terrorism. 
This group was chaired, as I mentioned, by our former colleague, 
Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.
  The task force, in June of 2003, issued a very comprehensive report 
entitled: ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously 
Unprepared.'' That was the report issued in 2003.
  Senator Rudman was joined on this task force by a very distinguished 
group of Americans. Let me name some of them, not all of them: George 
Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, Secretary of the 
Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget; William Webster, former Director of the Centra Intelligence 
Agency; Charles Boyd, the chief executive officer and president of 
Business Executives for National Security; Margaret Hamburg, the vice 
president for biological weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and 
former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the 
Department of Health and Human Services; Donald Marron, former chairman 
of UBS America; James Metzl, former staff member of the National 
Security Council, the Department of State, and former staff director of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Norman Ornstein, resident 
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Anne-Marie Slaughter, 
dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs 
at Princeton University; and Harold Varmus, president and chief 
executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center--and on 
and on, just to give you some idea of who the authors of this task 
force are.

  All I have done is taken their recommendations and put them into 
legislative form. These are not Dodd proposals. These are proposals 
that our former colleague, along with the individuals I have just 
mentioned, have asked us to do. They told us 3 years ago the things we 
must do to be better prepared to deal with our threats. These are their 
ideas, not mine. I am just taking their ideas and putting them in 
legislative form, along with my colleague from Michigan, and asking our 
colleagues to get behind this and to pay for this by reducing, ever so 
marginally, the amount of the tax break that individuals making more 
than $1 million a year would otherwise be receiving.
  I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator 
Judd Gregg--we are good friends--and Senator Byrd. They have a very 
difficult task, along with the other members who serve on the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee. It is not an easy job at all, and 
I recognize that. However, concerning the needs of our

[[Page S7460]]

emergency responders and our critical infrastructure, I think we are 
faced with a problem that is far more significant than the budget cap 
requirements placed on these appropriations bills.
  I think we will come back and revisit this if we are faced with the 
kind of tragedies I think all of us know are out there, when we look 
back and ask why we didn't do what needed to be done when Warren Rudman 
and others warned us about what would happen if we didn't provide the 
kind of support we are asking for. We would be told at some later date: 
Well, you see, there was a budget cap here where we mandated we could 
not do any better than what the budget cap required of us. I think we 
will come back to rue those words. I think we will regret it deeply 
that we did not provide the kind of support being recommended by this 
distinguished panel of Americans.
  If the tragic events in Madrid and London, the alleged plot to 
destroy the Holland Tunnel, and most recently the train bombings in 
India say anything to us at all, it is that we must renew and redouble 
our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism here at home.
  The Rudman report only underscores, in my view, the sense of urgency 
that we ought to have about protecting our country from the risk of 
terrorism. However, the needs of our communities far exceed the limited 
resources we have been given in this bill. Again, I have respect for 
Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. They have a very difficult job. I will 
be the first to admit that.
  In fact, what I am asking for in this amendment is to spend $20 
billion a year for 5 years, to hire, equip, and train first responders 
and to better protect our critical infrastructure from attack. This 
bill spends only roughly $4 billion a year, only about a fifth of what 
we are told by the Rudman report is urgently needed.
  Again, we are faced here with a point of order that I know will be 
raised against this amendment because it violates the cap. And I will 
be asking to waive that budget point of order when either my colleague 
from New Hampshire raises it or someone he designates does. But I am 
asking my colleagues, do not let yourself cast a vote here that I think 
we will come to regret down the road.
  How many more warnings do we need to have as a nation? We are not 
isolated in the world. We are not that well protected. What happened in 
India, what happened in Madrid, what happened in London, what happened 
here only 5 years ago will happen again. We need to provide the kind of 
protection that our constituents demand of us.
  The Rudman report must not become yet another report collecting dust 
on a forgotten shelf--and that is my fear--until once again we are 
struck and wonder why we did not take these steps called for in that 
report.
  Let me read, if I may, briefly, the conclusions of the report. Listen 
to their words. If my words do not move you, listen to the words 
authored 3 years ago by the people on this distinguished panel of 
Americans, authored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Listen to what 
they said 3 years ago. And I quote them. They, and Senator Rudman, said 
the following:

       The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American 
     people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale 
     had never been carried out on U.S. soil. The United States 
     and the American people were caught under-protected and 
     unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them.
  He goes on to say:

       In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the 
     threat or of what the United States must do to prepare for 
     future attacks can no longer explain America's continuing 
     failure to allocate sufficient resources in preparing local 
     emergency responders. It would be a terrible tragedy indeed 
     if it took another catastrophic attack to drive the point 
     home.

  Madam President, I do not think any words can express the problem 
before us more clearly than those of Senator Rudman. It would be a 
terrible tragedy if it took another catastrophic attack to drive this 
point home.
  I would also like to quote from the foreword of this report written 
by Les Gelb, who is the former president of the Council on Foreign 
Relations. Listen to what he had to say at the conclusion of that 
report:

       As I sit to write this foreword, it is likely that a 
     terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to 
     attack the United States and/or American interests abroad 
     using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or 
     catastrophic conventional means. At the same time, diplomats, 
     legislators, military and intelligence officers, police, 
     fire, and emergency medical personnel, and others in the 
     United States and across the globe are working feverishly to 
     prevent and prepare for such attacks. These two groups of 
     people are ultimately in a race with one another. This is a 
     race we cannot afford to lose.

  Again, I can stand here for the next hour and a half or 2 hours. I 
don't think any words I can utter are going to be as serious as the 
ones authored by Warren Rudman or Les Gelb. These groups, those that 
are somewhere in the world as I am standing here on the floor of the 
Senate, are preparing to attack us again. I know that. Every one of my 
colleagues knows that is going on. And simultaneously, there are people 
in Alaska, Connecticut, and New Hampshire that are doing everything 
they possibly can to protect us. Two groups, one wants to attack us; 
the other is trying to prepare against that attack. It is a race, and 
we are being asked by people who know what is going on to provide 
adequate funding so that the group that defends us will have the means 
to protect us.
  I am asking for the fourth time in 3 years to break this cap and do 
what ought to be done to give our Nation the kind of protection it 
deserves.
  In October 2002, several months prior to the issuance of the Rudman 
report, the Council on Foreign Relations convened yet another task 
force, the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security, which issued 
the report ``America: Still Unprepared, Still in Danger.'' This task 
force was cochaired by Senator Rudman and another of our former 
colleagues, Senator Gary Hart of Colorado. They came to the general 
conclusion:

       America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and 
     respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

  The report further warned:

       America's own ill-prepared response could hurt its people 
     to a much greater extent than any single attack by a 
     terrorist [and] the risk of self-inflicted harm to America's 
     liberties and way of life is greatest during, immediately, 
     and following a national trauma.

  Here we have two seminal reports issued within 8 months of each 
other, essentially sounding an alarm to policymakers. We are the 
policymakers. We the ones who have to make the decision as to whether 
or not resources are going to be there. We hear the alarm further 
strengthened each year by our States, localities, and first responders 
who request more resources to adequately protect those to whom they are 
entrusted. Yet for all practical purposes, the vast bulk of these 
reports and requests continue to fall on deaf ears here in the U.S. 
Congress.
  The funding level I am proposing in this amendment is over $16 
billion. It is a huge amount of money. I recognize that. It supplements 
the approximately $4 billion that the underlying measure devotes to 
emergency responders and infrastructure security.
  Together the bill and the amendment provide $20 billion in emergency 
responder funding over the next year. Again, this is not my 
recommendation. This is the recommendation of these individuals who 
have spent a lot of time looking at the issue and believe this is what 
is necessary. In fact, they might argue for more because that 
recommendation was made almost 4 years ago. So there is no factor built 
in for inflation or other costs that may have increased. I assume that 
number, if they were writing it today, may be larger. But I will still 
use the number from 4 years ago.
  I understand that the need for a budget resolution to set caps on 
appropriations bills. Effective budget resolutions are those that 
achieve balance. They curb reckless spending while providing sound 
investment in our domestic and foreign priorities. Unfortunately, I 
don't find the current budget resolution and the caps it has imposed as 
balanced at all. And while constraining our ability to invest 
adequately in our emergency responders and domestic security, the 
resolution is projected to increase the national deficit by $296 
billion in the coming year, principally because it seeks to make 
permanent tax cuts that are way too generous and that benefit primarily 
the most affluent in society.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 14 minutes.

[[Page S7461]]

  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. I will take another 5 minutes, if I may.
  The report before us presents an uncomfortable reality that we have 
to face as a country. I certainly applaud the hard work that has been 
done, as I mentioned earlier. Yet as the tragedy in India vividly 
showed us on Tuesday, n nation, including ours, is invulnerable. We 
still possess weaknesses in our domestic security and our domestic 
infrastructure that must be strengthened. For over 3 years now we have 
possessed, in the form of the Rudman and Hart reports, a clear message 
from our most qualified experts that we need to do more to prepare 
ourselves. And while I recognize that this amendment is expensive, this 
cost will pale in comparison if we are hit and unprepared to respond to 
it. This cost will be minor.

  We all agree that $16 billion is a considerable sum. In fact, it 
represents roughly half the cost of the underlying bill. However, our 
country continues to spend between $4 billion and $5 billion every 
month in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly a billion dollars a week. So we 
are talking about 16 weeks of investment, if you want to look at it in 
those terms, in Iraq as to whether or not we ought to be talking about 
similar investments here at the local level.
  This is funding that would not be wasted. The Rudman report clearly 
states the need for more resources. The demands we hear from our States 
and localities and first responders clearly state the need is there. 
Our ports have identified $8.4 billion to meet Federal security 
requirements. That is their assessment. Our transit agencies have 
identified $6 billion to make trains and buses and other forms of 
transit safer for passengers. Our firefighters and first responders 
demonstrate over $4 billion in needs annually so that they may perform 
their critical duties more safely. That is the conclusion coming from 
our transit agencies, port authorities, and firefighters. Those are 
their recommendations.
  Again, I have asked my colleagues in the past to be supportive. I 
have not succeeded when I have offered this. But I offer it again 
because of what happened just a few days ago, halfway around the world 
in Mumbai, India. How many more times do we have to be reminded of what 
can and is likely to happen here again and whether or not we will be 
prepared to respond to it.
  Warren Rudman and the people who worked with him to make these 
recommendations are serious individuals. These are Democrats, 
Republicans, people who have served as distinguished public policy 
setters over the last 25 years, from the Central Intelligence Agency to 
the Secretary of State to the national security agencies. These are not 
people who casually recommend the numbers they have. They studied the 
issue carefully. They believe it is the proper amount to request.
  I am taking their suggestions, their words, their numbers, and 
offering to my colleagues an opportunity to take a report that is 
serious in its intent, serious in its proposals, and asking my 
colleagues to endorse it by breaking down this cap and offsetting the 
cost by the means I have suggested.
  At the appropriate time, if a budget point of order is raised, I will 
move to waive that Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays so that my 
colleagues can be heard on this issue once again. I hope that on a 
bipartisan basis we can say to our colleagues who chair the committees 
and the subcommittees, my good friend from Washington, my good friend 
from New Hampshire--they do a tremendous job in this area--but I think 
the clear message from the Rudman report is that we need to do a better 
job. The American people expect nothing less. I will ask for a vote 
when that occurs.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe I have 10 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I am a great admirer of the Senator from 
Connecticut. He is obviously a significant force within the Senate. He 
has a lot of good ideas. He thinks big. This amendment is another 
example of that in some ways in that this amendment would cost $16.5 
billion. The bill we brought forward to the floor for Homeland Security 
is a $32 billion bill. What he is suggesting is that we increase the 
authorized amount in this bill by half. It is for accounts which 
already have a large amount of money headed in their direction, first 
responder accounts.
  We have spent, since we began this effort, over $14 billion on first 
responders. Of that $14 billion, however, that was authorized to be 
spent, only $6 billion has actually been spent. In other words, the 
States and localities, which have the right to this money, have put in 
place plans to spend money for first responders, but they have only 
been able to plan in a wa that was appropriate to the point where they 
have been able to use $6 billion. So we actually still have $8 billion 
in the pipeline before this bill is passed.

  When this bill is passed, we are going to add another $2.4 billion to 
the pipeline. So that instead of having $8 billion available to be 
spent, we will be up to approximately $10.5 billion that will be 
available and it has not been spent.
  Now the Senator from Connecticut comes along and says we need to put 
another $16 billion on top of that $10 billion, when we already know 
that the communities and States haven't been able to spend effectively 
the money that is available already, plus the additional money that we 
are going to provide through this bill.
  Yes, the Rudman Commission came forward with a series of proposals. 
Quite honestly, I am obviously a great admirer of Warren Rudman. He was 
my predecessor, and he was an incredibly strong and effective Senator. 
He has remained a significant force for a lot of good things, including 
national security issues, intelligence issues. And his work maintaining 
the integrity of the financial community has been exceptional. But the 
report that they put together is a bit stale in many ways because of 
all the money we put in the pipeline. It is also a touch stale because 
if you really wanted to spend $16.5 billion on top of the money that we 
have in this bill, I am not absolutely sure that I would put it on top 
of the money that is sitting there because it wouldn't get used that 
quickly.
  If you really want to provide these types of resources and you want 
to raise taxes to do so, you might want to put it on the border, into 
the Coast Guard, into intelligence. If you want to stop the next 
attack, the way you will stop it is through intelligence and through 
border security, especially if you are looking at weapons of mass 
destruction.
  There are things that need to be done that maybe could use some more 
resources. To put $16 billion on top of $10 billion which hasn't been 
spent yet and say you have solved some problem, I don't think solves 
any problems, quite honestly. I think it is a statement, yes. But these 
cities and towns in the next year aren't going to draw down the $10 
billion that is available to them so they are certainly not going to 
draw down the $16 billion.
  My view on the first responder issue has been that we put so much 
money in the pipeline that it is sort of like putting a fire hose in 
the system. They haven't been able to handle the money yet. As they 
work through the system and can handle that money, then we will put in 
more money.
  I am willing to raise first responder dollars, although we have done 
a pretty good job in this account already with $2.4 billion. But I 
don't want to use resources that can get me an instant bang for the 
dollar, such as putting a new Border Patrol agent on the border, which 
is what we have done, rather than put in a dollar that is going to sit 
in the Treasury for 2 or 3 years while communities get their act 
together.
  I don't think from a policy standpoint this type of expenditure is 
necessarily the priority I would choose. From a pure budget standpoint, 
let's face it, this is the biggest increase I have seen proposed on 
this bill. There have been others. Senator Biden proposed to add a 
billion dollars of new money for rail transit, but this is $16.5 
billion. That is a huge amount of money.
  The title of the amendment says it is going to be paid for by tax 
increases. It doesn't say what tax increases. The Senator from 
Connecticut says we are going to be taxing the rich. The amendment 
doesn't say it is going to be taxing anybody. Its title says it is 
going to tax. There is no operative language for taxes.
  So it is actually not even paid for. It is not paid for under the 
terms of the

[[Page S7462]]

amendment. In my opinion, this type of tax-and-spend amendment is not 
justified, and it is very hard, in the context of the budget process 
and in what we have already done in these accounts, to justify. I 
oppose it.
  At the proper time, I will make a point of order against the 
amendment as exceeding our budget cap. I don't think the policy demands 
it, and I certainly think the number is far out of anything that is 
logical in the context of what we are trying to deal with relative to 
setting up homeland security and making sure it is effectively pursued 
in this country.
  At the termination of this debate, I hope we can get to a vote on 
Senator Vitter and Senator Dodd. We are waiting to hear from the other 
side of the aisle whether they are going to allow us to vote on Vitter. 
I think in the next 5 minutes we may have a couple of votes. We are 
still awaiting word, for the information of our colleagues.
  I reserve the remainder of my time
  Mr. DODD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 14 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Let me quickly attempt to rebut my friend from New 
Hampshire on these issues. I didn't make up these numbers. These are 
from our States and localities. They are telling us these are their 
needs; it is not just in the Rudman report. Their request of 4 years 
ago, based on the cost of items they thought were necessary then, has 
obviously gone up. Our ports identified $8.4 billion. That is not my 
request. These are serious people who are running our ports across the 
country. They need $8.4 billion to meet Federal security requirements; 
transit agencies, $6 billion. That is what they are telling us they 
need; firefighters, first responders, an additional $4 billion. Even by 
the chairman's estimation, we are $10 billion short of what needs to be 
done. I expect they are certainly making an effort, but it falls way 
short of what we are being told are the needs across the country.
  Again, I am prohibited from getting too specific about this. My 
colleagues on the committee can make that decision. I think I am 
correct in that, but I suggest that if you were to ask patriotic 
Americans who have incomes of more than a million dollars a year 
whether they would be willing to forgo some of the tax break they are 
getting--not a tax increase but some of the tax break they are 
getting--to pay for this, they would agree.
  We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq alone. This is calling for 
$16 billion--16 weeks of what is spent for the effort in Iraq--to make 
us more secure at home. I don't hear any great complaints about the 
billion dollars a week we are spending in that particular effort. Yet 
we cannot find the resources to make us more secure at home.
  I urge my colleagues to be supportive of the amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent to add my colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman, as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe I have about 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to reiterate the fact that we 
already have $8 billion in the pipeline. We are going to have $10.5 
billion, which has not been spent after this bill is passed. This 
amendment is a $16 billion plus-up on a bill that cost $32 billion. It 
is a massive expansion. It will basically be going into an account at 
Homeland Security and won't be spent because they cannot spend the 
money they already have. It is a proposal that is simply not going to 
have the policy impact the Senator hopes for.
  I know the Senator has alluded a couple of times to how much we are 
spending in Iraq, which is an immense amount of money. But we have 
soldiers on the ground in Iraq. We have equipment that has to be 
replaced there. We are fighting a war in Iraq. So I am sure the Senator 
isn't suggesting that we take the money from Iraq and move it over to 
the Homeland Security Department. I am just using that as an example. 
But the war in Iraq is being fought within the context of the budget. 
In this instance, this would be way outside of the budget.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and make a point of 
order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the 
amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--62

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). On this vote, the yeas are 38, 
the nays are 62. 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 amendment falls.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time what we are going to do--and I 
will make a unanimous consent request to this effect--is we are going 
to recognize the Senator from Maryland to make two points on 
germaneness: one relative to Senator Santorum's amendment and one 
relative to Senator Kyl's amendment. At the conclusion, we are going to 
recognize the Senator from Texas for up to 10 minutes. Then we are 
going to recognize the Senator from Maine for up to 20 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent that what I have stated be the order.
  At the same time, I further ask unanimous consent that while this 
action is pending, I not lose the right of priority relative to making 
a second-degree amendment on the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator from New Hampshire did not provide me any opportunity to 
respond to the Senator from Maryland. I would like 2 minutes to 
respond.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would amend the request to have the 
Senator from Pennsylvania speak in response to the motion of the 
Senator from Maryland for up to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thought the request on this side was 
going to be----
  Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Maryland, in making his motion, will 
have 3 minutes to debate them, or respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not object to that, but I ask that following the Senator from Maine, 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, have 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request as modified?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Kyl amendment.

[[Page S7463]]

  Mr. SARBANES. I would ask the chairman of the committee, does he want 
to do the Kyl amendment first?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that is probably a good idea, to do 
the Kyl amendment first.


                           Amendment No. 4643

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I make a point of order that Kyl 
amendment No. 4643 is a rule XVI violation. It is legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. SARBANES. And the amendment falls, I take it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the amendment does fall.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is now the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Santorum amendment is now pending.


                           Amendment No. 4575

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the 
Santorum amendment No. 4575 is a violation of rule XVI. It is 
legislation on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as Senator Kyl and I discussed earlier, 
this is an attempt to try to find an offset to basically increase the 
cap for this appropriations bill by finding an offset of a little over 
$200 million so we could fully fund the border security request from 
the President, from the Department of Homeland Security, for 2,500 
border guards and increase the detention facilities to the amount that 
the President requested in his budget. This amount comes from a 
provision that lifts the cap on the number of reverse mortgages that 
will be available to our seniors to help them provide for themselves 
where they have a high amount of equity in their homes and not a 
sufficient stream of income. So what this legislation would do is 
provide that initial income by allowing more reverse mortgages to be 
authorized from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  Unfortunately, we did understand this is subject to a point of 
germaneness, but this is good public policy, and it has bipartisan 
support. It happens to come up with basically the amount of money that 
we needed to provide for both fully funding border guards and fully 
funding detention facilities. So my hope was that--as is the case in 
many appropriations bills--we set aside the issue of germaneness, and 
we deal with the substantive issue, which is this is good public policy 
and it accomplishes another good public policy, which is to provide for 
the border guards.
  I am disappointed that the point of germaneness was raised. There 
certainly is a point to be held here. I was hoping that it would not be 
raised and we could vote on the merits of the bill. I think it is an 
unfortunate occurrence, but the Senator has the right to make that 
point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I have no problem with the purpose in 
terms of the program that the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to 
implement, but I think this is a classic example of why we should not 
legislate on appropriations bills. This cap was increased last year 
from 150,000 to 250,000 reverse mortgages for senior citizens. Yet, 
there have been some reports of some concerns that there is a certain 
amount of fee gouging taking place with respect to senior 
citizens. This amendment would remove the cap altogether. It seems to 
me that there ought to be an effort to look into and address some of 
these concerns rather than just further increasing the program.

  This is an important program for senior citizens, and we are hopeful 
it is working. We have been testing it out. We had an original cap of 
150,000. Subsequently, this was raised to 250,000. The amendment also, 
of course, increases the loan limits. So there are some very 
substantive changes being made by this proposal with respect to this 
program. It seems to me it calls for the invoking of rule XVI and an 
opportunity to examine the substance of the program in a more careful 
way. That is the basis of raising the rule XVI point of order. I think 
this fits classically into the rationale for that ruling being part of 
the rules of the Senate.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute. Mr. SANTORUM.
  Mr. President, again I respect the Senator's right to do this. 
Certainly a point of germaneness lies here. I suggest this legislation 
is supported by every senior group of which I am aware--AARP, mortgage 
bankers, a whole host of other organizations that see this as a 
tremendous opportunity to help low-income seniors who have equity bound 
up in their homes and have no way to access that in an affordable 
fashion.
  This is a regulated area. I know we had a hearing of the committee 
not too long ago to look at this. HUD is concerned about fees, as the 
Senator from Maryland said. But they feel very comfortable that this is 
a program which can and should be expanded. While it doesn't look as if 
we are going to get this accomplished today, hopefully we can get it 
accomplished in the future. The House did adopt it in the TTHUD bill 
over in the House to help provide additional resources in the TTHUD 
bill in the House. Whether we get this accomplished here today or in 
the House bill, I am hopeful this legislation can move forward.
  Mr. SARBANES. Is there time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. SARBANES. I say briefly, I hope in any effort to expand it we can 
address the concern that has been expressed about fees, including by 
HUD itself, because, although this is a very good program and it is 
very important to seniors, in the course of this program being utilized 
we don't want to start drifting down the path of predatory lending--I 
guess I would call it reverse predatory lending. That is why I believe 
we need to include that kind of analysis in any expansion of the 
program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I offered a commonsense 
amendment that would help secure our broken immigration system, at 
least in part. This is an amendment which would have helped the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol execute what is 
known as catch and return--or expedited return--rather than the current 
catch and release program that the Department has been engaged in when 
it comes to people who come illegally into our country from places 
other than Mexico.
  Last year, 1.1 million people were detained coming across our 
southern border, and 250,000 of those--about a quarter--came from 
countries other than Mexico. The fact is that South America, Central 
America, and Mexico itself have become a land bridge for people from 
around the world seeking to come through our southern border into the 
United States.
  The only way we are going to be able to begin to deal with this is to 
create a real deterrence that convinces people that if they attempt to 
immigrate illegally across our southern border, they will not only be 
detained but they will be returned to their country of origin without 
any delay.
  Because of a lack of personnel and because of inadequate policies, we 
have had what has literally come to be known as a catch and release 
policy. In other words, people who come from Mexico can be returned 
literally the same day. But if you come from countries other than 
Mexico, it takes on average about 2 months to return those individuals 
to their country of origin because of the need to process the 
paperwork, get permission of that country to return the foreign 
national to that country, and the like.

  The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael 
Chertoff, has specifically said that this is a key to the success of 
our expedited removal program, which will finally allow us to create 
some deterrence when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system 
and border security controls.
  I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Chertoff's letter of March 27, 
2006, endorsing this amendment's approach be printed in the Record at 
the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Specifically what this amendment would do is deal with El 
Salvadoran immigrants who are the

[[Page S7464]]

subject of the so-called Orantes injunction. This was issued by the 
Federal court in Los Angeles in 1988, and still exists today, which 
inhibits the Department's ability to use expedited removal when it 
comes to Salvadorans. It is clear when you compare the track record for 
the Salvadoran population as opposed to those from other countries that 
expedited removal works. But for this injunction, which impedes the 
ability of the Department to use the expedited removal, I believe we 
would see a tremendous level of deterrence which would help, in 
connection with everything else we are doing, to discourage illegal 
immigration into our country.
  The only reason I stand here today and am talking about this 
amendment and I am not able to ask for an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment and to implement this request from the Department of Homeland 
Security which will help us fix our broken border security system, 
which will allow us to use expedited removal, is because the Democratic 
leader sought, by use of a procedural motion last night about 6 
o'clock, to make a set of circumstances where we could not have a vote 
on that amendment.
  I think this is another test, a test of our will, a test of our 
national resolve to fix our broken immigration system and to secure our 
borders. Unfortunately, due to the action of the Democratic leader 
yesterday, I believe that is a further indication that we are failing 
that test.
  The American people want us to act decisively to fix this problem. 
They recognize this is a Federal issue, that only the Federal 
Government can deal with our international borders and provide the kind 
of security that will allow us to know who is coming into our country 
and why individuals are getting here. We know many of them want to come 
here to work, to seek a greater opportunity. We all understand that on 
a very human level. But the same porous borders that allow workers to 
come across allow gang members, allow common criminals, 
narcotraffickers, and, yes, even terrorists to enter our country 
without our knowing it only to do their mischief at a later time.
  I believed it was incumbent upon me to come to the Chamber to explain 
my deep disappointment in this procedural move that was engaged in by 
the Democratic leader yesterday, which has denied us an opportunity to 
have a vote on this important amendment, one endorsed by the Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security and one which I believe is 
absolutely essential to our restoring credibility to our border 
security efforts by enabling our Border Patrol to use this well-
recognized mechanism of expedited removal and deterrence.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 2006.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: Thank you for your support of critical 
     injunction reform legislation, which will significantly 
     enhance our ability to end ``catch and release'' of non-
     Mexican illegal aliens apprehended on the Southwest border. 
     We urgently need Congress to pass this legislation so that we 
     can ensure that long-outdated court decisions do not 
     frustrate our efforts to secure the border.
       We have made great strides in increasing the number of non-
     Mexican illegal aliens detained for removal along the 
     Southwest border. Indeed, most individuals from Central and 
     South America, other than Salvadorans and family groups, are 
     now detained for prompt removal upon apprehension at the 
     Southwest border. But we are stymied in making further 
     progress because of a 1988 court order that has impeded our 
     ability to quickly remove Salvadorans caught after they 
     illegally cross our borders.
       This 1988 court decision was issued at a time when El 
     Salvador was in the midst of a civil war and when immigration 
     was governed by very different statutes, yet it continues to 
     dictate our handling of Salvadorans. On November 17, 2005, we 
     fully explained to the district court the dramatic changes in 
     the facts and law that have occurred since the entry of its 
     perpetual injunction in 1988. We asked the district court to 
     lift its order in November, but we have no firm date for when 
     this process will reach its conclusion in the district court 
     or on appeal.
       Other longstanding civil injunctions, including one that 
     was issued 30 years ago, likewise impede our ability to 
     effectively enforce the immigration laws. These district 
     court decisions have created onerous operating procedures 
     requiring the commitment of vast amounts of government 
     resources. They detrimentally impact immigration enforcement 
     on a daily basis and often frustrate our efforts. One such 
     other order has resulted in the creation of extra procedures 
     requiring substantial additional resources for routine visa 
     processing. Another injunction has resulted in certain 
     Freedom of Information Act requests being given priority over 
     other pressing work. Invasive court-ordered requirements, for 
     all practical purposes, hamstring the authority of the 
     President and the Congress over the borders. Yet the 
     conditions which gave rise to such requirements may have 
     changed.
       Under current law and court procedures, it can be extremely 
     time-consuming and difficult to end these injunctions. With 
     this legislation, Congress will be taking significant steps 
     to ensure that we are no longer hostage to these old, out-of-
     date, court orders.
       Because of the urgent need, I strongly encourage you to 
     attempt to move this legislation both as free-standing 
     legislation and as an amendment to the pending immigration 
     bill. Without such legislation, we simply cannot end the 
     ``catch and release'' policy for illegal immigration.
       Thank you again for your support of our efforts to end 
     ``catch and release,'' so that we can take a major step 
     toward complete control over our borders.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Chertoff,
                                                        Secretary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maine is recognized for 20 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 4634

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment offered last evening by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Menendez. To me, this feels like Groundhog Day. Last year on this very 
bill the Senate debated exactly the same issues regarding the funding 
for the Homeland Security Grant Programs. The proposal last year, with 
the exact same minimum as the Menendez amendment, was soundly defeated. 
Senator Lieberman and I offered an alternative that was agreed to by a 
vote of 71 to 26.
  The chart I am going to display explains it to our colleagues. The 
Menendez amendment would slash homeland security dollars for 36 States 
and the District of Columbia. It would take funding from 36 States and 
hand it over to 14 States--14 States that already receive more than 70 
percent of the funding.
  I am particularly surprised that this amendment is being offered 
after the widespread criticism and outrage over the funding allocation 
decisions by the Department of Homeland Security just a few weeks ago. 
I have told Secretary Chertoff that I believe he achieved what I would 
have thought was impossible: he made both New York and the State of 
Maine equally unhappy with his allocation decisions.
  Many of the advocates for this amendment criticized the way in which 
the Department used its discretion to distribute funds. I share in 
their criticism. Their concerns are understandable, but their proposed 
solution is absolutely baffling because it would give even more 
discretion to the Department of Homeland Security to decide, with 
virtually no guidance, how to allocate these funds.
  The Department has clearly demonstrated that it has a long way to go 
in perfecting a risk allocation methodology. Indeed, if you look at the 
recent inspector general's report from the Department on critical 
infrastructure, which was used in part to help determine these funding 
allocations, you will see that the Department has a very long way to go 
in coming up with a worthwhile risk-based system.
  On that list of critical infrastructure was a petting zoo, for 
example, an ice cream shop, a doughnut shop. This is part of our 
critical infrastructure, absolutely essential assets? Yet the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Jersey provides virtually no guidance 
on how a risk-based formula would work. By contrast, the legislation 
approved by the committee I chair puts forth risk factors that the 
Department should weigh.
  The Menendez amendment simply hands the reins over to the same 
Department that was so widely criticized in its funding decisions. The 
result of the approach of Senator Menendez will be that more funding 
will be given out under a flawed and inexact methodology. That is 
exactly why we still

[[Page S7465]]

need to maintain a healthy State minimum, to assure that flawed 
distribution methods do not lead to gaps in our security system.
  The minimum in the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, 
.25 percent, is simply too low. It slashes by two-thirds the Homeland 
Security grants that every State is now guaranteed. Under his 
amendment, each State would be assured of only a little more than $2 
million, for both the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the law 
enforcement program for this year. Compare that with a minimum 
allocation of slightly more than $7 million for fiscal year 2006 and $9 
million the year before.
  Again, let me emphasize this. Under the Menendez amendment, each 
State would be assured of only a little more than $2 million for 
homeland security, prevention, and response needs. That is a 72-percent 
cut in guaranteed funding to each State. I encourage my colleagues to 
talk to the emergency managers in your State, to talk to your first 
responders, your police officers, firefighters, emergency medical 
personnel, to find out what gaps in homeland security would be left 
unfilled if they faced such a sharp and massive reduction.
  If we are going to become better prepared as a nation, each State 
must receive a predictable and reasonable base allocation of homeland 
security funding. States need a predictable base level of funding each 
year in order to support multiyear projects such as creating 
interoperable communications networks or first responder training 
regimes on a natural basis.
  Risk-based funding, if distributed properly, certainly is important, 
and I support it and have proposed it. But it doesn't take away the 
need for this steady funding stream so that every State can bring its 
security up to a base level.
  Let me give you perhaps the best example of the need for multiyear, 
steady, predictable funding, and that is the interoperability of first 
responder communications.
  I am sure you recall, Mr. President, that the 9/11 Commission pointed 
to the lack of compatibility in communications equipment as 
contributing to the loss of life on 9/11.
  The investigation that the Senate Homeland Security Committee did 
into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated beyond any 
doubt that there is still a major problem. We saw different parishes in 
Louisiana using incompatible communications equipment that slowed and 
hampered the response to victims.
  The National Governors Association reported last year that 73 percent 
of States have not developed Statewide communications interoperability 
networks. That is a complicated, expensive and multiyear process.
  That is exactly the kind of goal--the interoperable communications 
network--that the steady, predictable funding from the Homeland 
Security Grant Program is designed for.
  The National Governors Association during last year's debate wrote to 
me saying:

       To effectively protect our States from potential terrorist 
     events, all sectors of government must be part of an 
     integrated plan to prevent, deter, respond and recover from a 
     terrorist act. For that plan to work, it is essential that it 
     be funded through predictable, sustainable mechanisms, both 
     during its development and its implementation.

  It is important to know that current law requires States to develop a 
3-year homeland security plan. Multiyear planning is critical to 
developing a successful prevention and response strategy. Yet, if we 
are going to ask States to plan 3 years out, we have to be prepared to 
guarantee them a predictable base level of funding.
  When we talk about the significance of preventing the next terrorist 
attack, it is important to note that terrorists often stage their 
operations training and hideaway from their most obvious targets.
  This hits home to those of us in Maine because two of the terrorists 
that flew the plane into the World Trade Center on 9/11 started their 
journey of death and destruction from Portland, ME, a city of 
approximately 65,000 people. That is where they started.
  Just think if they could have been apprehended in Portland and maybe 
the number of lives that could have been saved.
  As the publication of the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police notes, several of the terrorists involved in the attack had 
routine encounters with State and local law enforcement officials in 
the weeks and months prior to the attack.
  If the State, tribal and local law enforcement officers are 
adequately equipped and trained, they can be invaluable assets in 
efforts to identify and apprehend suspected terrorists before they 
strike. We must provide State and local law enforcement with the tools 
they need to keep our country secure.
  I note that it isn't only the two terrorists who started from 
Portland, ME that are good examples of terrorists hiding or training or 
transiting through rural areas. The 9/11 Commission told us that two of 
the terrorists, for example, were in Norman, OK, and others were in 
Norcross, GA.
  All of these examples illustrate the vulnerability of towns and 
cities across America while highlighting the need for effective 
cooperation among all levels of government.
  The Menendez amendment takes rational evaluations of need or 
effectiveness out of the distribution methodology. I hope my colleagues 
will take a close look at the exact language of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from New Jersey. I think they will be very concerned by 
that language if they do so.
  This language factors out of the funding equation consideration of 
whether an area actually needs funding or whether it has a plan to 
spend the funding effectively.

  That is an invitation to waste, fraud, and abuse if ever I have heard 
one.
  The amendment would inevitably lead to more wasteful spending. It 
assures that we will hear about more cases of first responders' dollars 
being wasted.
  For example, New Jersey spent a small fortune worth of dollars that 
were supposed to go for homeland security purposes on air-conditioned 
garbage trucks.
  That is the kind of waste that we want to avoid. But when you take 
out any consideration of need, of effectiveness, of planning from the 
formula, that is exactly the kind of wasteful spending you are going to 
get.
  The RAND Corporation recently cautioned us that homeland security 
experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on 
improving the preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller 
communities and rural areas.
  The report recognized that much of the Nation's critical 
infrastructure--water plants, for example, or chemical plants and other 
potential high-value targets--is located in rural areas.
  We all know of the threat of a terrorist attack on our food supply. 
That is another example.
  There are so many rural hospitals which have shown that they are 
unprepared. I could give you example after example.
  But, surely, it makes no sense to give the Department of Homeland 
Security, which has already proven that it does not have the systems in 
place to handle an allocation that is based on the Department's 
interpretation of risk--surely, it doesn't make sense to give 
discretion to the Department. But that is exactly what the Menendez 
amendment would do. It would give more discretion. It strikes any 
consideration of whether an area needs the funding, whether it has a 
good plan for the funding, and whether the funding will be used 
effectively.
  The Menendez amendment will hurt our national efforts to protect our 
country from terrorist threats. It will leave most States worse off. It 
leaves the District of Columbia worse off than under current law.
  Under his amendment, each State would be assured of only a little 
more than $2 million for both State Homeland Security Grant Programs 
and the law enforcement programs this year.
  Again, I compare that to a minimum allocation of approximately $7 
million last year and $9 million the year before.
  Thirty-six States and the District of Columbia would be clear losers.
  The Department would be given more discretion--discretion it has 
already shown it cannot handle. And this amendment, because it does not 
consider need and effectiveness and does

[[Page S7466]]

not set out criteria for the Department to use, would result in 
additional wasteful spending.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont 
wishes to speak. I presume the Senator from New Jersey has 20 minutes 
reserved under the previous order. I believe the debate should go 
forward, but I wish it would go forward with the unanimous consent that 
I continue to reserve the right to protect my second-degree position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is part of the standing order.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes on an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from Maine and 
Connecticut in opposing the Menendez amendment, which seeks to change 
the formula for the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The chairman 
and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee have fought 
tirelessly to ensure that every State is prepared for a major disaster.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of their bill, S. 21, the 
Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, which strikes a fair 
compromise on this issue. This legislation passed the Senate by an 
overwhelming majority last year as an amendment to the FY 2006 Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. Thanks to Senator Collins and Senator 
Lieberman, the Senate has taken a strong position on the need for a 
consistent, guaranteed line of homeland security funding for each and 
every state.
  I strongly advocate the .75 percent minimum, which is guaranteed 
under current law. Hawaii and every state needs to develop a 
preparedness baseline, so residents are cared for in the event of a 
disaster. I fear that reducing the State minimum to .25 percent will 
severely impact the homeland security preparedness and response 
capabilities for much of the United States.
  The sponsors of this amendment argue that the distribution of the 
majority of homeland security funding should be left to the discretion 
of the Department of Homeland Security. However, we all remember what 
happened in May when DHS rolled out its new risk-based funding model. 
New York and Washington, DC took a huge funding cut.
  After enduring a 30 percent cut, my home State of Hawaii received 
little more than what the current state minimum guarantees. I oppose 
putting the people of Hawaii at risk by reducing the legally required 
minimum any further Hawaii is an island state, 2,500 miles from the 
U.S. mainland, which requires us to be self-sufficient in the event of 
a disaster.
  As I said before, the Senate has already opposed the .25 percent 
minimum being debated today. I urge my colleagues to uphold that vote. 
I urge opposition to the Menendez amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would have hoped we could come 
together on this amendment. I do not consider it an effort to pit 
States against States.
  I heard the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland 
Security refer many times to the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission's 
unanimous bipartisan recommendation said all Homeland Security funding 
should be driven by risk, allocation should be driven by risk and 
strictly by risk.
  Our amendment, however, does not take their conclusion, in 
recognition that States have responsibility and needs, to the ultimate 
conclusion of all money should be focused strictly by risk. It 
recognized that all States have some degree of responsibility within 
the context of a Federal mandate. It says, as the administration has 
said, that it should at least receive .25 percent of all of those 
funds. We are in line with what the 9/11 Commission said.
  If we are going to quote the 9/11 Commission, then we should quote it 
in its entirety. Also, we are in line with where the administration's 
own recognition is.
  In my mind, this is not small States versus big States, small cities 
versus large cities, rural versus urban. It is about risk. Very small 
States can have very big risk. Ultimately, they would be--if their 
risks are established as they believe them to be--beneficiaries at the 
end of the day with our amendment.
  While the District of Columbia is obviously not a State, it is small 
in size and in population compared to many of the States of the Union, 
but it has great risk because it is at the seat of our Government, with 
national monuments and national landmarks. In fact, when it is driven 
based on risk, it should do much better.
  To suggest I would offer an amendment that would hurt my own State, 
as I saw on that chart, is simply not the reality.
  I understand a number of small States, for example, face great risks 
from nuclear plants, to ports, to dealing with security risks at their 
borders. Those risks, if we use risk assessment, will drive where the 
money should go.
  Of course, risk can change in the future, depending on the nature of 
the threats we face.
  Just as Members of this Senate are asked to support issues in the 
national interest, such as supporting our agriculture, protection from 
hurricanes, help after flooding, whether those issues impact our 
particular State, we and all Senators act in this respect in the 
national interest to support getting our Homeland Security dollars to 
the places at greatest risk. In fact, the Senator from Hawaii mentioned 
the cuts to communities such as New York City. When it is not based on 
risk assessment, that is the result we have.
  I agree with those who have said that the Department of Homeland 
Security can do a far better job. We are in unanimous agreement with 
that. I looked at the list of national critical infrastructure. I look 
at some popcorn factories, some petting zoos. Those are in this 
infrastructure of which there is great risk. That obviously is not the 
case.
  Ultimately, we need a process that drives our limited resources to 
where the greatest risks are and where the greatest threat is. 
Certainly, I believe that allocation as the 9/11 Commission called for 
in a bipartisan unanimous report, looking at all of the equation of 
Homeland Security and intelligence reform, is the way we should drive 
these moneys.
  We are silent on effectiveness. We do not alter effectiveness as part 
of the equation. We stated so yesterday to the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Homeland Security when he asked us. As a matter of 
fact, our legislation says to the maximum extent practicable. It does 
not undermine the very essence of making sure we have effectiveness. We 
want effectiveness. But is there effectiveness when you are giving 
allocations of moneys for which there is virtually no risk in many 
parts of the country or a much lesser risk?
  I hope those who come from small States but have big risks would 
actually be supportive of our amendment.
  In my mind, I find it interesting there are those who continuously 
vote against the amendments that have been offered to try and raise the 
Homeland Security funding overall but suggest we should not distribute 
the existing funding based on risk. In my mind, our amendment is 
actually about creating a standard in which all--large and small, rural 
and urban, regardless of what part of the country--receive a baseline 
guarantee but also receive those moneys needed to deal with risk. Any 
formula is always subject to, when there is an element that is to be 
determined on the basis of risk, how well the executive branch 
operates, but that is true no matter what. We need to keep the 
executive branch's feet to the fire and make sure that risk is truly 
risk, not as we see on some of the lists given in terms 
of infrastructure in the country that clearly has no risk.

  At the end of the day, to suggest we should have a general 
distribution formula of Homeland Security moneys when the September 11 
Commission unanimously said that is not in the best interests of the 
country, that is not the best way to protect the country, and 
ultimately where those entities who complain they do not have the 
resources necessary to meet their homeland security challenge could get

[[Page S7467]]

greater resources if their risks are, in fact, established, is to 
undercut the very essence of their argument.
  I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Cornyn added as a cosponsor 
of our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by 
Senator Menendez to drastically cut the base allocation of Homeland 
Security grants for all States.
  I heard the statement of the distinguished Senator from Maine, 
Senator Collins. I associate myself with her words. She has stated it 
far more eloquently than I as to why this amendment should be defeated.
  The Senator from New Jersey has the right concerns about the 
administration's underfunding of first responder assistance programs. 
His concerns are absolutely right. I happen to agree with him on those. 
But he has chosen the wrong target to try to fix that problem.
  Senator Menendez and his cosponsors are understandably outraged over 
how threat-based Homeland Security grants were recently distributed. If 
it were not so serious a situation, the recent explanation by Homeland 
Security officials and how they distributed these funds would be 
laughable. We are not debating the competence of Homeland Security. If 
we were, we would hear all the statements of Homeland Security that if 
there is a sudden terrorist attack, they are ready; had there been a 
sudden terrorist attack with no notice at all on New Orleans last year, 
they are ready to do everything possible to help the people. Of course, 
when they had a week's notice before Hurricane Katrina, they still have 
not responded. It is not their competence we are debating.
  Yesterday, the Senate once again attempted to correct the Bush-Cheney 
administration's woefully inadequate request for Homeland Security. 
Unfortunately, the amendment of the Senator from New York, Senator 
Clinton, to restore $750 million for first responders' assistance, was 
defeated. I had voted for that. I am sure the Senator from New Jersey 
did.
  Now we come to this amendment that purports to correct the blunders 
of the Homeland Security threat assessments by slashing the base 
amounts to every single State in the country. Unfortunately, as the 
Senator from Maine has rightly pointed out, this amendment does pit 
State over State in how to divide inadequate overall funding for 
Homeland Security.
  That is not the way to correct the incompetence of the Department of 
Homeland Security's determination of how to allocate grants based on 
risk. It is the right issue; it is the wrong solution.
  When the Senate last year considered a similar amendment proposing 
this misplaced change in support for first responders, the Senate 
soundly rejected it with 65 of our colleagues voting against it. The 
terrorist attacks of September 11 added to the responsibilities and 
risk of first responders nationwide.
  I wrote the all-State minimum formula as part of the USA PATRIOT Act 
of 2001 to guarantee each State receives less than 1 percent--actually 
0.75 percent of the national allotment to help meet the national 
domestic security needs. Every State, rural or urban, small or large, 
has basic domestic security needs and deserves to receive Federal funds 
to meet these needs and the new Homeland Security responsibilities the 
Federal Government demands. Large urban areas and high-risk areas have 
even greater needs, and they should be addressed. Both should be 
addressed.
  I don't mean to be parochial, but my little State of Vermont, the 
second smallest State in the Union, is a State that borders another 
country. We are a State with a nuclear reactor. We have been called 
upon by the Federal Government to help out on border security, to help 
out because we are in a direct line from Canada down to two very large 
urban areas--Boston and New York. We are constantly getting requests to 
help. Our little State of 660,000 people, loyal Americans all, wants to 
help every way we can, but we are saying if we are asked to help out a 
whole lot of other States, at least let us have some basic 
help. Whether it is going to require us to put in new radio systems, 
telecommunications systems, or anything else, to protect not just us 
but to help protect other urban areas, let us do it.

  I would remind everybody, when we had the tragedy of 9/11, for weeks 
after that happened, the air support over New York City, the armed 
response, the F-16s flying over New York City were flying out of 
Burlington, VT. Vermont provided people from our military, from our law 
enforcement, from everywhere else. We did not ask to be reimbursed, 
even though it cost us a lot. We responded within an hour. And it was 
the Green Mountain Boys who flew over New York City, providing that 
security at a time when nobody knew if there was going to be another 
attack. They did it around the clock. They did it with people canceling 
vacations.
  We had one mechanic driving down the interstate with his family on 
their way to their vacation. He was a mechanic for the Air National 
Guard. He heard on the radio about the attack, and at the first place 
he could do a U-turn on the interstate, he did. He headed back. He told 
his wife and kids: Drop me off here; they are going to need me. I will 
call you when I get my first break.
  And 3 days later, when he had an hour's break, he called and said: 
Send me some clean clothes. Don't take me home. Go back to your 
vacation. Send me some clean clothes. He kept on working.
  Now, every State would have done the same. We respond. But if you pit 
States against each other, that ignores the real problem. The real 
problem is the administration has failed to make first responders a 
high enough priority. Congress, instead, should be looking to increase 
the overall Federal commitment to the Nation's first responders. We 
have plenty of money to spend on Iraq's first responders. Let's spend 
some of that money on the first responders of the United States.
  The smaller States, especially, would never be able to fulfill those 
essential duties on top of their daily responsibilities without Federal 
support. My colleagues should be warned that if the minimum drops any 
further--and you compound that by the substantial drops in overall 
first responder funding--then small- and medium-sized States will not 
be able to meet those Federal mandates for terrorism prevention, 
preparedness, and response. Again, if we can send money to Iraqi first 
responders, let's find the money for American first responders.
  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, we worked together in 
the Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike, from large States and 
small States, and we have done it with the other body--to meet the 
needs of all State and local first responders from rural and urban 
areas. Our fire, police, and rescue teams in each State in the Nation 
deserve support in achieving the new homeland security responsibilities 
the Federal Government demands.
  The taxpayers in my State never questioned the fact that we would 
help in the disasters of Katrina or the disasters of 9/11. All States 
were in this together. But representatives of urban areas have been 
arguing that Federal money to fight terrorism is being sent to areas 
that do not need it, that it is being ``wasted'' in small towns. They 
have called the formula highly politicized and insisted on the 
redirection of funds to urban areas that they believe face heightened 
threat or terrorist attacks.
  What critics of the all-State minimum seem to forget, though, is that 
since 9/11, the American people have asked all State--all State--and 
local first responders to defend us as never before on the frontlines 
in the war against terrorism--a war that will not end in my lifetime or 
the lifetimes of the other Members of this body.
  Vermont's emergency responders have the same responsibilities as 
those in any other State to provide enhanced protection, preparedness, 
and response against terrorists. We have to ensure that adequate 
support and resources are provided for our police, our fire, and our 
EMS services in every State, if we expect them to continue protecting 
us from terrorists or responding to terrorist attacks, as well as 
carrying out their routine responsibilities.
  I understand the concerns of my friend from New Jersey. He is an 
extraordinarily able Senator, as he was

[[Page S7468]]

an extraordinarily able Member of the other body. I have enjoyed our 
friendship, and I have enjoyed the fact that we have worked together 
many times. But I would say to him and others, do not foster divisions 
between States because that is going to ignore the real problem. The 
real problem is that the President has failed to make first responders 
a high enough priority. We should be looking to increase the funds to 
our Nation's first responders, not pit State against State.
  We have seen cuts in State and local first responder formula grants 
in the Homeland Security Department by 59 percent--from $2.3 billion in 
2003 to $941 million in 2006. That is $941 million for all first 
responders in America for the whole year. That is about what we have 
spent this week alone in Iraq. This week already we have spent about 
$941 million. That is what we are going to say we are going to spend 
for the whole year in the United States to protect us and to give our 
first responders the money they need. Now, those cuts--those huge 
cuts--are going to affect every State, whether it is a small State or a 
large State.
  We are looking at another year of subpar funding for our State and 
local first responders. For 2007, the President proposes a 52-percent 
overall cut, or $1.3 billion, in funding for State and local law 
enforcement agencies alone. That, incidentally, is about what we spend 
in 1 week in Iraq.
  The Senate Homeland Security spending bill we now consider cuts both 
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program by $50 million each over the current year. 
Grants for high-threat, high-density urban areas--such as the ones the 
Senator from New Jersey is rightly concerned about; these are what the 
larger cities and metropolitan areas have been wrangling over in recent 
weeks--they face a $20 million cut over last year and a $140 million 
cut from 2 years ago.
  These programs play a critical role for all States and communities 
for the purposes of training, procuring equipment, planning, and 
conducting exercises. Clearly, the domestic preparedness funds 
available are insufficient to protect our people and prepare for and 
respond to future domestic terrorist attacks anywhere on American soil.
  I am not saying we should not help the Iraqi people. I am saying, 
let's give at least the same kind of priority to the American people. 
It would be comforting if we could at least tell Americans their 
Government was doing everything possible and practical to keep them 
safe. We cannot truthfully tell them that. There is much left undone in 
securing our Nation. That is why we are not abandoning the small- and 
medium-sized States that suffer under this amendment. This came up last 
year. The Senate roundly rejected it last year. I hope it will again 
this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise, reluctantly, today in opposition 
to the amendment offered by my friend from New Jersey. I agree with my 
colleagues--certainly, with the Senator from Vermont and the Senator 
from Maine, and others who have spoken against the amendment--that it 
is not the right path for us to follow.
  I will say this, though. I agree with my colleagues who do support 
this amendment when they say that places such as New York and 
Washington, DC, are the most vulnerable to terrorist attack. 
Unfortunately, that is true. These are places that were attacked 5 
years ago on 9/11, and they are surely the targets foremost in the 
minds of those who want to do us further harm. Those places deserve 
more first responder aid than other communities, including communities 
in my own State.
  What my colleagues who support this amendment ignore, however, is 
that communities across the Nation face some vulnerability to terrorist 
attacks as well. This amendment would cut first responder aid for all 
but the largest communities by two-thirds or more. And with all due 
respect, I do not believe that is responsible. I could stand here today 
and list all the places in my own State of Delaware that I think are 
especially vulnerable. I will mention a few.
  Delaware is home to some of the largest chemical companies and plants 
in the country. Right across the river, we have three nuclear power 
plants. They are closer to my home than they are to any of the Senators 
or the Governor of New Jersey, for that matter. We have I-95 that cuts 
right through my State, carrying all kinds of cargo, including 
hazardous cargoes. The Northeast Corridor of Amtrak runs right through 
my State. We have two major rail lines, all of which carry hazardous 
and dangerous cargo from time to time. We have all kinds of shipping 
going up the Delaware River, which divides Delaware and New Jersey. The 
cargo it carries is dangerous as well. Frankly, a lot of it is an 
attractive target for terrorists, those who would do us harm.
  And everybody else, probably, in the Chamber today, or those who will 
be showing up to vote in a few minutes, could say the same. They could 
go through a litany of similar kinds of concerns as to targets in their 
own States that would make them vulnerable, too. But that is not the 
point of this debate.
  This debate is about whether we want States such as Delaware or 
States such as South Carolina or States such as Washington or States 
such as Arkansas or New Hampshire or others--that are represented on 
the floor at this moment--whether we want our States to have the 
resources we need to achieve even minimum preparedness, goals that are 
set by the Department of Homeland Security for our country.
  We will not be able to achieve those goals in Delaware and in a 
number of other States with the cuts that, unfortunately, this 
amendment proposed by my friend from New Jersey would require.
  From their inception, the State grant programs funded through this 
bill have directed some 60 percent or more of their resources to the 
largest most vulnerable areas. And we should do that. In addition, the 
Urban Areas Security Initiative directs even more money to the largest 
most densely populated cities. All of it is distributed based on 
vulnerability. There are not any cities in Delaware or in very many 
other small States that are competing for those funds.
  What the amendment before us, regrettably, would do is tie the 
Department of Homeland Security's hands, forcing those who manage these 
grant programs to direct virtually every dollar we appropriate in first 
responder aid to a handful of States and larger cities. The Department 
officials would have no ability to consider whether a State or city 
actually needs the money they are getting or whether a grant recipient 
is even capable of spending those dollars effectively.
  As I mentioned before, I am all for giving the most vulnerable 
communities more money. We should. This amendment, however, takes that 
worthy goal, in my view, several steps too far, taking a significant 
amount away from 36 States and, apparently, would even cut the 
allocation for Washington, DC. I do not think we want to do that 
either.
  Every State has seen a decrease in first responder aid in recent 
years, as money has been diverted to other priorities. I do not 
necessarily agree with those decisions, but I certainly do not agree 
the solution to this problem that this amendment before us suggests--
that is, to jeopardize the security of citizens in States such as mine 
and dozens of other States similar to it across the country--is the 
course we should follow.
  I will reluctantly vote no on this amendment and encourage many of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if there is no further debate on this 
amendment--maybe the Senator from New Jersey wishes to respond, but 
upon completion of his response, I would suggest that all debate on 
this amendment be deemed to have been completed and that at 12:45 we 
turn to an amendment from Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton; that we 
have 30 minutes on that amendment, with 20 minutes for Senators Schumer 
and Clinton and 10 minutes in opposition, controlled by myself; and 
that at the conclusion of that, Senator Sessions be recognized to offer 
two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S7469]]

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to 
ask a question. Does that allow the remainder of the time I had 
reserved to be used by myself for the purposes of responding?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. And I believe Senator Collins has a little bit of 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I could 
clarify, which of the Sessions amendments will be offered at 1:15?
  Mr. GREGG. I cannot represent which ones. But he has five filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe my friends from New Jersey, 
New York, others who support this amendment, and I share the same 
goals: we want to ensure that those areas of our country that are 
predictably at higher risk of terrorism receive enough support to 
prevent and, if necessary, respond to attacks; we want to make our 
Nation as a whole a safer place. Where I must respectfully disagree, 
however, is in how best to accomplish those goals. This amendment would 
not do so.
  In May, when the Department of Homeland Security announced its 2006 
homeland security grant awards, for States and also for urban areas, 48 
States and the District of Columbia found they had lost money from the 
year before. Many of these States, Connecticut and New York included, 
lost substantial sums. This was not primarily because of a change in 
the formula, however; it was because funding for these critical 
programs had been reduced by 29 percent. Since 2004, these programs 
have been cut in half, so there is increasingly less funding for all.
  I was therefore disappointed yesterday to see the Senate reject 
Senator Clinton's amendment--which both Senator Menendez and I 
cosponsored--that would have restored some of this funding. The 
fundamental problem here is the shrinking pie, not how we divide it.
  When Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, awards were announced, I, 
like many others, was disturbed to learn that New York City and 
Washington, DC--the two cities that were the targets of the terrorists 
on September 11th, and two that by any commonsense measure remain among 
those at risk by terrorists--had suffered sharp, and seemingly 
inexplicable, cuts in their UASI grants. But this wasn't because UASI 
money is awarded to cities not deemed at risk. There is not now nor has 
there ever been a guaranteed minimum or formula for UASI grants. Within 
the UASI pot, one of the reasons that New York City's share went down 
was because the Department didn't want its grants to be used for what 
New York deemed to be an essential need: paying for law enforcement 
personnel to staff its anti-terrorism efforts. This amendment does not 
solve that problem.
  Finally, as we should have learned--by now--the hard way, even in the 
best of circumstances, risk assessment is at least as much art as 
science. And I think most of us can agree that DHS's shifting 
methodology for calculating risk does not represent the best of 
circumstances. Thus we have learned that DHS has had trouble counting 
national icons and government buildings and figuring out which 
infrastructure really is critical.
  I have also learned, in what will surely come as a surprise to my 
constituents in Greenwich and Stamford, that according to DHS, 
southwestern Connecticut is not even considered part of the New York 
metropolitan area. This despite the fact that 100,000 people each day 
commute from Connecticut into New York, that major rail and commuter 
lines connect my state with New York, and that when the terror alert 
level is raised in New York City, additional Connecticut State Police 
must be activated. And, of course, that on that tragic day nearly 5 
years ago, 67 Connecticut citizens perished in the World Trade Center 
towers. DHS's risk assessment method, however, remains unable to 
account for the additional risk and demands of being part of the 
Connecticut-New York-New Jersey tristate area. This amendment also does 
not solve that problem.
  The fact is, the Senate has already approved legislation 
painstakingly negotiated within the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee that represents a better approach. In S. 21 and in a 
nearly identical amendment to last year's Homeland Security 
appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 71 to 26--
Senator Collins and I tried to balance support for cities and States at 
known high risk of a terrorist attack without sacrificing the security 
of locations that have not suffered in the past, but very well could in 
the future, and which are still critical to our preparedness and 
response.
  While we provide more funding based on assessments of risk--we need 
to recognize that our intelligence is not perfect, that we do not know 
where or when terrorists will strike next, and that we must be on 
notice they could strike anywhere. The fact is, terrorists alter their 
methods of destruction. One day they may strike fortified targets such 
as military facilities, and the next day they may strike soft targets, 
as they did when they blew up a discotheque in Indonesia and took 
hostage an entire school in a small town in Russia. And how dare we 
forget what terrorists--though of the homegrown variety--did in 
Oklahoma City in 1995 striking a target in the middle of our Nation's 
heartland.
  Common sense, therefore, requires us to continue to build basic 
capacity to prevent and respond to attacks wherever they may occur. And 
to build capacity over time, State and local officials need some 
predictability. They need to know when and how much assistance they are 
likely to receive from year to year if they are to plan and execute 
homeland security properly.
  Were we to adopt the pending amendment, it would mean that each State 
would only be guaranteed to receive slightly over $2 million this year 
a nearly trivial amount and short sighted in light of the significant 
national needs that we face. We know from Katrina that first responders 
will need to come from all over the country to respond to a 
catastrophic event, whether natural or manmade--and we need those 
responders to be properly trained and equipped. We know, too, that the 
next 9/11 attack on New York or Washington may be prevented by action 
taken in a town far away, where terrorist plotters are discovered by 
local law enforcement. Those local law enforcement officers also need 
access to intelligence, training, and resources to be most effective. 
In the end, we cannot simply build a wall around a few known high-risk 
cities--it not only leaves the rest of the country vulnerable, but it 
will leave the highest risk cities more vulnerable, too.
  The problems with homeland security funding are urgent and real, but 
this amendment will not solve them. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment proposed by Senator Menendez.
  While the Senator from New Jersey no doubt has the best of intentions 
in working to increase grant funding for high population areas, I do 
not believe that reducing funding for the majority of States in our 
great Nation is a viable way to protect against terrorism.
  If we, as a country, are going to be adequately prepared for another 
terrorist attack, we must not forget that we are vulnerable on all 
fronts. The 36 States that would be negatively impacted by this 
proposal contain some of our Nation's most valuable assets.
  In reducing funding to States such as Kansas, this amendment tosses 
aside the risks to agriculture that supports our Nation's food supply, 
the oil and petroleum facilities that provide invaluable energy in this 
time of need, and the many Federal buildings and places of national 
significance that are scattered throughout our great Nation.
  We cannot let ourselves believe that if we only protect large cities 
and high population states, we will be safe from the devious and 
calculating minds of those who wish us harm. One need only to look to 
Oklahoma City in this regard. Rather, preparing for what we expect in 
densely populated areas is a surefire way to be shocked and horrified 
should the inexplicable and unthinkable happen again.
  This legislation has been considered in this Senate before, and it 
was defeated soundly. To add it now as an

[[Page S7470]]

amendment disregards the hard work many have done to negotiate a 
funding formula that most benefits our entire country. We cannot afford 
to compromise the security of an entire Nation for the benefit of a few 
areas.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by 
several of my colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Vermont and 
Delaware. I agree with them that one of the core issues is overall 
homeland security funding. There is no question about that. The No. 1 
responsibility, certainly, of the Federal Government and of government 
in general is to protect its citizens. We are woefully underfunding the 
ability to protect our citizens, whether that is in the cargoes of our 
ports or the cargoes underneath our airplanes, whether that is in the 
context of first responders, interoperable communications, whether that 
is in the context of mass transit.
  Unfortunately, in the wake of London, in the wake of Madrid, and in 
the wake of Mumbai, the Senate voted against amendments that ultimately 
would have increased the funding so that those wake-up calls would 
never be realized in the United States. That was the will of the 
Senate.
  Several of my colleagues have actually made the case that their 
States have very significant risks, whether that risk is a nuclear 
powerplant by a border with another country, whether that risk is 
chemical facilities right across the river, whatever those risks are. I 
find it interesting that our colleagues have come to the floor to make 
the case that they, too, have risks. We acknowledge that. We do not 
eliminate all funding for all States. On the contrary. We guarantee a 
baseline of funding for all States. But we say that the bulk of that 
funding, as it has been time and time again, even very recently, 
supported by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the former chair and vice chair 
of the 9/11 Commission in a letter to House Members who offered 
legislation that, among other things, would make sure that all homeland 
security funding would be based on risk, as their unanimous bipartisan 
vote took place in the 9/11 Commission outside of the constraints of 
the politics of the situation--they made that conclusion. They still 
support that conclusion. That is the very essence of the Menendez-
Lautenberg amendment. We understand. And we believe that those who have 
made the case for risk should do better because they have real risks. 
That is, in essence, what our amendment says. If you have the risk, you 
should have the resources.
  I agree with all of my colleagues who said they deserve to have more 
funding to protect America and to protect Americans. That is certainly 
what I believe is the very essence of what we tried to do in the first 
instance by taking that money which we do have and focusing it on risk.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


Amendments Nos. 4633; 4639; 4648; 4640; 4617; 4594, as Modified; 4570, 
                     as Modified; and 4556. En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to clear a series of 
amendments. All these amendments have been on file. Some have been 
modified. The amendments are at the desk. They are No. 4633, Senator 
Allard; 4640, Senator Murray; 4648, Senator Landrieu; 4639, Senator 
Murray; 4617, Senator Levin; 4594, Senator Voinovich, as modified; 
4570, as modified, Senator Lautenberg; 4556, Senator Feinstein.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and 
agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering and agreeing 
to the amendments en bloc?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure if I had 
the full context of the Senator's request regarding the time remaining 
here.
  I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4633

   (Purpose: To require the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security to submit a 
report on the costs and need for establishing a sub-office in Greeley, 
                               Colorado)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. Not later than February 8, 2007, the Assistant 
     Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the costs and need for establishing a sub-office 
     in Greeley, Colorado.


                           amendment no. 4639

 (Purpose: To provide that funds appropriated for United States Coast 
Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement may be used to acquire 
                     law enforcement patrol boats)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. --.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, funding 
     made available under title VII, under the heading United 
     states coast guard acquisition, construction, and 
     improvements may be used to acquire law enforcement patrol 
     boats.


                           amendment no. 4648

(Purpose: To require a report on the location of Coast Guard facilities 
   and assets in the Federal City Project in New Orleans, Louisiana)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 
     feasability and advisability of locating existing Louisiana 
     facilities and assets of the Coast Guard in the Federal City 
     Project of New Orleans, Louisiana, as described in the report 
     of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
     submitted to the President in 2005 during the 2005 round of 
     defense base closure and realignment under the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of 
     Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).


                           amendment no. 4640

(Purpose: To direct funds to construct radiological laboratories at the 
                 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

       On page 104, line 9, strike ``$106,414,000'' and insert 
     ``$104,414,000''.
       On page 105, line 1, strike ``$712,041,000'' and insert 
     ``$714,041,000''.
       On page 105, line 7, strike ``costs.'' and insert the 
     following: ``costs: Provided further, That $2,000,000 under 
     this heading shall be available for the construction of 
     radiological laboratories at Pacific Northwest National 
     Laboratory: Provided further, That funding will not be 
     available until a memorandum of understanding between the 
     Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy 
     has been entered into.''.


                           amendment no. 4617

  (Purpose: To ensure that methodologies and technologies used by the 
 Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to screen for and detect the 
presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in 
    municipal solid waste are as effective as the methodologies and 
technologies used by the Bureau to screen for those materials in other 
 items of commerce entering the United States through commercial motor 
                           vehicle transport)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. SCREENING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Bureau.--The term `` Bureau'' means the Bureau of 
     Customs and Border Protection.
       (2) Commercial motor vehicle.--The term ``commercial motor 
     vehicle'' has the meaning given the term in section 31101 of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       (3) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau.
       (4) Municipal solid waste.--The term ``municipal solid 
     waste'' includes sludge (as defined in section 1004 of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903)).
       (b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit 
     to Congress a report that--
       (1) indicates whether the methodologies and technologies 
     used by the Bureau to screen for and detect the presence of 
     chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in 
     municipal solid waste are as effective as the methodologies 
     and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for those 
     materials in other items of commerce entering the United 
     States through commercial motor vehicle transport; and
       (2) if the report indicates that the methodologies and 
     technologies used to screen municipal solid waste are less 
     effective than those used to screen other items of commerce, 
     identifies the actions that the Bureau will take to achieve 
     the same level of effectiveness in the screening of municipal 
     solid waste, including actions necessary to meet the need for 
     additional screening technologies.
       (c) Impact on Commercial Motor Vehicles.--If the 
     Commissioner fails to fully implement an action identified 
     under subsection (b)(2) before the earlier of the date

[[Page S7471]]

     that is 180 days after the date on which the report under 
     subsection (b) is required to be submitted or the date that 
     is 180 days after the date on which the report is submitted, 
     the Secretary shall deny entry into the United States of any 
     commercial motor vehicle carrying municipal solid waste until 
     the Secretary certifies to Congress that the methodologies 
     and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for and detect 
     the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and 
     radiological weapons in municipal solid waste are as 
     effective as the methodologies and technologies used by the 
     Bureau to screen for those materials in other items of 
     commerce entering into the United States through commercial 
     motor vehicle transport.


                    amendment no. 4594, as modified

     (Purpose: To increase appropriations for emergency management 
                          performance grants)

       On page 95, line 5, strike ``$205,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$220,000,000''.
       On page 120, increase the amount on line 9 by $15,000,000.


                    amendment no. 4570, as modified

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security Inspector 
  General to investigate the conduct of insurers in settling certain 
                claims resulting from Hurricane Katrina)

       On page 99, line 4, strike ``Act.'' and insert the 
     following: `` Act: Provided further, That the Department of 
     Homeland Security Inspector General shall investigate 
     whether, and to what extent, in adjusting and settling claims 
     resulting from Hurricane Katrina, insurers making flood 
     insurance coverage available under the Write-Your-Own program 
     pursuant to section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4081) and subpart C of part 62 of title 
     44, Code of Federal Regulations, improperly attributed 
     damages from such hurricane to flooding covered under the 
     insurance coverage provided under the national flood 
     insurance program rather than to windstorms covered under 
     coverage provided by such insurers or by windstorm insurance 
     pools in which such insurers participated: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General 
     may request the assistance of the Attorney General and the 
     Department of Justice in conducting such investigation and 
     may reimburse the costs of the Attorney General and the 
     Department of Justice in providing such assistance from such 
     funds: Provided further, That the Department of Homeland 
     Security Inspector General shall submit a report to Congress 
     not later than April 1, 2007, setting forth the conclusions 
     of such investigation.''
       On page 120, increase the amount on line 9 by $3,000,000.

  The amendment (No. 4556) is printed in the Record of July 11, 2006.


                           amendment no. 4594

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 4594 
to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. I 
thank Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd for accepting this amendment by 
unanimous consent. Before I describe this amendment, I would like to 
acknowledge the hard work and leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator 
Byrd, and thank them for their diligence in coming to a consensus on 
this crucial piece of legislation. The balance between enhanced 
security and strong stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollar is 
a fine one. I applaud your attention to both, and I support this 
legislation.
  The Emergency Management Performance Grant, EMPG, program is designed 
to provide State and local emergency management agencies with the 
necessary funds to expand the development, maintenance, and improvement 
of their programs. It is the only source of Federal assistance that 
provides vital emergency management, coordination, and planning support 
to State and local governments and first responders. It funds 
personnel, training, and exercises. The program requires that States 
match 50 percent of the Federal contribution. According to the 
Department of Homeland Security, EMPG funds are spent rapidly compared 
to other programs; in other words, if Congress appropriates additional 
EMPG funding, it will be used expeditiously, efficiently, and 
effectively.
  Last year the EMPG program was funded at $185 million. In an effort 
to increase the sound management of homeland security funds, earlier 
this year I asked the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security 
to increase funding for the EMPG program. I am pleased that 41 Senators 
joined me on this request. The Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act of 2007 funds the program at $205 million.
  While I am heartened by and thankful for the $20 million increase in 
funding over last year's level, I feel strongly that the program should 
be further increased. Accordingly, this amendment would increase the 
funding of the EMPG program by an additional $15 million. I am joined 
on this amendment by Senators Baucus, Biden, Burns, Cantwell, Collins, 
Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Murray, Pryor, Roberts, 
Snowe, Stabenow, and Warner. I thank them all for their support. It is 
my strong belief that an additional $15 million for the EMPG program 
will enhance the effectiveness of every disaster relief fund dollar 
directed toward response and recovery.
  Since 9/11, the responsibilities of our first responders have 
increased. They must now be prepared to respond to natural disasters, 
man-made disasters, and malicious acts of terrorism. We must support 
them. With the enhanced responsibilities, and the tight budget 
constraints currently faced by State and local governments, the 
flexibility provided by the EMPG program is vital.
  I would like to describe some of the ways that EMPG funds help State 
and local governments. In Ohio and across the Nation, the emergency 
preparedness requirements have increased significantly since 9/11. For 
example, according to a 2003 study conducted by the Emergency 
Management Association of Ohio, approximately 10 percent of all 
emergency management employee time was spent on antiterrorism and 
homeland security activities prior to September 11, 2001. By 2003, that 
figure had shot up to 50 percent.
  In addition, State and local emergency management agencies now are 
responsible for the coordination and implementation of national 
initiatives, such as integration of the National Response Plan into 
existing emergency operations plans and implementing the National 
Incident Management System. The EMPG funds the extra manpower and 
management support to help State and local governments meet these 
increased responsibilities.
  Furthermore, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many States have 
identified the requirement to be to carry out mass evacuations in the 
event of catastrophic disasters. Increased EMPG funding will help State 
and local governments prepare these contingency plans.
  According to the National Emergency Management Association, EMPG 
funds are used for a wide variety of purposes which vary State by 
State. In Alabama, EMPG funds play a critical role in helping the State 
develop its plans to respond to natural disasters, particularly 
hurricanes; grants are used for contingency planning, including 
evacuation plans, debris removal plans, and plans for postdisaster 
distribution of critical assistance to those affected by the storms. In 
Oregon, EMPG funds are used to upgrade key emergency operations centers 
for counties that face large hazards such as wild land fires, annual 
flooding, and earthquakes.
  Increasing the funding for EMPG would help some States do even more. 
In Alaska, additional resources would be used to increase levels of 
emergency management personnel, which for some communities are 
currently only part-time positions. In New Hampshire, increased EMPG 
funds would be used to address the areas identified in the National 
Plan Review as either ``insufficient'' or ``partially sufficient.'' 
This would include statewide evacuation planning, surge planning and 
capability, as well as further development of the State emergency 
operations plan.
  In response to Hurricane Katrina, the EMPG program more than proved 
its worth. In a statement submitted to the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Homeland Security, Bruce Baughman, the president of the National 
Emergency Management Agency, gave the following description of the 
mutual assistance provided by the Emergency Management Assistance 
Compact, EMAC, which is funded by the EMPG:

       EMAC enabled 48 states, the District of Columbia, the 
     Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico to provide assistance in the 
     form of more than 2,100 missions of human, military and 
     equipment assets and over 65,000 civilian and military 
     personnel and equipment assets to support the impacted 
     states. The nature of the nation's mutual aid system vividly 
     shows the need for all states to have appropriate 
     capabilities for all disasters and EMPG allows states and 
     local governments to build this capability both for their own 
     use and to share in through EMAC.

  The Appropriations Committee conference report for 2006 concurred 
with

[[Page S7472]]

this assessment, noting that ``EMPGs are vital to state and local 
emergency management agencies.''
  This year, the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee 
report concluded that ``EMPG is an essential source of funding for 
state and local emergency management,'' and that ``state and local 
governments currently have productive relationships with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's regional emergency managers that are 
critical to maintain an all-hazards response capability,'' and that the 
committee ``expects these relationships to continue.'' The subcommittee 
further noted that:

       Additional federal funding is necessary to properly support 
     state and local responsibilities and coordinate with federal 
     emergency management during national disasters.

  In closing, Mr. President, State and local governments must be 
prepared. The EMPG program is a proven method of accomplishing this 
goal. This amendment is both fiscally responsible and strategically 
sound.
  I thank Senator Gregg for working with me to identify an appropriate 
offset for this increased funding. Once again, I applaud the efforts of 
the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, especially in light 
of the tight fiscal environment.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 4634

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. I 
want to make sure there is a clear understanding about what we are 
discussing. It has been said before--it is worthy of repetition--that 
700 of the almost 3,000 people who lost their lives on 9/11 came from 
the State of New Jersey. The largest remaining share came from the 
State of New York. The region is connected by all kinds of interests 
and conditions. When we look at the region and see what happened with 
our State and the State of New York, in terms of resources from grants 
by Homeland Security, it is hard to understand.
  We don't have sufficient resources for homeland security. I heard my 
colleague say that earlier. We don't. However, whatever we do have 
should be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of 
another terrorist attack. Here we see, once again, that our friends in 
the Congress, our friends in the Senate are treating homeland security 
as another opportunity for additional resources. We are all resource 
starved, every State. Why? The reasons are obvious. We are giving tax 
breaks to people who don't deserve and, in many cases, don't want them, 
billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest among us. We have a 
war, about which there is considerable question, that is costing us 
hundreds of billions of dollars. And by the end of this year, we will 
probably be at the level of $500 billion, a half a trillion dollars. 
That funnel keeps on taking money away from what we need at home.
  Yes, we have to protect ourselves against terrorism from any part of 
the world against American citizens. But we have a reason to believe 
that on these shores of ours, within the boundaries of the United 
States, we could lose lots more of our people and have our lives 
disrupted much more than they have been. It is very uncomfortable. We 
spend a fortune in security funding. If you go to the airports, you see 
it every minute. If you go into large public buildings, you see it 
there. Wherever you go, our lives have been inhibited in some way. Our 
freedoms are curtailed by the threat of terrorism.
  So we hear that our enemy has their guns loaded. What would happen if 
we knew that there was going to be an assault coming from abroad on the 
New York Harbor? Would we say: Don't defend that harbor; don't defend 
those areas, New Jersey and New York, where they are at the highest 
risk of terrorism facilities in the country? No, don't defend them? 
Even though the armada is on its way to New York Harbor, let's make 
sure that we take care of Wyoming and Nebraska and other States? No 
slight intended; they are all great States. But let's make sure we give 
them money now because we are going to distribute funds for defending 
ourselves.
  Seven hundred people from our State--neighbors, friends, even family. 
My oldest daughter's best friend died in the World Trade Center, 
leaving three children behind. Her husband searched hospitals for 2 
weeks, refusing to accept the fact that she would no longer be in their 
lives, hoping against hope she would be discovered alive. Those stories 
were repeated all over the area. The FBI has declared the 2-mile 
stretch that goes from Newark Liberty Airport to the harbor as the most 
inviting place for a terrorist attack in the country. Why? It is a very 
densely populated area, with large chemical facilities that could 
endanger the lives or well-being of more than 12 million people.
  To suggest that each State should be guaranteed a minimum I find hard 
to believe. I commend my colleague for saying: OK. Recognizing that if 
we want to get this passed, that we desperately need to raise the funds 
for those places most at risk, as mandated by the 9/11 Commission, then 
we have to understand reality. It is politics. Every State wants to get 
a little bit of the distribution. So let's reduce it from three-
quarters of 1 percent to one-quarter of a percent as a minimum and 
allow more funds to be distributed among the States most at risk. It 
makes eminent sense to me.
  When we look out west and we see Wyoming, beautiful State that it is, 
getting seven times more resources, more funding per capita than New 
Jersey, seven times more, if there is a risk in Wyoming, it sure can't 
be comprehended by seven times more distribution.
  I recall, once again, for emphasis purposes, recommendation 25 of the 
9/11 Commission report:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal homeland 
     security assistance should not remain a program for general 
     revenue sharing.

  Listen to that. Pay attention to this report. It was skillfully done, 
headed by the former Governor of New Jersey, a brilliant public servant 
who said that this is the way the program should be divided. Let's do 
it that way. Let's do it. Let's put the money where the risk is. That 
is what this ought to be about, nothing more. We have tried to arrive 
at a compromise position. I hope the Senate will support that position.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4600

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 4600.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4600.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 increase appropriations for disaster relief, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 98, line 24, strike ``$1,640,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,941,390,000, of which $301,390,000 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,''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
20 minutes, which I will divide between myself and my colleague from 
New York, Senator Clinton. I believe then the Senator from New 
Hampshire will have 15 minutes, and, at some point, we will vote on 
this legislation, probably around 2:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, I rise to offer this amendment to 
restore more than $300 million in funding to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's disaster relief account. This

[[Page S7473]]

is the amount that the President had requested in his budget. So this 
is hardly an outlandish fee or a fee that came up out of our heads.
  As we all know too well, our country has been visited by disaster far 
too many times in the last year. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 
devastating wildfires in Texas, Arizona, and California, and now the 
recent flooding in the Northeast, devastating New York as well as 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Maryland, and Virginia. Some of my 
staff people, and I know many others, have had flooding in their homes 
in the Washington area because of that.
  Unfortunately, FEMA has come up short every time. The Agency always 
seems to be on its heels when it needs to be on its toes.
  With all of the trouble that FEMA has, we should not be cutting the 
funding that goes directly to the people who are victims of these 
terrible disasters.
  We have seen the disaster. We have seen the terrible flooding. We 
know it is all too real. A week ago Friday, Senator Clinton and I 
toured the affected regions in upstate New York and saw the enormity of 
the flood and the work it is going to take to get it clean.
  I will share this with you. We met a businessperson who started out a 
new business and lived in the Catskill Mountains. He had been flooded 
twice in previous years. The disaster relief official on the ground 
said the first two floods were 100-year floods, meaning that level of 
flood only occurred once every hundred years. This was a 500-year 
flood. This businessperson--dedicated like all small business people, 
but they are sweating through all of this--was already loaned up and 
needed more money quickly.
  We met another business leader in St. Johnsville in the Mohawk Valley 
in Montgomery County, who started a new business and was the hope of 
the county, with 100 new jobs. They had announced they were going to 
have another 65 new jobs, but they were flooded out.
  The Beechnut plant, the largest employer, suffered huge damage, and 
the plant that makes baby food is not able to open. We visited the 
Canajoharie town hall, where all of the equipment was flooded and gone, 
including computers, phones, police department and fire department 
records--gone.
  We were in Binghamton and Conklin, which was totally flooded, as was 
Hancock and other places. We were told in one area in the Delaware 
Valley that the rain cloud stayed and never moved for 16 hours at the 
top of the mountain and the rain kept coming down.
  We met an older gentlemen whose 15-year-old daughter was in their 
house by the creek bank. The creek turned its course and pushed the 
house into the water, and she died. We saw that damage firsthand.
  The damages are going to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Just alone, the sewage plant in Binghamton was destroyed, a brandnew 
$20 million plant, gone.
  The physical damage to farms is enormous. As we flew over the 
Catskill Mountains, in the Delaware Valley and the Mohawk Valley, you 
could see farms flooded--the whole farm. The corn was gone. We saw dead 
cows, which is the life blood of these farms, including the dairy. Crop 
losses are estimated to be $20 million.
  So the damage was enormous. The damage was everywhere. It is unlike 
anything we have ever seen in New York.
  Our amendment is very simple. It restores more than $300 million in 
funding for FEMA's disaster relief account, bringing it back up to the 
President's request of $1.9 billion. Under this program, FEMA gives 
three types of assistance desperately needed: Individual assistance 
goes to individuals and households. This helps disaster victims find 
temporary housing, pay for rent, home repair, and even home replacement 
costs.
  In these three areas, the Susquehana Valley, Delaware Valley and its 
tributaries, and the Mohawk Valley, there are still homes being 
condemned as we speak. The people who lived in those homes for decades 
or for generations will never be able to go back. This assistance is so 
important to them.
  Second is public assistance, which is aid to public entities for 
reimbursement for emergency services and the repair or replacement of 
disaster-damaged public facilities such as roads, bridges, and water 
facilities. One town supervisor told us that their whole budget for 
roads--the whole yearly budget--was gone in 3 days. They don't know how 
they are going to repair the roads that are still broken and damaged.
  It didn't just occur to smaller roads. I-88, one of the most 
important lanes of commerce in our State, running from Albany to 
Binghamton, had a huge chasm in it. That was on the front page of most 
newspapers. Some truck drivers died as they fell into that chasm. We 
need that to help our towns, villages, and counties, get back.
  Third, there is hazard mitigation assistance which helps local 
governments protect against future disasters and reduce future losses 
to public and private property. In this era of changing climate, when 
we have had disasters afflicting us year after year, hazard mitigation 
assistance is very important.
  In our State, as in our neighboring States, people are struggling. 
There is nothing like seeing that damage firsthand and looking into the 
eyes of people who have lost loved ones or homes or businesses. You see 
that the only hope they have is that the Federal Government will come 
forward.
  We know that FEMA didn't do the job in New Orleans. We know it is 
going to be difficult for FEMA to get the money quickly and in large 
amounts to the areas in our State where they are needed. But the one 
thing we also know is that FEMA should not be able to say they don't 
have the dollars. Right now, with the cuts that are proposed in this 
budget, we cannot be sure of that.
  So many people are struggling in New York and around the country and 
we should be mobilizing the full resources and wherewithal of the 
Federal Government, not cutting back. This is one area where there is 
virtually universal agreement that it is the Federal Government's 
responsibility--disaster relief.
  Today, it is raining again in upstate New York. People are worried 
about the flood waters rising once again. We have to do everything in 
our power to help them and give them the assistance they need to 
rebuild stronger than ever.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, and I yield the remaining 
time to my colleague from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, is 
recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, my colleague has eloquently described 
the damage and devastation that he and I visited together last week.
  Floods are biblical. They go back as far as human history is 
recorded. But I never cease to be amazed at the damage they cause. 
There is something about a flood that is so devastating. It leaves 
behind places that are destroyed because of mold. It ruins businesses 
and homes. It leaves a residue of mud and muck and debris. It is a 
demoralizing, debilitating disaster.
  As Senator Schumer and I traveled from Binghamton north, we saw 
firsthand people coping and trying to figure out what was next--
businesses that lost everything and don't know how they will ever get 
back into business, homes that were washed into rivers and creeks, city 
halls and fire departments and police departments with records that 
were obliterated in an afternoon.
  Now, if this were a once-in-a-hundred-years phenomenon, maybe I would 
not be so worried, but time and again we have heard that there have 
been 3 floods in this area of New York in the last 24 months, 2 of 
which were classified as 100-year floods, 1 of which was classified as 
a 300-year flood. We are beginning to see the effects that were 
predicted by the National Hurricane Center earlier this year. We had 
even seen our National Archives, which holds our most precious founding 
documents, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fighting back the 
floodwaters, trying to preserve America's history.
  Just last night in the county I live in in New York, tornadoes were 
spotted. That is very unusual. I lived for a number of years in 
Arkansas. We saw tornadoes all the time. I have been chased

[[Page S7474]]

by a tornado. I have seen them on the horizon. I have lived with 
tornado damage. I visited many devastated communities. But tornadoes 
were not thought to affect States like New York. New York was hurricane 
territory, not tornado territory. Last night, we had a tornado.
  The strange weather that we are experiencing is out of the usual, and 
I hope that we can get the help we need and that the amendment that 
Senator Schumer and I have proposed will be passed so that we can 
replenish the disaster fund with the amount of money that we know will 
be needed to take care of the people we represent in New York.
  There was similar damage in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and 
apparently there is more to come. We have had predictions that the 2006 
Atlantic hurricane season outlook is expected to be 80 percent above 
the normal in the number and intensity of hurricanes.
  We all know of the damage that occurred along our Gulf coast. But 
there are predictions of significant storms along the Atlantic coast up 
to and including New York for the rest of this summer and into the 
fall.
  We need to get ready. That is why this amendment makes such good 
sense. All that it asks is that we restore the money the President 
asked for in his budget. That money was cut. We want to add and 
replenish the disaster relief fund to the tune of $300 million so that 
there is $1.94 billion in that fund to help us meet the needs of New 
Yorkers and others who are being afflicted by this unusually severe 
weather.
  Fully funding that disaster relief fund is one way to ensure that 
people know there is going to be help on the way. It is demoralizing 
enough--I saw it on the faces of people as I walked the streets of 
Canajoharie and saw everybody in shorts and flip-flops and T-shirts 
shoveling out the public library or the boys and girls club across the 
street or the businesses up and down Main Street or the Beechnut plant.
  It is demoralizing enough to try to figure out how you are going to 
recover from a flood. Let's not add to that sense of despair by sending 
a message that the Federal Government isn't prepared to help.
  We learned a lot from the disasters of our response to Katrina and 
Rita, and I hope we will have unanimous support to replenish the 
disaster relief fund.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman be 
added as a cosponsor to the Schumer-Clinton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the purpose of calling up another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I was assured there would not be an 
objection. This is for the purpose of bringing up an amendment but not 
calling for a vote on it at this time.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.


                           Amendment No. 4582

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4582.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4582.

  Mrs. CLINTON. 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 prohibit the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
 (Transportation Security Administration) from removing any item from 
   the current list of items prohibited from being carried aboard a 
                          passenger aircraft)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration) shall not modify the 
     list of items prohibited from being carried aboard a 
     passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier or foreign air 
     carrier in air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation set forth in section 1540 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, so as to permit any item contained on 
     the list as of December 1, 2005, to be carried aboard a 
     passenger aircraft.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is an amendment which addresses the 
concerns raised by the Transportation Security Administration lifting 
the prohibition of passengers carrying onto our passenger aircraft 
sharp objects, including knives.
  There is a considerable debate, led by the airline attendants and 
pilots, as to the wisdom of this rule being lifted. I ask the Senate to 
consider whether this is a good idea. We have been so successful in 
nearly 5 years in avoiding incidents on our airlines, in keeping our 
people safe on our airlines. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
  This rule has worked. People are used to the rule. My goodness, we 
have had security people take steak knives out of people's handbags and 
suitcases. We have had them take out huge pen knives and switchblades. 
Why do we want to go back to that?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I am sorry, I did not hear the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is to set aside the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.


                           Amendment No. 4600

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that we return to the pending 
business of the Schumer-Clinton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, speaking to the Schumer-Clinton amendment, 
I wish to simply make the point that obviously all of us in the 
Northeast have experienced these very severe weather conditions which 
have led to floods. In New Hampshire, we are a little bit ahead of New 
York, regrettably. We had a huge storm earlier that led to major 
flooding throughout the State.
  I have to congratulate FEMA for their response. They have been very 
prompt. They have been on top of it. People who have made requests for 
reimbursement pursuant to the disaster declarations have received those 
funds, and we are getting a very effective and efficient response 
throughout New England, which all of New England was impacted, 
especially Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
  I know New York has gone through this experience, and, of course, the 
city of Washington has. I understand the Senators from New York wanting 
to make a point relative to the importance of having the resources to 
make sure when this type of disaster occurs there is money available to 
address the concerns of the communities that have been hit and the 
individuals who have been hit.
  This amendment, as it is presently structured, is not going to have 
any impact on the New York problem that exists today. That will be 
addressed by money that is already in the pipeline, that is in the 
disaster relief fund. The disaster relief fund has a very robust amount 
of money in it. It has $9.3 billion in it right now. This bill 
addresses 2007 disaster activity. This bill has a number of $1.6 
billion which will be added to whatever is left at the end of the 2006 
year of the $9.3 billion as the resource available to FEMA.
  So as a practical matter, the amendment which the Senators from New 
York have offered will have no impact on the very compelling anecdotal 
stories that have been put forward relative to the damage to the New 
York communities. Those communities and the individuals affected by 
this event will be looking to FEMA, which has resources which are 
already in the pipeline which will be available for them to assist the 
people who have been impacted. The money will be there. The New York 
citizens will get the money they need out of the $9.3 billion which is 
in the disaster relief fund.
  What this amendment does is declare an emergency and add another $300 
million to this bill, which is essentially outside of the budget. So I 
really don't think it is necessary at this time--in fact, I know it is 
not necessary at this time, and I know it is not going to impact the 
immediate New York situation. It just is not. It raises the bigger 
issue of what should be the number

[[Page S7475]]

that we put into the disaster relief fund in one of these bills.
  It almost is a Ouija board exercise on this committee to figure out 
what number we put into this account because some years disasters will 
be significant and some years they won't. The last year and a half, we 
have dealt with the Katrina event, which was more than significant--it 
was horrific last year, and that was an aberration, we all sincerely 
hope--certainly the Presiding Officer hopes that--but that has caused 
us to have to spend over $100 billion on disaster relief.

  Whatever we put in this account is really just a guess, and until we 
see the actual events that are brought upon the Nation relative to 
natural disasters, how much money this account is going to need will 
not really be known.
  What we have shown as a Congress--and I think we have shown it rather 
aggressively time and again--is that when a disaster does occur which 
does qualify for FEMA funds and the disaster relief fund needs dollars, 
we act in a very prompt and aggressive manner. In fact, one can argue 
that in the Katrina situation, we put so much money in the pipeline so 
fast that a lot of it was not effectively used. That has been our 
history. I think that is actually the way to approach it.
  I have often thought about whether we should just put a lot of money 
in there and let it sit and wait for the disaster. We could do that, 
but as a practical matter, that is not a good use of taxpayers' 
dollars. It makes much more sense, if we have a terrible disaster, if 
we have floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes that create a declaration of 
disaster, that we make sure we have enough money in the disaster relief 
fund to meet the immediate needs, and if it needs more, we can come 
back and do it under emergency declaration.
  There is no question there is enough money in the relief fund to take 
care of all the disasters we know about, with potentially the exception 
of Katrina, which is being handled outside the relief fund for the 
reconstruction of the gulf coast. There is no need to put any more 
money in this account. Certainly, if we put more money in it at this 
time, it will have no impact on an event that occurred a month ago or 
an event that occurs tomorrow or occurs up until the end of September 
because this money will not be available until October 1.
  So this amendment is a statement, I understand that, of concern by 
the Senators from New York, and as representatives of the State of New 
York, I can understand their desire to get on record with such a 
statement. But at the appropriate time, I will make a point of order 
against it because it is an expense which we should not incur at this 
time for the reasons which I have outlined.
  For the edification of our Members, my hope is--and I have talked 
with the Senator from Washington about this--my hope is that after 
Senator Sessions offers his amendments--and my understanding is that he 
will be here shortly to do that--we will be able to vote on four 
amendments. That would be an amendment by Senator Menendez, an 
amendment by Senators Schumer and Clinton, and the two Senator Sessions 
amendments. I hope those votes will get started soon after Senator 
Sessions has completed his presentation and when anybody who wishes to 
respond to him has done so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. 4582

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside. I wish to comment briefly on amendment No. 4582, which I 
understand would reverse the Transportation Security Administration's 
decision to remove small scissors and tools from the prohibited items 
list.
  I understand we want to take every precaution when it comes to 
security on our airplanes, in our ports, and on our trains, but this is 
a case where I think the Administrator of the TSA has been trying to do 
the right thing.
  In my opinion, one of the problems with TSA is we have given them 
tons of money, we have demanded and expected all kinds of security 
instantly, and it has created certain problems. We should focus our 
money more wisely. I think the Transportation Security Administration 
should focus on higher priorities. They have been willing to do that.

  I have talked to the Administrator, Kip Hawley, several times about 
what they are trying to do. This is an issue which does have 
jurisdiction in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on 
which I serve. Frankly, I commended him, privately and publicly, for 
being willing to take some of these things off the list. How many of 
you have been through these outrageous processes that you have to go 
through or have had to go through to get on airplanes? How many times 
have I been ripped off of scissors or small pocket knives that are no 
damage at all? I just went ahead and bought them by the dozen. I mean, 
this is not going to an airplane take.
  So common sense is what I have asked the TSA to use: Use your head. 
My goodness, is this a weapon? It looks pretty dangerous. It is a 
ballpoint pen. So it is time we have some common sense at the 
Department of Homeland Security, at the Transportation Security 
Administration. How many times am I going to have to take off my shoes 
because one guy tried to light the heel of his shoe? How long is it 
going to take us to get technology that makes these frisking processes 
we go through make sense?
  Look, the American people don't mind being a little inconvenienced or 
being delayed a little bit if it makes sense. But I am telling you, I 
have warned TSA: This is one of the examples where you have a problem 
because Senators in this instance are like everybody else; when we get 
on a commercial airplane, we have to endure the same inconveniences and 
embarrassments and ridiculousness as everybody else.
  So I really do oppose this amendment. I think TSA is trying to do the 
right thing. I go back to what I was talking about a while ago. 
Senators and Congressmen, you are in a line with your constituents; 
what are they saying to you? They are ripping us because some of the 
ridiculousness they have to go through they don't really think makes an 
airplane or train or whatever more secure.
  So I just hope we will not pass this amendment. I believe the TSA has 
done the right thing, and I hope they will continue to make it less 
inconvenient, while making it more secure. Focusing on things that 
really are a danger will allow them to do a better job where it 
matters.
  I just wanted to raise this point of view with regard to the decision 
by TSA and to object to the amendment that is pending. I hope to focus 
on this issue and talk about it responsibly among ourselves and with 
the Transportation Security Administration--that is good, but I think 
it would be a mistake to reverse these items which have been taken off 
the list.
  Mr. President, I understand there are other speakers who may be in 
the area, so 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.


 Amendments Nos. 4657, 4573, as Modified, 4626, as Modified, 4636, and 
                             4653, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that have 
been cleared on both sides that I will call up en bloc. I ask unanimous 
consent that amendment No. 4657, Senator Stabenow; amendment No. 4573, 
Senator Obama, as modified; amendment No. 4626, Senator Dodd, as 
modified; amendment No. 4636, Senator Cantwell; and amendment No. 4653, 
Senator Lautenberg, be called up, deemed read, and agreed to by 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4657

(Purpose: To provide collections and expenditures for the Customs User 
                              Fee Account)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security

[[Page S7476]]

     shall provide personnel and equipment to improve national 
     security by inspecting international shipments of municipal 
     solid waste, and shall levy a fee limited to the approximate 
     cost of such inspections.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4573, as modified

   (Purpose: To assist individuals displaced by a major disaster in 
                        locating family members)

       On page 98, line 6, before the period insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services and the Attorney General of the United States, shall 
     conduct an assessment of the models used by the Louisiana 
     family assistance call center and the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children in assisting individuals 
     displaced by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 in locating members of 
     their family to determine how these models may be modified to 
     assist individuals displaced in a major disaster (as that 
     term is defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) 
     in locating members of their family: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the chairman and ranking member 
     of the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives results of the assessment 
     conducted under the previous proviso as well as a plan to 
     implement the findings of such assessment, to the maximum 
     extent practicable''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4626, as modified

(Purpose: To increase appropriations for firefighter assistance grants, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 65, line 22, strike ``$90,122,000'' and insert 
     ``$82,622,000''.
       On page 120, increase the amount on line 9 by $17,500,000.
       On page 94, line 17, strike ``$655,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$680,000,000''.
       On page 94, line 17, strike ``$540,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$552,500,000''.
       On page 94, line 19, strike ``$115,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$127,500,000''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4636

(Purpose: To provide for interoperable communications systems planning 
                 in connection with the 2010 Olympics)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 540. REPORT ON CROSS BORDER COMMUNICATIONS CHALLENGES 
                   FOR THE 2010 OLYMPICS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, the Federal 
     Communications Commission, and relevant agencies in the 
     States of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, 
     shall--
       (1) evaluate the technical and operational challenges with 
     respect to interoperable communications facing regional, 
     local, State, and Federal authorities in preparing for the 
     2010 Olympics; and
       (2) develop an integrated plan for addressing such 
     technical and operational challenges.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit and present the plan developed under subsection 
     (a) to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4653

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a 
 classified report to Congress on the security vulnerabilities of the 
      bridges and tunnels connecting New Jersey to New York City)

       On page 96, line 23, insert ``: Provided further, That not 
     later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a 
     classified report describing the security vulnerabilities of 
     all rail, transit, and highway bridges and tunnels connecting 
     Northern New Jersey and New York City to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives'' before the period at the end.


                           Amendment No. 4657

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment cosponsored 
by Senator Levin and Senator Baucus that will require U.S. Customs and 
Border Patrol to charge inspection fees to Canadian shippers who export 
municipal solid waste into Michigan in order to pay for truck 
inspections. My amendment would impose approximately a $420 fee on 
every trash truck that crosses into Michigan.
  In 2003, the city of Toronto started shipping 100 percent of its 
trash to Michigan. The result? Every day, 350 trucks carrying trash 
from Toronto enter Michigan on their way to Michigan landfills. But 
they don't just carry trash. In recent years we have found illegal 
medical waste, including radioactive materials, and illegal drugs and 
currency. There is no limit to what could be smuggled in these trucks.
  In February, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general 
released a report that I requested with Senator Levin and Congressman 
Dingell. The inspector general found that trash trucks are extremely 
difficult to inspect and carry dangerous waste. The report also points 
out that trash trucks are difficult to screen with traditional x-ray 
equipment and must be physically inspected to verify their contents. 
Finally, the report states that it is virtually impossible to find 
dangerous items because of limited resources for conducting time-
intensive physical inspections.
  The people of Michigan know exactly what kinds of dangerous materials 
are in these trash trucks. Over the past few years, we have seen 
numerous examples. Customs officials seized nearly 1 ton of illegal 
drugs hidden inside a Canadian trash truck that entered the U.S. from 
Toronto over the Blue Water Bridge. A Canadian trash truck arrived in 
Michigan dripping blood because it contained broken bags of untreated 
blood and hospital waste in direct violation of Michigan and Ontario 
law requiring medical waste to be placed in secure containers separate 
from other waste. A trash truck that was on fire attempted to cross the 
Blue Water Bridge, requiring 8,000 gallons of water and valuable local, 
State, and Federal resources before it was finally doused. Most 
recently, a Canadian trash truck spilled sewage sludge across a main 
thoroughfare of Huron Township closing the road for hours and diverting 
valuable local resources for the cleanup.
  These outrageous incidents and the inspector general's report led me 
to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that 
was unanimously accepted by the Senate. My amendment assumes $45 
million a year in Federal funds that would be collected by charging 
Canadian trash shippers an inspection fee as they enter Michigan. The 
collected fees will pay for the increased personnel costs associated 
with increasing the number of physical inspections of trash trucks, 
ensuring that taxpayers are not on the hook to pay the costs for 
inspecting these dangerous trash shipments.
  Based on information provided by the inspector general, we know that 
it will take four Customs agents about 4 hours for each trash truck 
inspection. Based on personnel and administrative costs, we estimate 
that the fee for each trash truck will be approximately $420.
  The next step is to ensure that Customs can actually collect these 
fees. The amendment I am offering today does exactly that.
  On March 30, the Committee on Homeland Security's Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations released a report called ``An Assessment 
of U.S. Efforts to Secure the Global Supply Chain.'' This report 
includes a section on Canadian trash shipments.
  The subcommittee report states that it is ``inherently difficult and 
dangerous to physically inspect trash containers.'' Furthermore, the 
subcommittee recommends that Congress ``enact into law the provisions 
recently adopted by the U.S. Senate to impose a fee on international 
shipments of trash to pay for a more rigorous inspection regime to 
protect U.S. citizens from the security risks currently associated with 
trash containers.''
  This is what the amendment that I am offering today does: establishes 
the inspection fees that the Senate already approved in the budget 
resolution.
  We need to give Customs the resources to more effectively screen and 
inspect them.
  Mr. President, I also wanted to make some remarks and discuss the two 
reports I previously mentioned in order to provide some legislative 
history and intent of my amendment No. 4657, that the Senate just 
adopted.
  The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' March report, among 
other things, analyzed the unique security risks posed by the 
importation into the United States of cargo containers carrying trash.
  The report points out that the importers of consumer products, by 
contrast, have more control over the specific content and the origin of 
the imported products, making it easier to

[[Page S7477]]

take steps to monitor and ensure the security of the supply chain. 
There are few, if any, security measures in place to screen trash or 
ensure that trash does not conceal illegal or harmful materials, such 
as weapons or nuclear material.
  Growing imports of trash present an increasingly serious security 
problem. For example, according to the Senate report, Canada shipped 
roughly 100,000 containers of trash across U.S. borders into Michigan 
in 2004 alone, an 8-percent increase over 2003. Another 10,000 
containers of trash come through nine other ports of entry on both the 
northern and southern borders of the United States each year.
  The inspector general's report found that from 2003 to 2004, tons of 
illegal drugs and millions of dollars in illegal currency have been 
transported into the United States in trash containers, among other 
forbidden cargo. The Senate report concluded that the Department of 
Homeland Security should ban imports of trash into the United States 
entirely until the Secretary of Homeland Security ``can ensure that the 
supply chain of a trash importer is secure or develops protocols 
ensuring adequate inspections of individual trash containers.''

  In order to pay for more rigorous inspections to protect people in 
the United States from the security risks currently associated with 
trash containers, the Senate report recommended enacting into law a 
``fee on international shipments of trash.''
  In my amendment, the shipments that would be more rigorously 
inspected would be in the Customs Territory of the United States, which 
has the meaning given the term in the general note 2 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States.
  Also, the term ``municipal solid waste'' means all waste materials 
discarded for disposal by households, including single-family and 
multifamily residences, and hotels and motels; and all waste materials 
discarded for disposal that were generated by commercial, 
institutional, municipal, and industrial sources, to the extent such 
materials are essentially similar to what I just described and were 
collected and disposed of with other municipal solid waste previously 
described as part of or normal municipal solid waste collection 
services, except that this does not apply to hazardous materials other 
than hazardous materials that, under regulations issued under section 
3001(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act are not subject to regulation 
under subtitle C of that act.
  The term ``municipal solid waste'' includes food and yard waste, 
paper, clothing, appliances, consumer product packaging, disposable 
diapers, office supplies, cosmetics, glass and metal food containers, 
household hazardous waste, and debris resulting from construction, 
repair, or demolition of structures.
  The term ``municipal solid waste'' does not include any solid waste 
identified or listed as a hazardous waste under section 3001 of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act, except for household hazardous waste; any 
solid waste including contaminated soil and debris resulting from a 
response action taken under the section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, a 
response action taken under a State law with authorities comparable to 
the authorities of such section 104 or 106 or a corrective action taken 
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
  It also does not include recycled materials that have been separated, 
at the source of the waste, from waste otherwise destined for disposal 
or that have been managed separately from waste destined for disposal; 
scrap rubber to be used as a fuel source; materials and products 
returned from a dispenser or distributor to the manufacturer for 
credit, evaluation, and possible reuse, any solid waste that is 
generated by an industrial facility and transported for the purpose of 
treatment, storage, or disposal to a facility or unit thereof that is 
owned or operated by the generator of the waste, located on property 
owned by the generator or a company with which the generator is 
affiliated or the capacity of which is contractually dedicated 
exclusively to a specific generator, or as long as the disposal area 
complies with local and State land use and zoning regulations 
applicable to the disposal site, any medical waste that is segregated 
from or not mixed with solid waste, combustion ash generated by 
resource recovery facilities or municipal incinerators, or waste from 
manufacturing or processing, including pollution control, operations 
not essentially the same as waste normally generated by households.
  Mr. President, I hope this will provide the executive and judicial 
branches with a fuller explanation of the intent and meaning of this 
amendment.


                           amendment no. 4626

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bipartisan amendment 
which I introduced with my colleagues, Senators DeWine and Mikulski, 
that helps our Nation's firefighters perform their critical duties more 
safely. This amendment was passed earlier by unnanimous consent. I 
would like to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, and the subcommittee's 
ranking member, Senator Byrd. Crafting legislation that meets the 
varied domestic security needs of our Nation is no easy feat and I 
thank Chairman Gregg, Senator Byrd, and all of my colleagues on the 
subcommittee for their hard work and support.
  This amendment increases funding to the Assistance to Firefighters 
Grants, which I initially authored in 2000 with my colleagues, Senators 
DeWine, Levin, and Warner. During the past 5 years, this initiative, 
which includes the FIRE and SAFER grants, has provided almost $2.5 
billion in assistance to over 29,000 fire departments in all 50 States 
and the District of Columbia. These resources have enabled fire 
departments to obtain updated firefighting equipment, hire additional 
firefighters, and improve firefighter training--activities that are 
crucial toward ensuring that firefighters can protect American citizens 
safely and effectively in this post-9/ll world.
  Our Nation's firefighters are willing to do whatever it takes to 
perform their duties. We have first-rate firefighters throughout our 
Nation, but they continue to be under-funded, under-staffed, 
undertrained, and under-equipped to deal with the various emergencies 
that may arise and have already arisen in their jurisdictions.
  Very few people who are not firefighters stop and think about how 
much we continue to ask of our firefighters in today's world. They 
still perform their traditional duties of extinguishing fires, 
delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are 
inspected. However, refighters have also taken on homeland security 
responsibilities that include responding to and handling hazardous 
biological and radiological agents.
  The fact remains that cash-strapped municipalities across our Nation 
simply do not have the financial resources and personnel to assist 
their fire departments in fully meeting these enhanced responsibilities 
and, consequently, safeguarding their populations. According to the 
most recent needs assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published 
in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources 
and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale 
emergencies.
  More specifically, the study found that, first, using local 
firefighters, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue 
with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building 
with 50 occupants. Second, using local firefighters, only 13 percent of 
fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving 
chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Third, an estimated 
40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material 
response lack formal training in those duties. And finally, the study 
found that an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not 
have enough fire stations to allow firefighters to respond swiftly to 
emergency calls.
  These statistics are startling and are not improving over time. A new 
needs assessment that is forecasted to be released in the coming months 
is expected to conclude that--despite the success the firefighter 
grants have achieved in individual departments--fire departments across 
the Nation continue to struggle to carry out their critical duties.
  The risks that firefighters are expected to face continue to outgrow 
the

[[Page S7478]]

ability of municipalities fully to provide them with the resources they 
require. Therefore, it is imperative that the Senate continue 
supporting our firefighters and working to address their concerns.
  The amendment that I have offered increases funding for firefighters 
by $25 million--$1.5 million for the FIRE Act grant initiative and 
$12.5 million for the SAFER Act grant initiative. These increases bring 
the total arpount of funding for the FIRE Grant to $552,500,000 and the 
SAFER Grant to $127,500,000. While I thank Senators Gregg, Byrd, and 
their colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee 
for finding the resources necessary to support these important grant 
initiatives at levels slightly above last year's funding, I believe 
that more resources need to be dedicated to the FIRE and SAFER grants.
  The FIRE Act grant initiative has been one of the most successful 
homeland security grant initiatives in recent years. It is clear that 
the need for these competitive, merit-based grants continues to grow in 
all regions of our Nation. For fiscal year 2006 alone, there were over 
18,000 applications submitted, totaling over $2.3 billion in grant 
requests. Unfortunately, less than $545 million in Federal funding was 
ultimately made available.
  Equally important as the FIRE Grant is the SAFER Grant--an initiative 
which provides critial resources for fire departments to hire and 
recruit personnel.
  Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources 
for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act provides the human 
resources necessary to get those jobs done safely and effectively. Over 
the past three decades, the number of firefighters as a percentage of 
the Nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today two-thirds of fire 
departments in the United States lack adequate personnel. We have fewer 
firefighters per capita, one firefighter for every 280 people, than 
nurses and police officers.
  In fiscal year 2006 alone, 1,727 applications were submitted, 
totaling over $1.8 billion in grant requests. Unfortunately, less than 
$110 million in Federal funding was ultimately made available. Clearly, 
we must do more in order to ensure that fire departments are adequately 
staffed and trained to meet the needs of their communities.
  The amendment that I have offered is fully offset by reducing 
administrative funding for the Office of the Homeland Security 
Secretary and Executive Management and utilizing unused funding from 
last year for science and technology initiatives. These offsets still 
allow the Office of the Secretary to meet its obligations fully in the 
coming year and the Department of Homeland Security to develop new 
technologies that keep Americans safe.
  I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that the fiscal 
year 2007 authorization levels for the FIRE and SAFER Grants are $1 
billion each. The appropriations in this bill for these initiatives are 
less than one-third the sums authorized. I am committed to working with 
my colleagues in the future to ensure that firefighters receive more 
critical resources they require.
  America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones 
out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare 
danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty 
to fulfill. We must rcognize their contribution to our domestic safety 
and see to it that they have the necessary equipment and personnel in 
order to perform their critical duties safely and effectively.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Dodd-DeWine 
amendment increasing funding for firefighter grants. These grants are 
for local fire departments to ready themselves. The cost of equipment 
can't be covered on fish fries and bingos alone. The firefighter grant 
program is a wise and prudent use of Federal funds. I know these funds 
are used well in my home State of Maryland.
  This program has no winners or losers. Everyone wins in rural and 
urban America. I acknowledge that these are tight times and there is a 
tight allocation. But we must do better for our first responders. When 
I was the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, Senator Bond and I funded 
firefighter grants at $900 million. While this amendment does not get 
us to that funding level, it does provide an increase for the program.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 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. 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.


                           Amendment No. 4659

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, and 
     Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 4659.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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:


                           amendment no. 4659

  (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct 
double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border 
and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts 
                          on a pro-rata basis)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Customs and Border Protection'' and under the 
     subheading ``construction'' is hereby increased by 
     $1,829,400,000, which shall remain available until expended.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the 
     amount made available under the subheading described in 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) not less than $1,184,000,000 shall be used for the 
     construction of 370 miles of double-layered fencing along the 
     international border between the United States and Mexico; 
     and
       (2) not less than $645,400,000 shall be for the 
     construction of not less than 461 miles of vehicle barriers 
     along the international border between the United States and 
     Mexico.
       (c) All discretionary amounts made available under this 
     Act, other than the amount appropriated under the subheading 
     described in subsection (a), shall be reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by $1,829,400,000.


                           Amendment No. 4660

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, and 
     Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 4660.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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:


                           amendment no. 4660

   (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $85,670,000 to enable the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to hire 800 additional full time active 
 duty investigators to investigate immigrations laws violations and to 
               offset such increase on a pro rata basis)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement'' and under the 
     subheading ``salaries and expenses'' is hereby increased by 
     $85,670,000.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the 
     amount made available under the subheading described in 
     subsection (a) not less than $104,000,000 shall be available 
     to increase the number of full time active duty investigators 
     employed by the Department of Homeland Security to 
     investigate violations of immigration laws (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) by not less than 800 more than the number 
     of such positions for which funds were made available during 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, pursuant to 
     section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734).
       (c) All discretionary amounts made available under this 
     Act, other than the amount appropriated under the subheading 
     described in subsection (a), shall be reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by $85,670,000.

                           Amendment No. 4659

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4659.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending. The Senator from 
Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, on May 17, my 
colleagues, by a vote of 83 to 16, approved

[[Page S7479]]

my amendment to the Department of Homeland Security immigration bill to 
construct at least 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle 
barriers along the southwest border of the United States. This was 
based on the statement of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary 
Chertoff, that this was what he believed was necessary to create a 
border enforcement system.
  Of course, a fence is not a cure-all, but it is a very real and 
integral component of enforcement at the border. Many of the areas we 
have the greatest difficulty with are urban areas. You can't put a 
policeman at every single street corner where people can walk across. 
So a barrier is necessary.
  We have a number of barriers in San Diego and other places, and they 
have worked very well. Crime on both sides of the border has decreased, 
property values have increased in those areas, and economic development 
has occurred.
  So there is no doubt--and it is not something that is mysterious--
that a good fencing procedure will help us in many ways. It is 
something we discussed and debated, and then when we voted, we voted 83 
to 16 to approve it--a bipartisan vote.
  But what I wish to make clear is this was simply an authorization. It 
represented a promise, a commitment by the Senate that we would build 
fencing. We would build fencing, and that, in large degree, is a part 
of our dialog with the American people in which we told them we are 
getting serious about enforcement. We are not just talking anymore. We 
really mean this time to get serious about enforcement, and we are 
going to do the things that are necessary. We are not going to build a 
fence along the entire border, but we need a certain amount of 
fencing--370 miles--and that is what would be put in, and that is what 
this Congress, this Senate, voted for. The House has more. I think they 
have 600 miles in their bill. So this was where we were.
  I have made this point for some time in the debate: We do a lot of 
talking, we do a lot of legislating. The things we do often sound very 
good. The things we say often sound very good. But we don't ever quite 
get there. The things which will really make a difference, which can be 
demonstrable in improving lawfulness at the border, somehow, some way, 
seem not to become law.
  This fencing requires a sum of money. We are going to show an 
increase--an increase--in spending for Medicare and Medicaid and Social 
Security next year or this year, this period, of over $100 billion. We 
are talking here about a cost of less than $2 billion, a one-time 
enforcement enhancement of having a barrier at the border.

  The figure we have in here of $1.8 billion contemplates that it will 
all be done by private contractors at the higher prices for the better 
fence. I suspect as we move forward in conference the conferees may 
find that the National Guard, which were not part of the process at the 
beginning, were not being called out when we first voted on this 
amendment, could actually build this fencing for what we understand 
would be one-third the cost per mile. This might be a perfect thing for 
them to do and participate in. There may be other ways to keep this 
cost down.
  We made a commitment as a body that we were going to take some real 
steps that would work to enhance enforcement at the border.
  So I say to my colleagues, in many ways the vote we are about to take 
on funding this amendment is a test. The American people should look at 
us and evaluate us according to this test we are about to take. Were we 
serious on May 17 when we said we wanted to build this fence? It is not 
in this bill today. This is the legislation that is the appropriate 
vehicle to put in the spending for it. It is not in the President's 
request. It is not in the item that came out of the committee.
  I know the committee had many challenges, but this matter is 
important. It represents a commitment we made to the American people. 
We need to follow through on that. If we do not, how could anyone say 
that the Senate has integrity in the commitment that it has made to the 
American people to create a lawful system of immigration in our 
country, to end the lawlessness at the border and create a lawful 
system?
  That is what we need to do. We don't need to end immigration. We are 
going to maintain immigration. We are going to treat people fairly. We 
are going to allow people to come in and go from the United States. In 
fact, we can enhance that and make it much easier, but we need to have 
a lawful system. We need to end this unlawful system, and that is what 
I would say is so critical about this process.
  The bill as presently written appropriates $288 million for necessary 
expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, and maintain buildings 
and facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement of the 
laws relating to customs and immigration.
  None of this $288 million is designated for any construction of new 
areas of border fencing on the Southwest border, as we voted to do by 
83 to 13. The construction funding only includes money to continue land 
acquisition and construction for the San Diego fence--$30 million--
which is already under construction.
  As for vehicle barriers that we have been told are important, 
especially out in the rural areas, barriers to stop the easy crossing 
of vehicles, 39 miles of new permanent vehicle barrier in western 
Arizona only are funded. That is for 39 miles, not the 500 miles that 
we authorized. It continues construction of vehicle barriers in El Paso 
for a few miles; $200,000 for vehicle barriers in the Swanton Sector.
  Those amounts are the only amounts out of the $288 million that are 
designated specifically for fencing and vehicle barriers. That is not 
enough to fund what the Senate voted to authorize, 370 miles of fencing 
and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.
  I know there are ways to contain costs. Frankly, I think if we work 
at it we might be able to demonstrate this amount of fencing could be 
done for less than we have here. But I would say to my colleagues, the 
estimates we have had are these. This will meet the challenge. Unless 
we have clear evidence to the contrary, we need to follow through on 
our commitment to fund this.
  This amendment appropriates the funds for the 370 miles of fencing 
and 461 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along the 
Southwest border that the Senate authorized in May. Although the 
Department of Homeland Security supported my amendment at the time to 
add these miles of fencing and barriers when we voted on those issues 
in May, funding for these miles of fencing is not included in the bill.
  The advantages of fencing are numerous. It magnifies, it multiplies 
the effectiveness of our Border Patrol officers as they go about their 
work. They have a difficult job to do. They have to maintain a border 
that is 1,700 miles long. They need help. There is no way we could have 
enough Border Patrol agents to patrol that entire border. We need to 
make it more difficult for those who would come in to our country 
illegally.
  Fencing has worked in San Diego, it has worked in Arizona, and it is 
going to work wherever we put it, to enhance the ability of our law 
enforcement officers to detain and stop and interdict those who would 
enter the country illegally, which is what we need to do if we are 
going to move from this lawless system of immigration to a lawful 
system of immigration.
  These are the kinds of things the American people have been asking 
for. They are asking for us to demonstrate that business as usual is no 
longer in effect, that talk is no longer in effect. The American people 
are looking at us and they are going to be looking at us carefully to 
see if we are actually going to follow through on what might really 
work to reduce illegal immigration and to create a system that is 
lawful and decent and fair, so people who wait in line are not chumps 
and those who break the law and come across the border illegally are 
the ones who get rewarded.
  We need to stop that. That is wrong. It undermines law and sends a 
wrong message to those people who come into our country.
  I say to my colleagues that we need to do a better job. We have a 
serious problem with the American people. They are suspicious of us. 
They are cynical about what we have done. We have been talking about a 
lawful system of immigration for 30 or 40 years, and we have never 
produced it. We

[[Page S7480]]

passed a bill 20 years ago, in 1986, that was to be the amnesty to end 
all amnesties. We said we are going to do this one time and after this 
is done we are going to create a lawful system for immigration.
  What happened? Amnesty became law just like that. The people got 
their amnesty. And there was a promise. As we made a promise on May 17 
to build fences, they promised to do the things necessary to secure the 
border after 1986, and it never happened. It didn't happen in the 
1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000. We had a series of Presidents who did 
not follow through. We have had a series of Congresses that have sat 
over those years and they have not made this system work. Yet when we 
go back home to our borders we say we want no amnesty and we want a 
lawful system. It is time for us to make a decision.
  This is a lot of money, you say. It is $2 billion. I say we spend 
$1,400 billion a year in this country. If you took a poll of the 
American people, would they say we ought to spend a couple of billion 
dollars to start making a real dent in the illegality at the border, 
that they would expect us to find the money somewhere? I think there is 
no other program in this country not worthy of being reduced to some 
degree so we could fund this.
  My amendment would simply take an overall reduction in funding in 
this bill because that is what I am limited to, really, as an effective 
amendment at this point: to cut across all funding levels in the bill a 
sufficient sum to fund what we committed to do, which is build a fence.
  I want to say to my colleagues, this matter is not going away. We are 
not going to be able to go back to the American people and tell them we 
have taken seriously their directive to us to fix this system if we 
don't put up the money necessary to do so.
  As I have said for so many years--and recently we have talked about 
it a lot--you have to get to that tipping point in enforcement. You 
have to reach that point in which it is quite clear to those who would 
want to come to this country that the best way to do so is to come 
lawfully, to wait in line and take your turn.
  I talked with President Bush about it on Air Force One. He agreed. He 
used the phrase ``tipping point.'' That is exactly correct. We want to 
establish a tipping point; a barrier, sufficient agents, sufficient 
detention spaces are key to that. It is not going to break the bank.
  I am optimistic about our ability to achieve this. But you simply 
have to close the holes. You have a bucket with three holes in it. If 
you close two of the holes, you are still going to have the water run 
out. When we do what is necessary to close the holes in our legal 
system we can create a system that will actually work, create a tipping 
point where people wait in line and come legally according to the 
standards this country establishes for them.
  I am very concerned that by not funding what we just so recently 
voted for, by not funding that we will be indicating, just like in 
1986, we were really serious about moving forward with an amnesty but 
we are not serious about creating a lawful system of immigration in 
this country. Wouldn't that break faith with the people who sent us 
here? Wouldn't that undermine their respect once again? It is already 
at the lowest possible ebb.
  They know we have not been serious about the border. Everybody knows 
that. Who can deny that? It has been an issue for quite a long time. It 
has been discussed and discussed.
  They say we can have a virtual fence. A virtual fence will help a 
little bit. But I am not able to cash a virtual check at the bank.
  I would like to see some real fencing. So we had a discussion about 
that and we voted. We voted to build a fence. It was a little more than 
half of what the House voted in size, but it was a significant step 
that will, in fact, multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol 
agents who are working their hearts out for us right now, today. It 
will absolutely do that. It will absolutely work.
  That is why some people oppose it so steadfastly. Whatever you 
present in the matter of immigration, in my experience, that actually 
tends to work, gets objected to. Somehow it becomes very difficult to 
pass.
  There was objection to this amendment, frankly, until the very end. I 
think the voices of the American people were heard and all of a sudden 
we ended up with 83 votes. Some people thought it would be a close 
vote. It wasn't so close when we voted because we were listening to our 
constituents, which is what we are supposed to do.
  There are 2,000 miles on the border. Many of those are quite remote, 
not appropriate to build a fence on. Some say they want to build a wall 
along the border. What we need is strategic fencing. We need to use 
high technology. We need increased agents. We need enough bed spaces 
when someone is apprehended so that they can be detained pending 
deportation, particularly if they are other than Mexicans, because the 
Mexicans can be taken across the border right quickly, normally. But 
for those who are from other areas of the world, sometimes it is very 
difficult to effect a deportation.
  As a result, people in our law system are forced to confront a 
problem. They don't have the bed space for them. They don't have a 
plane flying back to the Philippines or Brazil or Chile or wherever the 
people may be from that day, so they are releasing people on bail, 
called catch and release. They are released and they don't show up to 
be deported.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit in effect at this time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that is where we are. What you need to 
do is reduce the number of people who are coming here illegally. You 
need to reach a tipping point. People who are coming here illegally, 
other than Mexicans, have been told correctly until recent months that 
if they are apprehended, they are not going to be put immediately on a 
plane back to Brazil or the Philippines or wherever they may have come 
from. They are going to be released on bail. One study showed that 95 
percent of the people released on bail under these circumstances don't 
show up to be deported. Surprise, surprise.
  You need bed spaces. We have some more bed spaces in our bill. You 
need more agents--not a huge number of bed spaces and not huge 
increases in agents, but you need more agents and more bed spaces. You 
need to multiply the impact and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents 
by barriers.
  How much more simple can it be than that, that we have these barriers 
that multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol people?
  The strategy among those who support this bill that passed the 
Senate--the Kennedy-McCain bill, or whatever we want to call it, which 
moved through the Senate--is that it become law. The strategy is that 
we will sort of have a conference with the House of Representatives in 
secret and we will come up with some deal that gives amnesty to 
everybody who is here. Check the future flow of immigration in the 
country forever, and we will talk about how to make enforcement work.
  A lot of people said: Listen, we went through that in 1986. That is 
what we talked about in 1986. Remember? Don't forget that. That is what 
they said in 1986. They said in 1986: Give us amnesty today and we will 
take care of the enforcement tomorrow.
  Senator Isakson offered an amendment to deal with that very specific 
matter. He said: I am worried about that, too. That is what happened in 
1986. That is what I am hearing from my constituents back in Georgia. 
We are all concerned about that. We know it is a very real problem. Why 
don't we say amnesty doesn't become effective, or any relief that one 
may choose to give to those who come here illegally, whatever relief we 
give them doesn't become effective until we have the border secured. He 
offered that as an amendment. It was one of the most intensely watched 
amendments in the entire process.
  I have to tell you, it was very discouraging to me and very 
discouraging, I think, to the American people to see that amendment 
fail. Why? Why was that amendment important? Because they rightly 
conclude from that that we never had or never intended to create a good 
enforcement mechanism. If not, why wouldn't we pass the Isakson 
amendment? Why wouldn't we pass it? Why wouldn't we pass it if we 
intended to actually create a lawful system?
  It made you think that maybe what we are hearing is rhetoric--talk 
and

[[Page S7481]]

promises--but we are not going to deliver.
  That is why I am saying to my colleagues that this border fence is 
more than just a little matter of $1 billion-plus, as much as that is. 
It is a matter for the American people to evaluate whether or not they 
consider that we are acting with integrity when it comes to creating a 
lawful system of immigration in America.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security said it is necessary. We voted 83 
to 16 to approve it. Now we have the Homeland Security bill where this 
project should be funded, and it is not funded.
  I know we have difficult choices to make. But that is what they pay 
us for.
  Are people not listening to their phone calls, and not reading their 
mail?
  The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Louisiana, understands this 
issue. I have heard him speak articulately on it.
  It is a matter of legitimate concern for the American people. The 
American people are not anti-immigrant. They do not want to punish 
immigrants. They believe in immigration. But they want a lawful system 
of immigration that serves the just interests of the United States of 
America--not a system that makes a mockery of the law. They have been 
asking for it to be fixed for 30 years, and no President and no 
Congress has responded to their cry.
  I am going to tell you, they are going to be heard this November. 
There may be some people who will have to answer if they voted for this 
fence and then didn't vote to fund it.
  Why not? Why shouldn't they be held to account on that?
  We are facing some difficult choices. The American people are 
concerned about the issue. Fundamentally, the American people are 
correct. They have good and decent instincts.
  This Nation is a nation of laws. And on immigration we can have laws 
that work. That is what we are looking to do.
  I don't know of anyone else who wishes to speak at this time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks regarding 
the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Alabama.
  I want my colleagues to know that this amendment which the Senator 
from Alabama is proposing provides over $1.8 billion for the 
construction of a fence along the southwest border of the United 
States. However, my colleagues should know that he pays for this 
amendment by an across-the-board cut to virtually every other 
discretionary program that is funded within this Homeland Security 
bill. That amendment amounts to a 5.7 percent decrease to critical 
programs such as the Coast Guard operations that are absolutely 
essential in both homeland security and with the number of domestic 
issues.
  His amendment would also cut FEMA and disaster relief funds at the 
height of the hurricane and western forest fire season, and it cuts 
funding from the Secret Service for the protection of the President.
  This amendment also cuts a lot of our critical border security 
programs.
  On a bipartisan basis earlier this week, the Senate increased funding 
for border security programs by $350 million. The bill that is before 
the Senate right now has $11 billion for Customs and border protection 
and immigration and Customs enforcement.
  The irony of the Senator's amendment is that it would cut funding for 
the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents to pay for the fence. His 
amendment cuts funding for 1,000 additional detention beds to pay for 
this fence. And his amendment cuts funding for unmanned aerial 
investigation and surveillance helicopters and Border Patrol 
helicopters to pay for this fence.
  The bill before the Senate is carefully constructed and balanced to 
provide funding for homeland security priorities within very limited 
resources.
  I know the chairman and the ranking member of this committee have 
worked long and hard to balance a lot of requests regarding homeland 
security. The amendment before us would unbalance that dramatically.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I greatly respect the Senator from Alabama 
and his tireless efforts in addressing the issue of illegal immigration 
and his amendment on building a wall in those parts of the urban areas 
of the border where a wall would be effective. It is an appropriate 
amendment, and I strongly support it. It was in the authorization. Had 
the administration supported our efforts relative to capital 
improvements in the supplemental, we might have been able to make a 
fairly significant commitment toward that wall. But the wall would be 
built over 2 years.
  This amendment accelerates that construction into a 1-year time 
period. Within the bill, we have approximately $400 million in 
supplemental capital improvements that could be used for wall 
construction. I don't think all of it would be used. Some of it would 
be obviously.
  We should build these walls. There is no question about it. The real 
issue is that the offset being used creates a Hobson's choice for 
almost everyone here, I suspect, because the practical effect of a 5.7 
percent cut would be that we would have to reduce Border Patrol agents 
by about 750. We would have to reduce detention beds by about 1,100.
  We have attempted very hard to increase Border Patrol agents in this 
bill and increase detention beds. Yet we haven't funded the wall 
specifically as a result of our efforts to do these increases.
  The effect on the Coast Guard, the Senator from Washington alluded 
to, would probably be that the number of fast boats which we intended 
to buy would be reduced significantly, and our capacity to arm 
helicopters would be reduced from what we hoped to arm--60 helicopters. 
We have, at the most, armed probably 50, maybe 55.
  There is a real implication to this amendment. It has an implication 
in the things we are doing relative to border security which will be 
impacted by it.
  I am totally sympathetic to the need to make this investment in this 
fencing activity. And I believe within the Department's funds relative 
to capital improvements there is also some money which could be put 
there but nowhere near the dollars he believes are necessary with which 
the Department needs to continue construction.
  We are going to have to come up with a better way to do this. We are 
not going to be able to do this, in my humble opinion, the way this 
amendment is constructed--in an across-the-board cut.
  I have to oppose this amendment in its present form for that reason.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are going to proceed with 
construction over 2 years. Since we don't know what will happen next 
year, the Congress voted to build a fence, and we ought to fund the 
fence, in my opinion, when we promised to build it. But we could build 
it over 2 years and split the money each year, I suppose. It would 
ultimately slow down completion. It would probably take some time to 
get it constructed. I don't know whether my colleagues would agree to 
cut that price in half and do it over 2 years, and whether it would 
gain their support. If so, I would be prepared to accept that reduction 
in the amendment.
  Let me just say that we know what happened. Senator Gregg did his 
very best in the supplemental. Judd Gregg, chairman of our committee, 
is a fine Budget Committee chairman. He also chairs this Homeland 
Security Subcommittee. He was able to force into the supplemental 
additional money for border security which was not in the President's 
request. I salute him for that. But that is not getting us there. We 
are still talking about nickles and dimes. We are still talking about 
business as usual. Somehow we need to find this money. We spend over 
$800 billion a year in discretionary spending. We spend nearly $1.4 
trillion a year in entitlement spending, entitlement increases--an 
increase of over $100 billion next year. So we can't find a couple of 
billion dollars to fulfill the commitment we made to the American 
people?
  We know how the system works around here. There is no one way that

[[Page S7482]]

it works. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say.
  We need a vote for this amendment. And that would send a signal to 
the Appropriations Committee and send a signal to the White House that 
this Senate is serious about fulfilling its commitments. Some way 
between now and then, some way they will find this money through 
whatever sources are appropriate to fund it. That is where we need to 
be. That is what we need to achieve.

  If we allow it to go through without any money for this fencing, we 
will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we 
have made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the 
laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we 
are not serious about. They do not respect what we have done in the 
past, and they should not; we have failed. It is time for Congress to 
try to fix it and do better. In fact, we must do better. The Secretary 
of Homeland Security has told us this kind of barrier fencing is 
necessary for his success.
  Now, we build a bridge in immigration that goes about 8 feet across 
the 10-foot cavern, and we never quite close the loop. As a result, we 
never reach the tipping point where it becomes much more logical for 
someone who wants to come to America to come legally than illegally, so 
they continue to come illegally. They are rewarded for that. They get 
to the head of the line, and they get amnesty when they get here after 
a period of time. That is a bad signal. We need to stop that signal.
  By building more barrier fencing, by following up on the President's 
commitment to call out the National Guard, those activities send a 
signal to the world that our border is no longer open. Isn't that the 
message we want to send? We do not have an open border. We have a 
generous immigration system, far more generous that any nation I am 
aware of in the world. More generous than Canada, more generous than 
England, more generous than Mexico. We have a generous system. Don't 
let anyone put us down that we are somehow an anti-immigrant Nation. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. We are very generous, but we 
do need to have a system that is lawful.
  About a million people come into our country legally. About 750,000 
or 800,000 come into the country illegally. Almost as many come 
illegally. That is not right. It cannot continue. This is not an 
extreme position to take.
  Let's build the fences that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
discussed. I don't know where the Senator would get the money for it 
and exactly how it would be worked, but I believe if we voted a strong 
vote to fund this fencing, somehow, some way, the leadership of the 
House and the Senate would get together and figure out a way to fund it 
appropriately.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask to enter into a unanimous consent 
agreement relative to a series of votes: At 2:30, the Senate proceed to 
consecutive votes in relation to the following amendments: Senator 
Menendez, No. 4634; Senator Schumer, No. 4600; Senator Sessions, No. 
4659; Senator Sessions No. 4660.
  I further ask consent that the time until then continue under the 
agreement which we had earlier relative to the Sessions amendment; 
further, that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior 
to the vote; further that prior to the first vote, Senator Leahy be 
recognized for 1 minute, Senator Menendez for 1 minute, and myself for 
1 minute; further that between the remaining votes there be 2 minutes 
equally divided in the usual form and that after the first vote, all 
votes be 10 minutes.
  Mr. DAYTON. Reserving the right to object, I have an amendment, 
possibly a second amendment if the first is not agreed to, stipulating 
that at least 20 percent of the agents will be directed to the northern 
border.
  Mr. GREGG. I say to the Senator, we will be happy to entertain that 
amendment after we have completed voting on these and put that in the 
queue for consideration after we complete the votes.
  Mr. DAYTON. There will be an opportunity to offer and have it 
considered by the full Senate after this sequence?
  Mr. GREGG. We will be here for a little while.
  Mr. DAYTON. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I make one thing very clear: Fencing should not be a 
political gimmick. It should not be a suggestion that it would cure all 
of our problems, but fencing works.
  Let me share some thoughts about it. It is proven with the 
establishment of the San Diego border fence, crime rates in San Diego 
have fallen off dramatically. According to the FBI crime index, crime 
in San Diego county dropped 56.3 percent between 1989 and 2000. Vehicle 
drive-throughs--these are people who bolt across the border in a 
vehicle--vehicle drive-throughs through the immigration prohibited 
areas have fallen from between six and ten per day before the 
construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in 
all of 2004. And those four only occurred where the secondary fence was 
incomplete.
  Fencing has reduced illegal entries in San Diego. According to 
numbers provided by the San Diego Border Sector Patrol in February of 
2004, apprehensions decreased from 531,000 in 1993 to 111,000 in 2003. 
Let me repeat that, talking about tipping points: They had to arrest, 
in 1993, along the San Diego border, 531,000 people; after the fence 
was up in 2003, only 111,000 were arrested, one-fifth. How many hours, 
how much money was saved because people did not have to be arrested and 
did not come illegally? How many people did not successfully enter the 
United States because of this fence?
  Fencing has also reduced drug trafficking in San Diego. In 1993, 
authorities apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across 
the border, but in 2003 the fence helped stem the tide of drug 
smuggling and only 36,000 pounds of marijuana were apprehended. In 
addition, cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to 150 pounds, 
about one-tenth.

  I talked to Congressman Duncan Hunter, who chairs the House Committee 
on Armed Services. He is very familiar with the border. He explained to 
me it was an absolute wonder how much good that fence did. That is why 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, has spoken out 
and said this is what he needs: 370 miles.
  I am quite aware there is a shortage of money, and we have to make 
choices. I repeat, in our discretionary budget, we spend about $870, 
maybe $900 billion in our entitlement program expenditure. It will 
increase 9 percent next year. It will increase by over $100 billion. We 
spend $1.4 trillion-plus on entitlements. That is $1.4 trillion on 
entitlements. We cannot find $2 billion to deal with the fencing that 
we voted a few weeks ago to approve? I think we can. I know it is 
difficult.
  I know Chairman Gregg, if he had the money, as he said, would fund 
it. How do we break this train wreck we are heading to? How do we get 
off this track of not doing what we committed to do? Vote for this 
amendment. It will send a message to the appropriators, it will send a 
message to the administration, it will send a message to those who are 
working on our appropriations accounts that we as a Senate expect them 
to somehow, some way, go back and make the tough priority choices and 
find the money necessary to do this. Maybe we can fund it over 2 years. 
If so, they will work that out. This is not the final draft of the bill 
that will ultimately be before the Senate. They will work that out. I 
am willing to work with them on that.
  Also, if the National Guard were to build it, we have been told they 
would do it for one-third of the cost that private contractors would 
charge. That could be a savings, and we could get this fencing done 
without so much money in any one budget year.
  We voted to build 370 miles of fencing, 500 miles of barriers for 
vehicles, and I am hoping we will not disappoint the American people, 
once again. I am hoping somehow, some way, we will rise to the occasion 
and say: We made a commitment. It is the right thing to do.
  The administration was never out here championing building fencing. 
That is never something they said would be a cure-all. Frankly, it is a 
bigger positive step than many people

[[Page S7483]]

admit. They did come forward and tell us, through the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, that these were the figures they needed to create a 
lawful system at our border. We have areas in developed cities and 
towns where people can walk across the border without even a 
checkpoint. There is not even a fence there. This is what we need to 
do.
  If we are serious about it, and I think the American people are, and 
I think there is a growing seriousness with the President and the 
Members of the Senate, let's step up and do what it takes. Don't go 8 
feet across the 10-foot ravine and fall into the pit. Let's complete 
the task before the Senate. Somehow, some way, we can find the money in 
this budget. I know we will if we pass this amendment. If we do not 
pass this amendment, we will be sending a signal, it is business as 
usual, and we do not intend to honor our commitments.
  That is the wrong thing to do it. It could not be more damaging to 
have failed to honor our commitments on any bill before the Senate than 
the immigration bill. This is a bill for which the people have the 
least confidence in us.


                           Amendment No. 4660

  The other amendment I call up is amendment No. 4660; I ask the 
previous amendment be set aside, and I will make my remarks about 
amendment No. 4660.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment deals with sufficient 
funding of ICE, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement interior agents. 
ICE is authorized. We voted to authorize and hire 800 new investigative 
agents in fiscal year 2007. That begins October 1st. Beginning October 
1st, we voted to authorize the hiring of 800 new agents under the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
  The Department of Homeland Security asked for 206 investigative 
agents in 2007. Among other things, those agents are used to 
investigate illegal employment in the workplace, workplace enforcement. 
Virtually every Senator, in the context of the immigration debate, has 
talked about how important it is to increase worksite enforcement. We 
have talked about it time and time again. The way to do that is to 
increase the number of agents who are investigating these cases. How 
simple can it be?

  This Senate bill appropriates $57 million, an increase of $19 
million, to enhance resources devoted to worksite enforcement. 
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the $19 million 
increase would hire 141 new agents. The bill also appropriates funds to 
hire 27 new compliance investigators. They are similar to but not the 
same as an investigative agent.
  The 141 new agents and the 27 compliance investigators do not meet 
the President's request for 206 agents. They just do not meet the 
President's request for 206 agents. And it does not come close to 
funding the 800 agents that Congress authorized ICE to hire next year.
  You see, once again, this is serious business. We talk about 
enforcement. We say we are going to do it, but when it comes down to 
the lick log, we spend our money on other things.
  So my amendment will ensure that the fiscal year 2007 appropriations 
bill for the Department of Homeland Security funds the full level that 
Congress authorized to hire in 2007, a total of 800 new agents. This 
means that we have to find the money for ICE to hire 659 more agents 
than the bill currently funds. That is 800, minus 141.
  The Department of Homeland Security tells me that it costs as much as 
$130,000 to fund a fully wrapped new ICE agent for the first year, with 
training and equipment and all those things. Therefore, the cost for 
these additional 659 new agents will be $85 million. To pay for these 
agents, the amendment contains an across-the-board reduction.
  This is about making some decisions about what we intend to do with 
regard to enforcement of immigration laws. It sets some priorities. So 
that will help us focus on what we need to do.
  To me, based on my experience, having worked with Customs agents, 
having worked with Border Patrol agents, having worked with INS agents 
back when I was a Federal prosecutor, interior enforcement agents, who 
are responsible for enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and 
inside our borders, are a top priority.
  Let me tell you, it is not going to be that difficult. We are not 
going to need tens of thousands of Federal agents to change the 
workplace illegality that is going on. Most businesses today want to do 
the right thing. We have not given a biometric card, which is not 
easily counterfeitable, to those people who come here legally so the 
businesses can make a legitimate decision about whether they are legal 
or not. We have created a lawless system in many different ways.
  But businesses must be held accountable. We can create, under this 
bill, a system that gives businesses a greater ability to know what the 
law is and to comply with the law. Once they know we expect them to 
comply with the law, once we pass this immigration bill that will 
create better workplace rules and procedures, we can almost overnight 
see a dramatic reduction in the hiring of illegals at the workplace. 
Isn't that what we want?
  Some do not want that. They would like to be able to hire as many as 
they want to at lower wages.
  But we as a nation have to look at the national interest and set a 
policy about how many people should come into the country, only allow 
those in lawfully, and make sure they are given a good identifier so 
they can go to work. But we need sufficient investigators to make sure 
we reach the tipping point in the workplace so that employers know with 
certainty what the rules are and know that if they do not comply with 
those rules they will be held to account. Once they know that they will 
be held to account, we will see, in very short order, a dramatic 
dropoff in illegal activity. Just this increase would make a tremendous 
amount of progress.
  Mr. President, I have a few minutes left. I would yield to the 
Senator from New Hampshire. He may want to make some remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes that 
should have been set for 2:30 now be set to begin at 2:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 4610 Withdrawn

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4610.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this particular amendment, which enjoys 
wide support here in the Senate, would dramatically increase the 
availability of alternative energy refueling systems, such as 
biodiesel, ethanol, and compressed natural gas, by reimbursing eligible 
entities up to $30,000 for the costs associated with installing these 
alternative gas pumps.
  Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I believe our Nation's 
homeland security is directly related to our Nation's energy security. 
The underlying goal of this amendment is to provide American consumers 
more opportunities to use American-made alternative fuels as we work to 
lessen our Nation's dependence upon foreign sources of energy.
  As I noted yesterday when I offered this amendment, I am unaware of 
any opposition to what this amendment attempts and seeks to do. In 
fact, since I offered the amendment, a number of our colleagues here in 
the Senate have cosponsored this particular provision.
  Additionally, American automakers, such as General Motors and Ford, 
support this effort, as do various agricultural groups--from the Farm 
Bureau to the National Corn Growers Association--as well as 
environmental groups. The reason is very simple. It makes a lot of 
sense for so many reasons, not the least of which is getting us away 
from this overdependence of foreign sources of energy. But it is good 
for the environment. It is good for the American consumer. It is good 
for the American agricultural producer.

[[Page S7484]]

  I certainly appreciate the bill managers' patience regarding this 
amendment. And while I also appreciate the fact that the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill probably is not the appropriate vehicle to 
have this amendment considered and discussed, I am greatly encouraged 
by many of the calls and statements of support for this initiative that 
I have received since offering it, as well as some new ideas I have 
received that I hope to explore to make this particular provision even 
stronger.
  So I expect we will revisit this issue. I fully am hopeful we will be 
able to get a vote in the Senate on this provision. Again, as I said 
before, I think it is important for our national security because of 
the direct correlation to energy security. It is also important for our 
economy. It is important for our environment.
  For all those reasons, I intend to offer this amendment at a later 
time to what I hope will be a debate on an energy bill later this 
summer. But for the time being, I will withdraw the amendment.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and other of my 
colleagues in the future as we work to get this provision signed into 
law. I believe it is that important. It is important for the future. 
Inasmuch as I would like to see it voted on today, I realize in the 
interest of keeping this debate about the issue at hand and trying to 
keep ancillary and nongermane business away from it, I will withdraw 
the amendment and look forward to having it debated at a later time.
  So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from South Dakota. The issue he has raised here is an important one. I 
also appreciate the fact that it is more appropriately raised on 
another matter.


                           Amendment No. 4660

  Mr. President, speaking to the second amendment that Senator Sessions 
has offered, this again is an issue of priorities. The first amendment 
juxtaposes the need to build a wall with the need to add border 
security agents and detention beds and make the Coast Guard a more 
robust player and more capable, and have the US-VISIT program and the 
immigration program work well.
  It is ironic, actually, that this amendment, which increases 
investigators by 800, would, if the first amendment were to pass, end 
up reducing investigators by 300. I guess the net result would be if 
both amendments passed, you would end up with 500 investigators. But 
that shows the problem here that is being presented to the Senate by 
the way these amendments are structured with their across-the-board 
cuts. Because the across-the-board cuts impact the entire Department. 
This is not a Department that does a lot of things we do not need to 
do.
  Certainly, we need our Border Patrol agents. We need our Coast Guard. 
We need our Secret Service. We need our detention beds to make sure we 
can put these people away when we have them. So when you do an across-
the-board cut, you impact all these other services.
  And, yes, ICE could use more investigators. That is why in this bill 
we added 75, so that we have 6,000 investigators in the ICE program. He 
would add 800 more to that. But, as I said, should his first amendment 
pass, he would reduce that number, logically--because there would be a 
5-percent reduction--by 300. It would be almost a 6-percent reduction, 
actually.
  So, again, I have to oppose the amendment. Although the policy may 
make sense, the way it is paid for does not. It would actually do 
significant harm to our capacity, in my opinion, to have a robust 
Department of Homeland Security.
  So I will oppose the second amendment offered also by the Senator 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4659

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, thank you. First of all, I appreciate the 
explanation of the chairman of the subcommittee and conclude, as he 
has, unfortunately, that, good policy notwithstanding, taking money 
away from other good policy decisions we have made or intend to make in 
support of funding for more Border Patrol agents, more detention 
spaces, and so on, requires that we oppose the amendment that would 
take money from those programs to build more fencing.
  Much of this fencing is in my State of Arizona. We need that fencing. 
I am convinced we will be able to get the fencing done, if not by the 
National Guard, then by construction that will, in fact, cost money, 
for which there is some in the budget. There is probably more needed, 
and we are going to have to find a way to add that. But this, 
unfortunately, has been constructed as a zero-sum game with this 
amendment. In order to put more money on fencing, we take more money 
away from Border Patrol. So that is going to make it a very difficult 
proposition.
  Mr. President, the matter I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
speak on, I say to the chairman, actually is a matter not related to 
this bill. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 90 seconds as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kyl are printed in today's Record under ``Morning 
Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4634

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I had reserved the final 4 minutes of my 
time in opposition to the Menendez amendment. I am going to claim that 
time now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment of the Senator 
from New Jersey. Let me briefly summarize three issues that make the 
amendment so problematic.
  First, it slashes the minimum allocation for homeland security grant 
moneys for States. It would impose a two-thirds cut in the guaranteed 
allocation which would undermine the efforts of States that have 
entered into multiyear projects such as improving the interoperability 
of their communications equipment which is an expensive multiyear 
proposition.
  Second, the amendment makes absolutely no sense. If my colleagues are 
unhappy, as I am, with the Department of Homeland Security's allocation 
of funding for the Homeland Security Grant Program, why would they want 
to give unfettered discretion to the Department on how to allocate the 
funds?
  The amendment has absolutely no criteria included in it to define 
risk. By contrast, the proposal that was approved by the Homeland 
Security Committee sets out criteria--such as whether there had been a 
terrorist attack previously, the population density, whether it is a 
border State, whether it is on the coastline--and gives guidance to the 
Department since it has clearly shown that it does not have a well-
developed system for allocating based on risk. We have seen the results 
of that.
  Third, the Senator from New Jersey strikes the requirement in current 
law to have the Department look at the need for the funding. All of us 
are concerned about reports that homeland security grant money in some 
localities has been wasted, whether it is on leather jackets or air-
conditioned garbage trucks, actual cases, one in the District and one 
in New Jersey, or for other questionable purposes. We need to make sure 
that the Department is allocating the funds not only based on risk, 
threat, and vulnerability but also on need and effectiveness. There are 
no requirements for this funding to be developed and allocated based on 
the need for it nor the effectiveness of the State's plan.
  For those three reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the Menendez amendment. Thirty-six States and the District of Columbia 
would lose funding under his proposal. The funding instead would be 
reallocated to 14 States which already receive more than 70 percent of 
all the funding for homeland security.
  This is a misguided amendment. It will lead to wasteful spending. It 
will undermine the efforts to bring all States up to a base level of 
preparedness and response. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  I see the Senator from Delaware is on the floor. He has been very 
active in

[[Page S7485]]

this area. If I do have any time remaining, I would be happy to yield 
to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 23 
seconds.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Senator has said it well. There is 
nothing much I can add. When it comes to proportioning these funds, we 
need to use common sense. If we do, I think we will vote no on the 
amendment. I thank the Senator from Maine for all the leadership she 
provides.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. 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.


                     Amendments Nos. 4659 and 4660

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks on 
the question of funding of the authorized border fencing in amendment 
No. 4659 and amendment No. 4660 which would authorize funding for the 
hiring of a number of interior enforcement agents that we authorized 
and voted to hire just a few weeks ago. I would like to talk about 
that.
  I am well aware--and I know the argument that has been made by our 
wonderful Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, and Senator Murray--
that there is just not enough money in this bill to pay for it. I would 
say to my colleagues: This is an important issue that deals with 
something that we made a commitment to the American people about just a 
few weeks ago. And now it comes time for us to fund it and we don't 
have the money.
  We spend almost $900 billion in discretionary spending, $1.4 trillion 
in entitlement spending. We can find a couple of billion dollars to 
fund this.
  How do we do it? We pass these amendments, and we will send a signal 
to the appropriators and to the White House that we are serious and 
find the money somewhere. That is what we will be saying. I know they 
are going to say: Don't vote for this amendment. I am for the fence. 
Everybody is for the fence, Jeff. We just don't have the money.
  How can we say that? We just voted to build the fence. We can't say 
we don't have the money. That is not an acceptable answer. So pass this 
amendment. Yes, it is going to cause some grief. Yes, there is going to 
be huddling of appropriators and budgeteers and the White House. They 
are going to have to hammer out a way to get the money to fund this 
thing. But to let this slip and to be on record as a Member of the 
Senate who just voted to build a fence and now vote not to fund it is 
not a good thing to do. It is going to send a bad signal to the 
American people. It is going to be a bad signal. They are going to say: 
They have been promising to have some enforcement and the first vote 
that comes up, the first bill that comes down the pike, they don't put 
the money in to do just what they voted to do.
  Remember the fence can't be built and the agents we authorized to be 
hired can't be hired unless we appropriate the money. Please, we have 
to appropriate the money. I know this budget is tight. I will just say 
to my colleagues, I thank Senator Gregg for his support for the fence, 
his work in the supplemental to get more money for enforcement. If it 
had not been for his leadership, we would not have as much as we have. 
But it is not enough.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is a 
statement by the Senate that somehow we expect this matter to be 
funded. There is plenty of money in this Government, if we look for it, 
to fund this important matter.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. 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.


               Amendments Nos. 4659 and 4660, as Modified

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk for 
the two amendments I have proposed. I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to modify those two amendments, as we have proposed them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 4659 and 4660), as modified, are as follows:

                    AMENDMENT NO. 4659, AS MODIFIED

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Customs and Border Protection'' and under the 
     subheading ``construction'' is hereby increased by 
     $1,829,400,000.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the 
     amount made available under the subheading described in 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) $1,184,000,000 of which shall be used for the 
     construction of 370 miles of double-layered fencing along the 
     international border between the United States and Mexico; 
     and
       (2) $645,400,000 of which shall be for the construction of 
     not less than 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the 
     international border between the United States and Mexico.
       (c) Discretionary amounts made available under this Act, 
     other than the amount appropriated under the subheading 
     described in subsection (a), shall be reduced by 
     $1,829,400,000.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4660, AS MODIFIED

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement'' and under the 
     subheading ``salaries and expenses'' is hereby increased by 
     $85,670,000.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, of the 
     amount made available under the subheading described in 
     subsection (a) $104,000,000 of which shall be available to 
     hire an additional 800 full time active duty investigators 
     employed by the Department of Homeland Security to 
     investigate violations of immigration laws (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) pursuant to section 5203 of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3734) which requires the 
     hiring of not less than 800 more investigators than the 
     number for which funds were made available during fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2006.
       (c) Discretionary amounts made available under this Act, 
     other than the amount appropriated under the subheading 
     described in subsection (a), shall be reduced by $85,670,000.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to say that this 
amendment would authorize the appropriating committee to pay for the 
fencing--give them more discretion to pay for it out of the account 
they deem is appropriate. It would be across the board but within their 
discretion, so that no one particular account must be cut or reduced by 
passage of this amendment. The Coast Guard and other things would not 
have to be reduced in order to pay for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the points I previously made relative to 
the impact of this amendment remain accurate. I continue my opposition 
to both amendments because of the across-the-board cut nature and the 
impact it would have on all elements of the Homeland Security 
Department. Even though the policy may be something we would agree with 
if we had the resources, we don't have the resources.
  I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be votes 
on four amendments: Menendez, No. 4634; Schumer, No. 4600; Sessions, 
No. 4659, as modified; and Sessions, No. 4660, as modified.
  Prior to the first vote, Senator Leahy is recognized for 1 minute, 
Senator Menendez for 1 minute, Senator Gregg for 1 minute, and between 
the remaining votes there will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
in the usual form, and after the first vote each will be a 10-minute 
vote.
  Senator Leahy is recognized for 1 minute.


                           Amendment No. 4634

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the underlying issue today on this 
amendment is that the administration has slashed Homeland Security 
funding. It has mismanaged the grants it has awarded. We would not be 
in the situation of pitting State against State if the President 
adequately funded Homeland Security. Grants are being cut from $2.3 
billion in 2003 to under $1 billion this year--$1 billion for the whole

[[Page S7486]]

year, this Homeland Security grant. We spend over a billion dollars a 
week in Iraq. If we can spend money for homeland security in Iraq, we 
ought to be able to spend a tiny fraction of that here.
  I commend Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first say I totally agree with my 
colleague from Vermont. We are dramatically underfunded for what we 
need for homeland security. That truly is the core of the issue. I 
appreciate the spirit of the debate he has had with us on this issue 
and his comments. I simply believe that as we seek to fund it fully, 
the question becomes, What do we do now? The bipartisan, unanimous 9/11 
Commission recommended that homeland security funding be based on risk. 
That is what this amendment does.
  Many of my colleagues have actually made the case, by virtue of what 
they have said, that risk-based funding should be the very essence of 
our foundation. They made a good case for their respective States for 
risk-based funding when they argued that their States have high-risk 
targets. This amendment does nothing to eliminate the effectiveness 
component. It does not eliminate the minimum guarantees for States. But 
threat after threat has been revealed, and that makes it very clear 
where the greatest threats are in our country. That ultimately should 
be our thrust, driving our resources, those which we have, as we try to 
build more to where the risk is.
  We are all in this together. We are called upon to vote for 
agriculture, hurricanes, and other things. I ask Senators to vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe in a risk-based approach. I 
support the amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Menendez amendment No. 4634. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Allen
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4634), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             change of vote

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respectfully request that on vote No. 
198 my vote be recorded as yea. It will not make a difference in the 
final tally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 198, I voted nay. It was 
my intention to vote yea. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to change my vote since the outcome will not be affected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 4600

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes for debate on the 
Schumer amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is one which I believe 
would be supported by George Bush because it restores the amount of 
funding for FEMA by $300 million. That is what the President requested.
  We have had unprecedented disasters in the Northeast and in so many 
other places in other parts of the country as well. We have had 
disaster after disaster in this country. FEMA should not be 
underfunded. We should not have the people who have been wiped out by 
floods and drought and hurricanes sitting on tenterhooks in the hopes 
that maybe we will pass a supplemental 6 or 8 months from now.
  This simply restores the President's request for FEMA. It would 
hardly be a profligate request. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, particularly those from the Northeast, to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the disaster relief fund has $9.3 billion 
in it. That is more than enough money to get us through the balance of 
this year and will give us a surplus going into next year. We have $1.6 
billion in this bill to add to the $9.3 billion for next year. If a 
disaster occurs and it is of significant proportions, we will obviously 
come back and do an emergency appropriations.
  No money that would occur as a result of the amendment of the Senator 
from New York could be used this year for any disasters that have 
occurred this year in the Northeast because, of course, this money 
won't be available until next year. There is adequate money, however, 
to take care of the Northeast issues. So at this time I ask Members to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, pursuant to the deeming language in Public Law 109-
234, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation of the 
pending amendment.
  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 the 
purposes of the pending amendment, and I 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.
  Mr. GREGG. And this is a 10-minute vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a 10-minute vote.
  The clerk will call the roll.

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     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
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the

[[Page S7487]]

affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained. 
The emergency designation is removed.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I will raise a point of order against the amendment which 
was ruled not an emergency. The pending amendment would cause the bill 
to violate section 302 of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The 
amendment falls.


                    Amendment No. 4659, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Now I understand we are on to the first amendment of the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Sessions amendment, No. 4659, as modified. Who yields time? The Senator 
from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. This amendment would follow through on our 83-to-16 
vote on May 17 to build 370 miles of fencing at the border and 500 
miles of vehicle barriers, as requested by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, Mike Chertoff. Unfortunately, this bill does not fund it. 
Just a few weeks ago, we authorized it. Now we are not funding it. That 
is not acceptable and will undermine our credibility with the American 
people.
  Please note that the amendment has been modified. The amendment has 
been amended, and it does not require any account to be reduced, such 
as the Coast Guard or others, but it does require discretionary 
spending in the bill to be reduced to pay for it, so it is paid for.
  We need to honor our commitment and our vote of just a few weeks ago 
in order to maintain credibility with the American people on the 
question of immigration, an area in which they have great reason to 
distrust our actions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I know Senator Gregg and his team will figure out a way to fund it if 
we require it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I stated earlier on the floor, all of 
our colleagues need to understand that we have worked very hard to put 
together a balanced bill under the direction of the chairman and the 
ranking member on this side, Senator Byrd. This amendment will 
essentially cut Border Patrol agents, transportation security, Coast 
Guard operations, Secret Service, Office of Domestic Preparedness, FEMA 
disaster relief, and FEMA operations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment in order to keep 
a balanced bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Although I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the 
policy behind this amendment, the simple fact is that this sort of 
across-the-board cut would wreak havoc on this department and 
potentially mean significant reductions in a number of critical areas. 
This department does not have a lot of activity that is not critical to 
our homeland security, and a 5.5 percent cut across the board would 
have a devastating impact. So I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I must oppose the Sessions amendment because 
it would eliminate critical border security funds from this bill.
  The subcommittee has carefully balanced the needs of our law 
enforcement personnel on the border, and an across-the board cut, like 
that proposed in the Sessions amendment, would leave our borders 
dangerously exposed.
  I remain committed to strengthening the fencing along the border. But 
it is unwise to finance that fencing with cuts in our border security 
elsewhere.
  I join the chairman in opposing this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lott
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--71

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4659), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4660, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Two minutes are divided on the 
Sessions amendment numbered 4660.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment will fund the 
investigative agents we authorized in the immigration bill that passed 
this Congress. It would do so by increasing the funding for $85 million 
and would fully fund the 800 positions we authorized. We authorized 800 
positions, but, unfortunately, we have only funded 141.
  Once again, it raises serious questions, as in 1986, about whether or 
not we are going to talk but not be willing to put up the money to fund 
the bill.
  Also, this will be offset by reductions in any discretionary account 
without mandating across-the-board cuts. The amendment has been amended 
from that previously filed so that no specific account is required to 
be cut, such as the Coast Guard.
  I believe we need to follow through on our commitment to the American 
people to increase our investigative agents. This will fund what we 
authorized.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. As noble as it is to hire 800 full-time active duty 
investigators, this amendment cuts law enforcement grants, firefighter 
grants, emergency management grants, State Homeland Security grants, 
urban security initiative, FEMA, and, ironically, will cut money for 
the fence that is within the bill before the Senate. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, again, the policy is very laudable, but the 
problem is, the dollars are being taken out of other accounts. We are 
attempting to ramp up the personnel in a lot of Border Patrol 
activities, to ramp up the number of beds, and to ramp up our efforts 
in the Coast Guard.
  This $85 million is not going to come out of thin air and will have 
to come from one of these accounts or a series of accounts.
  We have a balanced bill. As much as I appreciate the Senator's 
proposal, this .3 of a percent across-the-board cut will have a fairly 
significant impact on Homeland Security.
  I 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 amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign

[[Page S7488]]


     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--66

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4660), as modified, was rejected
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to an amendment by 
Senator Reed, followed by an amendment by Senator Dayton. After those 
two amendments are disposed of, we will have an hour of debate relative 
to the Vitter amendment, with Senator Durbin controlling 45 minutes and 
Senator Vitter controlling 15 minutes. And then we will proceed to a 
vote on the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from New Hampshire?
  Mr. GREGG. I amend my request by saying that at the end of the hour 
of debate on Vitter, we will go to a vote in relation to the Vitter 
amendment without any second degrees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 4613

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4613.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4613.

  Mr. REED. 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 limit the reduction in operations within the Civil 
                Engineering Program of the Coast Guard)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not take 
     any action to alter or reduce operations within the Civil 
     Engineering Program of the Coast Guard nationwide, including 
     the civil engineering units, facilities, and design and 
     construction centers, the Coast Guard Academy, and the 
     Research and Development Center until the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate receive and approve a plan on changes to the Civil 
     Engineering Program of the Coast Guard. The plan shall 
     include a description of the current functions of the Civil 
     Engineering Program and a description of any proposed 
     modifications of such functions and of any proposed 
     modification of personnel and offices, including the 
     rationale for such modification, an assessment of the costs 
     and benefits of such modification, any proposed alternatives 
     to such modification, and the processes utilized by the Coast 
     Guard and the Office of Management and Budget to analyze and 
     assess such modification.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would require the Coast Guard 
to report to the Committees on Appropriations and Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation on proposed changes to the civil engineering program 
before the Coast Guard takes any action to alter or reduce operations 
within this particular program. The mission of the civil engineering 
program is to provide high-quality planning and real property and 
facilities maintenance to support Coast Guard units across the country. 
In my judgment, reducing staff and reorganizing the civil engineering 
program is not appropriate, given the current workload and the 
increased number of homeland security responsibilities taken on by the 
Coast Guard. If significant reductions in personnel and offices take 
place, I have serious concern that the Coast Guard would not be able to 
adequately support its shore facilities in New England and across the 
Nation.
  The work performed by employees of the Coast Guard civil engineering 
program is of paramount importance. It is important that Congress 
review any plan to reorganize or consolidate this program.
  It is my understanding, hope, and expectation that the amendment will 
be accepted by voice vote. I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee and the Commerce Committee for their kindness.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4613.
  The amendment (No. 4613) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 194, I voted ``yea.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4663

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4663 and ask for 
its immediate consideration, and I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4663.

  Mr. DAYTON. 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 increase the amount appropriated for United States Customs 
and Border Protection salaries and expenses by $44,000,000 to place an 
 additional 236 border patrol agents along the Northern Border and to 
     fully offset that amount with corresponding reductions in the 
         appropriations for administrative travel and printing)

       On page 70, line 21, strike ``$5,285,874,000;'' and insert 
     ``$5,329,874,000, of which $44,000,000 shall be used to hire 
     an additional 236 border patrol agents.''.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) All amounts made available under this Act for 
     travel and transportation shall be reduced by $43,000,000.
       (b) All amounts made available under this Act for printing 
     and reproduction shall be reduced by $1,000,000.

  Mr. DAYTON. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Murray for their 
gracious help in fashioning this amendment. It does not add any 
additional funding to this bill. It does, however, redirect $44 million 
from travel and transportation, printing and reproduction to hire 236 
additional Border Patrol agents to protect our country's 5,525-mile 
northern border which covers 13 States, including my State of 
Minnesota. When Congress passed the 9/11 act in 2004, there were 
reportedly 994 Border Patrol agents working on our northern border. 
Since then that number has declined to 950 border guards, and only 250 
of them are working at any one time.
  I recognize the very serious needs on our southern border and fully 
support the need for additional Federal border guards there. The fact 
that President Bush is calling yet again upon our National Guard to 
reinforce those southern border patrols evidences the shortsightedness 
of the administration and a majority in Congress opposed to Democratic 
caucus efforts in the Senate 10 times during the past 4 years to 
increase funding for Border Patrol and other homeland security efforts. 
Once again, the administration says one thing but does another. Now it 
has evidently actually reduced the number of northern Border Patrol 
agents since 2004, despite the 9/11 Commission in its report noting:

       Despite examples of terrorists entering from Canada, 
     awareness of terrorist activity

[[Page S7489]]

     in Canada and its more lenient immigration laws, and an 
     inspector general's report recommending that the Border 
     Patrol develop a northern border strategy, the only positive 
     step was that the number of Border Patrol agents was not cut 
     any further, despite the fact that the only terrorist caught 
     entering the United States, millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam, 
     tried to come in from Canada. We also know that criminal 
     gangs are trafficking Asian sex workers in Canada into the 
     United States. The result is that Minnesota's northern border 
     counties such as Kittson and Lake of the Woods are struggling 
     by themselves to protect their communities from drug 
     traffickers and other illegal invaders. They say they can't 
     rely on Federal Border Patrol agents because there aren't any 
     there. These five or six-person local police and county 
     sheriff operations in northern Minnesota are nearly entirely 
     on their own.

  My amendment will increase the number of northern Border Patrol 
agents across this country by 24 percent while taking nothing from our 
southern Border Patrol reinforcement.
  I urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4663) was agreed to.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4615, as Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. I was waiting in deference to the sponsor of the 
amendment. I think it is appropriate for him to open the debate. Now I 
am told that my time is running because he is not here. I have no 
option or alternative but to speak to the amendment.
  I cannot believe this amendment is being offered to this bill. This 
is a bill on homeland security. This amendment relates to a declaration 
of a disaster, a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. Do you know what 
happens in times of disaster? You have probably seen it. Basic law 
enforcement breaks down. The police you expect to be there to manage 
things are overwhelmed. There are too many things going on at once. The 
fire department, the police department are trying to maintain order in 
the midst of chaos. Don't take my word for it. Remember what you saw on 
CNN around the clock. It was absolute chaos as people were being 
flooded out of their homes, desperately swimming through the water 
trying to reach the Superdome, trying to find a safe place.
  What happened was, the police decided under those circumstances they 
wanted to maintain order. So the first thing they said is: This is a 
gun-free area. When people go into the Superdome, they don't bring guns 
into the Superdome because there are families there. There are mothers, 
fathers, and children. We are going to keep this as a gun-free area.
  They obviously were sensitive to the fact that anyone can be 
vulnerable in a situation such as that. Imagine if your son or daughter 
is in a National Guard unit sent to this emergency trying to maintain 
order and snipers start shooting at them. It can happen. You may recall 
the reports of gunfire going on in New Orleans. I have no idea how 
valid those reports were. But it is understandable that law enforcement 
agencies in those situations will say: Wait a minute. We have to 
establish order. We have to at least have a safe zone around our 
National Guard troops so they don't get shot while they are down there 
trying to save these poor people.

  Do you recall all those people who were filing across the bridge? 
Mothers were carrying babies. Imagine if someone was standing at the 
top of that bridge with a gun saying: Give me your money, as they come 
by. The police are trying to maintain order. In those circumstances, 
wouldn't you want to give the police, law enforcement agencies, the 
tools they need to protect rescue workers, to protect National Guard 
troops, to protect the mothers and fathers with their children who have 
been dispossessed from their homes? It is an obvious thing. It is 
commonsense.
  Along comes the Vitter amendment. Do you know what Mr. Vitter, my 
colleague from Louisiana, suggests? None of the funds appropriated by 
this act shall be used for the seizure of a firearm based on the 
existence of a declaration of a state of emergency. You can't take the 
guns away. If they declare a disaster an emergency, you can't say to 
people, this is a gun-free zone and we are taking your gun away.
  Is that what the second amendment is all about? Is that what the 
right to bear arms is all about, in a state of an emergency, in an 
effort to restore order in a chaotic situation, that you want to take 
away the power of a law enforcement agency to say: You can't bring a 
gun into the Superdome because there are children in there trying to 
sleep and mothers trying to keep them together in the midst of a 
disaster? Is that a violation of the second amendment to say if they 
are taking potshots at the National Guardsmen who are down there 
risking their lives for those poor people in that situation, that we 
are going to stop the guns from being close to where they are staying, 
where they are living? Is that a violation of the second amendment to 
say if somebody is using a gun which they might legally have but using 
it in an illegal fashion, you can't take the gun away?
  That is what this amendment does. This is an incredible amendment. I 
can't believe that we would want to tie the hands of law enforcement in 
the midst of an emergency situation, when it is difficult to maintain 
law and order.
  Years and years ago I went to law school in Washington. In 1968, I 
was sitting in my law school library, where I should have spent a lot 
more time. This city turned into pure chaos with the assassination of 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. There were riots in the streets. Buildings 
were being burned. People were being arrested for looting and arson by 
the hundreds and thousands. The whole system disintegrated.
  They went to the law schools and said: You are going to be lawyers 
today. You are going to represent people. The system was out of 
control. We were trying to establish order. We were trying to give to 
the police what they needed to get things settled down to keep people 
safe, to protect innocent victims.
  I lived through it. I saw it. You have seen it, maybe not in your 
personal life, but following it on television. Yet, what we have here 
in the Vitter amendment is, it takes away the authority of law 
enforcement to take a gun from a person even if it is a threat to a 
helpless victim in a disaster or if it is a threat to a National Guard 
trooper or if it is a threat to another law enforcement agency.
  Let me tell you what else. In his original version of the amendment, 
which he has changed, the Senator says we will make an exception--I 
want to make sure I get this right. If you see someone who has a gun, 
which could be seized under Federal or State law in a criminal 
investigation--think about that, this is a gun that may have been used 
to murder someone--you can take that gun in the midst of a disaster. 
They took that out. So if someone is standing there with a gun that you 
know was used in a criminal situation for a murder, they take away the 
authority of the law enforcement people to even seize that gun if 
someone has declared a disaster.
  What are we thinking? Why would we do this to the men and women in 
law enforcement, to the National Guardsmen, or to innocent victims, 
which could be you or me or people we love, in a disaster they cannot 
even anticipate? Why would we do that?
  I will tell you why. We are doing it for the National Rifle 
Association. We are doing it for the gun lobby. In their devotion to 
the second amendment, they have closed their eyes to the obvious. 
Owning guns legally and using guns legally in America is a protected 
right in Illinois and most States. But to take a situation that is a 
disaster, when the law has broken down and to say that you won't allow 
law enforcement to take a gun away that might be used to hurt an 
innocent person, that just goes too far.
  I reserve the reminder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.

[[Page S7490]]

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I again stand to strongly support this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
  I have only been able to listen to some of the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois. I really think he has been 
watching a very different disaster and scenario than I experienced and 
lived through on the ground in Louisiana. I can tell you that the 
confiscations we are talking about were not from the criminals he is 
referring to--by the way, confiscations from criminals who are engaged 
in criminal activity can still occur under my amendment. The police 
have the power and the authority to enforce the law, which includes 
apprehending criminals and taking weapons away from criminals 
committing criminal acts.
  The confiscations I have been talking about that happened in the 
disaster area were from law-abiding citizens. They were law-abiding 
citizens who didn't have a phone line to communicate with the police or 
anyone else. They were law-abiding citizens who were isolated in their 
homes, frightened, and only had their own resources and witnesses and, 
yes, in some cases, firearms, to protect themselves and their families 
and to protect their possessions. Those are the confiscations that 
happened. Those are the confiscations we are trying to prevent.
  And, of course, this amendment would in no way prevent confiscations 
from criminals, those involved in criminal activity. Of course, the 
police have the full power and authority to enforce the law in that 
situation, as they do at all other times.
  That is why the Fraternal Order of Police strongly supports this 
amendment. That is why they have written a letter expressing that 
strong support. I would like to read a portion of it:

       Your amendment would prohibit the use of any funds 
     appropriated under this legislation from paying for the 
     seizure of firearms during a major disaster or emergency, 
     except under circumstances currently applicable under Federal 
     and State law. As we witnessed in the communities along the 
     Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, large-scale 
     critical incidents demand the full attention of law 
     enforcement officers and other first responders. During this 
     time, the preservation of life-search and rescue missions is 
     the chief priority of every first responder. Further, 
     breakdowns in communications systems and disaster-related 
     transportation or other infrastructure failures will lengthen 
     a law enforcement agency's response times, increasing the 
     degree to which citizens may have to protect themselves 
     against criminals. A law-abiding citizen who possesses a 
     firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement 
     officers or any other first responder.

  That is why the Fraternal Order of Police are supporting this 
amendment, as well as, yes, the NRA, who supports this amendment. I say 
that proudly. I don't say it with any fear that it brings disrespect to 
the cause.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is not a curious amendment. It has 
nothing to do with the Superdome in New Orleans at the time of Katrina, 
because if law enforcement people were standing at the door and they 
said you could not enter with a legal or illegal firearm, you could not 
enter. But the Senator from Illinois would like to suggest to you that 
this is to stop chaos within the Superdome.
  That is flatly false. It is important that you understand that. That 
would not prohibit--if we want to fast forward, God forbid, to a 
national disaster in Chicago of an unprecedented kind, and for the 
police to say for those seeking sanctuary at the McCormack Center, you 
cannot bring guns in here--this amendment would not prohibit that. This 
amendment agrees with a Federal judge who got an injunction to stop the 
chief of police of New Orleans from acting illegally. That is what it 
did.
  I am not going to judge the chief of police. He has resigned and is 
long gone. He left town. He was in a crisis situation. But in this 
instance the Senator from Illinois is right. When law enforcement 
breaks down in a national or local disaster, should not the private 
citizen who legally owns a firearm have the right to protect themselves 
and their property? The answer for 200 years in this Nation is 
absolutely yes.
  I will give you a couple of situations. A little old lady is sitting 
on her porch in New Orleans with a shotgun across her lap. Why? Because 
there were marauders in her neighborhood who were stealing and robbing. 
She was protecting her home, property, and life. The police came and 
ripped the gun out of her hand and said, Get out of our way. That 
happened. I saw it on videotape. It happened. She had not shot anybody. 
She was deterring those from entering her home and stealing her life 
savings.
  Another example: A couple is moving down one of the canals of New 
Orleans in their boat. They lost their home and they were in their 
boat, and it was post-Katrina. They were stopped by the local water 
patrol in the area, who said, Do you have a firearm on board, and they 
said, Yes, we do. Is it legal? Yes, it is; here are the papers. Give us 
your gun. That is what happened. That is really what happened in New 
Orleans. A Federal judge finally stepped in and said, Stop that, you 
cannot do it, and, by the way, the thousands of firearms that you have 
confiscated, give them back, they are private property. Guess what 
happened. They didn't give them back because they kept no records. They 
were on a massive sweep. Even some of the local police who were 
interviewed were embarrassed because they were taking guns away from 
people and they knew it was their only defense in protecting their own 
property.
  Is the Senator from Illinois denying the basic right of property, 
defense, self-defense, and family defense in a national disaster when 
law enforcement breaks down? You bet he is. But the Senator from 
Louisiana is saying quite the opposite. The Senator from Louisiana is 
also saying that current law, Federal law, is in no way abridged here. 
That is fundamentally important. Circumstances can get very, very 
difficult.
  I would not want to prejudge the former chief of police of New 
Orleans in an impossible situation. When criminal elements were 
misusing firearms, as they always do, but where private citizens were 
protecting property, as they can and should have the right to do with 
the use of their firearms, in his broad sweep of a desire to protect, 
he took everything. That should not happen. When I saw it happening and 
when I heard about it, I said, Not in America; that is not the way this 
country works.

  But for a moment in time, that is the way it worked in New Orleans, 
until a Federal judge stepped up and said, You are out of bounds and 
off of the law, so stop it. That is what happened.
  Now, this should not have been done in the Superdome, and there were 
none. This amendment would not prohibit that. It would not deny current 
law and the right of the police to so designate. But it would prohibit 
the kind of order that would create the sweep of law-abiding citizens 
who were using a firearm for the protection of their property, their 
life, and their family's life.
  The day we give up the right of self-protection in this country by 
law-abiding citizens is the day we become the victims of government. 
That is something that should never be allowed.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana for offering the amendment. It is 
appropriate, timely, and I hope our colleagues will support it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 6 minutes. The 
Senator from Illinois has 37 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts here. 
I will speak briefly.
  What the Senator from Louisiana understands, and I think will 
concede, is that this is the third version of this amendment. It has 
been written and rewritten and rewritten again. What you have heard 
described may reflect an earlier version, but it doesn't reflect what 
is before us, I say to the Senator from Idaho. I respect him and I know 
he has a good understanding of the Constitution and the laws.
  Let me read the words in the amendment before us:

       None of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used 
     for the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a 
     declaration of a state of emergency.

  Did you hear a reference to existing State and local law exemption, 
which both the Senator from Louisiana and Idaho referred to? No.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

[[Page S7491]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me ask, if we had a 9/11-type situation and you had 
Wal-Mart that was closed down, with broken windows, and they have a 
series of guns in the back, and K-Mart and pawn shops were broken down, 
does the purpose of this for first responders say they have to leave 
those guns on the shelves so that looters can arm themselves and 
terrorize a community? Would that be the result, in your reading of 
this?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is so broad that that is exactly what would happen. 
All of the commonsense explanations you have heard notwithstanding, 
that is not what the amendment says.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me ask further, did not the Senator from Idaho--I 
know the Senator from New Jersey and myself have indicated that if they 
wanted to go ahead and have some way that individuals could demonstrate 
they had a legitimate ownership of that gun, they would be immune from 
this amendment. That was rejected, as I understand it.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator that if the Senator from Idaho and 
the Senator from Louisiana want to put together an amendment that 
allows me to protect my home, as you have described, with my legally 
owned firearm, I have no objection to that. There are circumstances 
here that we could write into it, but as it is written, this prohibits 
the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a declaration of a 
state of emergency. That covers it all. If they are firing on National 
Guardsmen and they say we are going to have a gun-free area around 
where the Guardsmen are living, you could not seize the guns. You could 
not take them away, according to the Vitter amendment.
  Earlier versions of the amendment were much more explicit and they 
went through explanations, and the Senator, because he is on an 
appropriations bill and has procedural challenges, took out the 
language that clarifies what he is trying to do, and what he left 
behind is language that goes too far.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am grateful for the leadership of the 
Senator from Illinois. That is why the International Brotherhood of 
Police and the Major Chiefs of Police for the Major Cities strongly 
oppose this amendment, because it interferes with a police officer's 
discretion to react as he or she sees fit under extreme emergency 
circumstances. The International Brotherhood of Police also notes that 
responsible gun owners who continue to act in accordance with federal, 
state, and local law are unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless 
they use or possess the guns in a manner or place that would be 
prohibited or threatening. That's why they aren't endorsing this 
amendment.
  We are here today talking about the increase in availability and 
accessibility. Today's USA Today is talking about the extraordinary 
growth in crime that is taking place in communities across this 
country. And one of the reasons that the police chiefs give is because 
of the accessibility and availability of what? Guns.
  So the Senator from Louisiana is saying we want to make these guns in 
crisis situations more accessible, more available, when you have thugs 
and those who go out and loot the unfortunate. What possible sense does 
that make? It makes sense from the NRA's point of view, but when you 
are trying to have a community that is subject to that kind of 
violence, that makes no sense whatsoever.
  Mr. President, we get to the question, well, if people are law-
abiding and they own those weapons, guess what? The NRA will not let 
you list or gather the list for legitimate law-abiding people. They 
don't want anybody on the list. They won't let you collect names.

  As the Senator from New Jersey has pointed out, at the time of 9/11 
when we had all of those terrorists here, you could find out where they 
spent the night, you could find out what they charged on their credit 
cards, you could find out what cars they rented or what hotels they 
stayed in, but you couldn't find out where they bought their guns. Why? 
Because of the NRA. They said they won't permit anyone to keep records.
  This is payoff time, payback time to the National Rifle Association, 
and it will be payoff time if this goes through.
  The next time, the Lord only knows, when we have a natural disaster 
or terrorist attack, when people are at a height of anxiety and places 
that have these weapons are deserted--not only handguns, but rifles and 
sometimes even machine guns--we are going to find that the school is 
out: First responders, leave them alone. Sure we are having strife and 
violence in the streets, but the Vitter amendment is going to protect 
the second amendment and leave that alone.
  That is hogwash, Mr. President. That isn't security. This makes a 
sham of the Homeland Security bill--a sham of it. And that is what this 
amendment is.
  As the Senator from Illinois has pointed out, it is very simple:

       None of the funds appropriated by this Act--

  That means nothing, no first responders--

     shall be used for the seizure of a firearm based on the 
     existence of a declaration or state of emergency.
       If there is any harm out there whatsoever, no first 
     responder can see it. If a gun is lying out there and there 
     is a terrorist who wants to grab it and cause mayhem, the 
     Vitter amendment says the first responder cannot seize it. Go 
     ahead, help yourself, help yourself; go on in that shop and 
     take every rifle and piece of ammunition you want. Why? 
     Because we are first responders. And then come on out and 
     cause havoc.

  That is what this says, not what some have stated it says. Read the 
language. The language is clear. That is what it says, and that is why 
this makes absolutely no sense.
  We talk about trying to deal with the problems of violence in our 
communities. We see the proliferation of violence that is taking place, 
and we are going to make it easier in times of crisis to go out and get 
more guns when, on the front page of the newspapers, they say this is a 
contributor to the growth in violence that is taking place in all of 
our communities in this country.
  If you want to be in the tank for the NRA, be our guest because that 
is what this is all about.
  This amendment makes absolutely no sense in terms of the safety and 
security of our communities in times of crisis, in times of natural 
disasters, and in times of potential terrorists in this country. That 
is the time we need restraint. That is the time we need responsibility. 
That is the time we ought to follow the first responders who are 
trained for these kinds of crises, but what we know is those 
individuals think this amendment makes no sense whatsoever.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 29\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
on this issue because, frankly, it is so hard to comprehend that it 
needs clarification.
  What are we talking about? We are saying if people have guns, and 
they are caught up in the chaos of a natural disaster, with people 
being chased out of their homes, people being rescued from rooftops, 
people begging for assistance, hanging out of windows, and so forth, if 
you have the wrong person who is hollering for help, and you are a 
first responder and you go into that house, you could get shot.
  What is the sense of this? We are not saying you are being deprived 
of a privilege at that point. What is the privilege? To maybe kill a 
neighbor? Mr. President, if there are 30,000 people in a place that 
cannot accommodate that number, and in the middle of that confusion, in 
the middle of that frustration, in the middle of the anger and the rage 
that has to follow because you have been taken out of your home, or 
maybe don't know where your children are or where your spouse is, and 
the mental attitude that could exist in that situation, and they are 
making sure you have your pet pistol handy?
  It is outrageous, and it should not be allowed. We have to vote 
against the Vitter amendment because what it attempts to do is to make 
sure there is protection. The protection, however, is for the NRA. 
National Rifle Association really means ``No Records Available'' and 
that is ridiculous that we

[[Page S7492]]

don't want to have lethal weapons controlled in times of crisis.
  I am sure the Senator from Louisiana is reacting to a situation. To 
put it bluntly, I think the Vitter amendment would put the lives of 
police officers, National Guard troops, rescuers, and victims of a 
disaster in far greater danger. The Vitter amendment would prevent law 
enforcement officials and rescuers, first responders from collecting 
firearms from individuals, even temporarily, during an emergency or 
major disaster.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If a situation arose where a home is abandoned, and 
there are guns--say there were two guns and ammunition available and 
first responders came in, the house has been abandoned and looters are 
out there looking around in different buildings, the way I read this 
amendment is if the first responders get there first and they see these 
two rifles or additional handguns, the first responders will be 
prohibited from removing those weapons, preventing them from the 
possibility of falling into the hands of the looters; am I correct?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is absolutely correct. Imagine this in 
response to what the Senator is saying: There were felons turned loose 
on the streets, there were looters occupying homes or anything to get 
themselves out of the flood or out of the way and steal anything, and 
here we give them a present. Not only did they find a roof over their 
head, they found guns.
  So someone innocently trying to be of help comes in, such as an 
ambulance group, a physician, a coastguardsmen--look how gallant the 
Coast Guard people were--and imagine they try to break their way into a 
window to rescue someone they know is in there, and some crazy is there 
with a gun. Everybody knows, despite the fact that the person coming 
into the house wants to be of help--visualize what is taking place in 
some of the major cities across our country, where fire trucks 
responding to a fire are shot at. Here we are going to say: Wait a 
second, don't take away their guns. Maybe we ought to take away the 
fire engine, but don't take away their guns.
  It is the NRA button. It has been pushed by the organization, and 
they are saying: Hey, don't let them encroach on our weapon ownership, 
even if the crisis is one that is going to take lives, as we saw in 
Katrina. Imagine being in that facility, that hall with all those 
people who were desperate to find some way out of that mess and someone 
starts an argument. Pistols, guns around? Outrageous.
  What it means is that our law enforcement community will not be able 
to, even temporarily, hold weapons to protect other victims of the 
community at large during this crisis. At the next evacuation center, 
such as the Louisiana Superdome, we should allow people to roam around 
that facility with guns and assault weapons? What happens if someone 
wants to steal something they see one of their neighbors has and an 
argument ensues? The lawfulness is gone. They will be totally out of 
control giving somebody a gun like that.
  I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to write a law that 
took guns away from domestic abusers of children and spouses. We had a 
huge fight over it and finally we got it through. It was 1998. Since 
then, we have had over 100,000 gun permits denied to people who get so 
enraged that they beat up their kids, their spouse, their wives, their 
husbands, and the NRA was in there fighting every inch along the way: 
Oh, no, don't deprive the people of their freedom to beat up their 
wife, beat up their kids, and maybe if they are drunk enough, they may 
want to take a couple of shots at members of their household. No, we 
stopped that.
  We plead with the Senator from Louisiana: Don't force us to vote on 
this amendment. Don't do it. Think about the people in Louisiana and 
think about what it might have been like in New Orleans at that time, 
with water running over the rooftops in many cases. Now we are asking 
for the right to prohibit law enforcement from confiscating guns if 
they knew where they are? Perhaps one of these people who had a gun, 
been arrested and convicted for domestic abuse still has the gun--let 
them sit there with a gun and try to enter into a household that is 
disturbed? It is not right, not fair.
  The Senate is going to tell law enforcement officials who are trying 
to control these facilities that they are powerless: Keep your hands 
off those guns, policemen, FBI agents, FEMA people; keep your hands off 
those guns. Our police and Federal law enforcement officers are the 
first line of defense in terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and 
they have to have some degree of discretion.
  The International Brotherhood of Police Officers thinks this about 
the Vitter amendment:

       The IBPO stands by our brothers and sisters in law 
     enforcement and disapproves of any legislation that may 
     interfere with a police officer's discretion to react as he 
     or she sees fit under extreme emergency circumstances.
       Furthermore, the IBPO believes that responsible gun owners 
     who act in accordance with Federal, State and local law are 
     unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless they use or 
     possess the guns in a manner or place that would be 
     prohibited or threatening.

  They are confirming that this is a bad idea.
  The Vitter amendment would make it almost impossible for officials to 
set up safe areas during an emergency. It would turn evacuation centers 
into the Wild West. Take the guns and set them up in a safe area so 
they are returned to the owners. However, be careful to make sure that 
the original owner, the person who turned the gun in, isn't really a 
felon on the loose. Police know that large crowds, confined quarters, 
and limited amounts of food and water will lead to high tempers and 
leave people on the edge.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes 
more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chair.
  Understandably, police don't want guns in those shelters. The police 
must have the right to make that shelter a gun-free area. So what do 
they do? They say: Hey, Joe, turn in that gun; turn it in, and as soon 
as you are settled, we will keep it in safekeeping for you, and we will 
give you back your gun. But meanwhile, don't permit that gun owner, in 
a moment of rage, to do damage that is irreparable.
  The fact is, our law enforcement community has to have the ability to 
make decisions that it believes will ensure the health and safety of 
the community at large. There is no valid reason law enforcement 
agencies should be prevented from doing their job in times of 
emergency. Let's not make it tougher for them. What do we want to do in 
times of crisis such as a flood, an earthquake, a hurricane, a tornado? 
At times like that, do we want to make it tougher for our emergency 
response people to carry out the duties they volunteer for, typically, 
and do so efficiently, under dangerous circumstances to themselves?
  Let the NRA say: Come on, come on, let's let them have their guns. 
What is the difference? So they may take a shot or two. That is how it 
sounds to me, and I hope it sounds the same way to others.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my request 
with respect to vote No. 194 be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish the Senator from Louisiana had 
offered this and just said: That is the way we want it in Louisiana. 
That would be OK. But why he wants to do this so it will affect my 
State of Massachusetts or other States is something I find 
unacceptable.
  I quote here from Superintendent Warren Riley. He was the 
superintendent of police in New Orleans. He said:

       Most of the weapons were not taken from the hands of gun 
     owners. Instead, they were seized from empty homes where 
     evacuees left them behind to prevent looters from getting 
     their hands on them.

  Well, if we accept the Vitter amendment, they won't have that 
opportunity to do it again. If that was the

[[Page S7493]]

purpose, for gun owners to be able to have it, then the Vitter 
amendment should be redrafted. That isn't what his amendment says. 
Under the Vitter amendment, the police chief and the police chief in 
Boston or Springfield or Worcester or New Bedford or Fall River or any 
one of our communities would not be able to provide protection for the 
citizens of those communities.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Vitter has 6 
minutes remaining; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. In the interest of bringing this debate to a close--we 
have had much more time than you have--I will make a few closing 
remarks and then give the floor to the Senator from Louisiana to close. 
I would ask the Senator from Louisiana if he is going to request a 
rollcall vote on this amendment?
  Mr. VITTER. I am.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for responding, and I will be as 
brief as I can. I thank my colleagues from Massachusetts and New 
Jersey.
  Understand the situation we are talking about. This is not ordinary 
life in America. It is a time of a national emergency. It is a time of 
disaster. God forbid something like 9/11 should occur again; or 
Hurricane Katrina. It is an extraordinary circumstance where ordinary 
life is challenged, and we are just this close to seeing our society 
disintegrate, and the law enforcement officials are trying to keep 
things together. People are injured. People are pushed out of their 
homes. Fires are taking place. Chaos is reigning, and they are trying 
to keep the society together. So they make it clear that in some 
places, you can't use guns. Where you might have been able to use them 
under ordinary circumstances, because of a disaster, you cannot use 
them.
  The example I use is you send the National Guardsmen in, they are 
sent in by the hundreds and thousands to maintain order, and then 
snipers start shooting at them. The police make it known that this will 
be a gun-free zone. We are going to confiscate every gun. We don't want 
any National Guardsmen killed because of this emergency, this disaster. 
Is that unreasonable? Not if it is your son or daughter who is a member 
of the National Guard.
  But according to the Vitter amendment, the Vitter amendment would 
prohibit the seizure of a firearm based on the existence or a 
declaration of an emergency. You couldn't seize the firearm to protect 
the National Guardsmen or those, as the Senator from New Jersey said, 
driving down the street trying to put out the fire. People are shooting 
at them and they say: That is it, we are clearing the guns away from 
these major highways. We don't want people to be shooting at policemen 
and firemen and rescue workers. We don't want snipers killing people 
who are piling sandbags to save levees. Is any of that unreasonable? It 
sounds like exactly what we want our law enforcement agencies to do. 
But the Vitter amendment will tie their hands. The Vitter amendment 
will stop them.
  One Senator came up to me on the floor and said: This doesn't sound 
like the Vitter amendment that was described to me earlier. It is not. 
This is the second rewrite of the original amendment. Each time Senator 
Vitter has rewritten it, in fairness to him, he has had to comply with 
Senate rules and he has had to change the wording, and now the wording 
is terrible. It no longer allows for existing State and Federal and 
local law enforcement, it no longer allows for the confiscation of guns 
that you know were used in the commission of a crime. These were in an 
earlier version of the amendment, but they are no longer there. It just 
says you can't use any of the funds in this act to seize a firearm 
based on the existence or the declaration of a state of emergency. It 
is the wrong way to go.
  I suggest to the Senator from Louisiana that I hope he will withdraw 
this amendment. If he wants to do what the Senator from Idaho suggests, 
which is to put in an amendment to allow people to protect their own 
homes with their own legally owned firearms, I am not going to object 
to that. I don't think we should. But in this situation, in a disaster 
or an emergency, to say that law enforcement cannot control the flow of 
firearms--God forbid we face terrorism again in America and those 
people are armed and the law enforcement agencies don't have the power 
to take the guns away from them in a state of emergency. What are we 
thinking?
  I hope the Senator from Louisiana will reconsider his position. I 
will yield the floor at this point and allow him to close, and then we 
can move to a rollcall if he requests one.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in closing and in support of my amendment, 
I wish to make four brief points.
  First of all, I reiterate the widespread support for this amendment 
from many quarters, including the Fraternal Order of Police, a leading 
organization of law enforcement personnel. I ask unanimous consent that 
this strong letter of support be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2006.
     Hon. David Vitter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Vitter: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our 
     support for an amendment you intend to offer to H.R. 5441, 
     the FY2007 appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       Your amendment would prohibit the use of any funds 
     appropriated under this legislation from paying for the 
     seizure of firearms during a major disaster or emergency, 
     except under circumstances currently applicable under Federal 
     or State law. As we witnessed in the communities along the 
     Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, large scale 
     critical incidents demand the full attention of law 
     enforcement officers and other first responders. During this 
     time, the preservation of life-search and rescue missions--is 
     the chief priority of every first responder. Further, 
     breakdowns in communications systems and disaster-related 
     transportation or other infrastructure failures will lengthen 
     a law enforcement agency's response times, increasing the 
     degree to which citizens may have to protect themselves 
     against criminals. A law-abiding citizen who possess a 
     firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement 
     officers or any other first responder.
       On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this 
     amendment and look forward to working with you to getting it 
     passed. If I can be of any further assistance on this issue, 
     lease do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim 
     Pasco in my Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
                                               National President.

  Mr. VITTER. Secondly, Mr. President, I will also request that the 
following list be printed in the Record. It is a list of 10 States that 
have already passed State law doing exactly what we are going to do 
here on the floor of the Senate today, and that is simply say that a 
declaration or a state of emergency in and of itself does not give law 
enforcement the right to confiscate firearms held in legal possession. 
Ten States have already done that. One additional State, the State of 
Ohio, has pending legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Emergency Powers 2006

       Alaska--HB 400, sponsored by Representative John Coghill 
     (R-11) passed out of the Senate 19-1 (4/27); House concurred 
     on Senate amendments 30-4 on (4/28); signed by Governor Frank 
     Murkowski (R) on May 18.
       Idaho--SB 1401; passed Senate unanimously 34-0 and passed 
     House 59-6; signed by Governor Dirk Kempthorne (R) on March 
     30.
       Florida--HB 285, sponsored by Representative Mitch 
     Needelman (R-31) unanimously passed the House 116-0 and 
     passed the Senate 40-0; signed by Governor Jeb Bush (R) on 
     June 7.
       Kentucky--HB 290, the ``Gun Owner Protection Act'' 
     sponsored by Representative Robert Damron (D-39), includes: 
     prohibits government officials from restricting the rights of 
     law-abiding gun owners during declared states of emergency. 
     HB 290 passed the House with a vote of 89-7 on February 15 
     and passed the Senate with a vote of 35-2 on March 24. The 
     House concurred 90-4 that same day; signed by Governor Ernie 
     Fletcher (R) on April 22.
       Louisiana--HB 760 by Representative Steve Scalise (R-82)--
     an NRA-backed bill amending the state's emergency powers laws 
     to prevent New Orleans-style gun confiscations

[[Page S7494]]

     in the event of another natural disaster in Louisiana: House 
     unanimously approved (102-0), Senate approved 36-0; House 
     concurred 98-0; signed by Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) on 
     June 8.
       Mississippi--HB 1141, enables hunters to continue hunting 
     on certain-sized land tracts annexed by a city or county, 
     even if that locality bans the discharge of firearms within 
     its limits; prohibits the seizure and confiscation of 
     firearms by local officials in the unfortunate event of a 
     future natural disaster in Mississippi; and permits employees 
     to transport and store firearms in their locked, private 
     vehicles while parked on their employer's property if the 
     employer doe not provide secure parking separate from the 
     public; signed by Governor Haley Barbour (R) on March 23.
       New Hampshire--SB 348, sponsored by Senator Peter Bragdon 
     (R-11); signed by Governor John Lynch (D) on May 15.
       Oklahoma--HB 2696, sponsored by Representative Trebor 
     Worthen (R-87), passed the House overwhelmingly with a vote 
     of 94-1, and unanimously in the Senate with a vote of 46-0; 
     signed by Governor Brad Henry (D) on April 20.
       South Carolina--S 1261, sponsored by Senator Danny Verdin 
     (R-9), prohibits the Governor, or any government agency, from 
     suspending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms during a state of 
     emergency and prohibits South Carolina Law Enforcement 
     Division (SLED) from releasing the personal information of 
     Right-to-Carry (RTC) permit holders unless the request for 
     the information is part of an investigation by law 
     enforcement. Signed by Governor Mark Sanford (R) on June 9.
       Virginia--HB 1265, sponsored by Delegate William R. Janis 
     (R-56), unanimously passed House 97-0 (2/08) and Senate 40-0 
     (3/7); signed by Governor Tim Kaine (D) on April 4.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to make a third point, which is 
that, quite frankly, I find it somewhat ironic that the Senator from 
Illinois would welcome more detailed language, as I did have in the 
earlier draft, because the reason we don't have slightly more detailed 
language on the floor is because of a rule XVI objection by the 
leadership, the Democratic leadership, those working against the 
amendment in conjunction with the Senator from Illinois. So they 
objected to more detailed language in one breath, and then after we 
redrafted the amendment to comply with Senate rules regarding 
germaneness, they object to less detailed language in the next. You 
can't have it both ways.
  The fourth and final point is that the language we do have on the 
Senate floor goes to the heart of the issue and protects fundamental 
second amendment rights.
  There is one point I strongly agree with the Senator from Illinois 
about, and that is that we are not talking about ordinary life in 
America, an ordinary day; we are talking about a time of emergency 
where everything is different, where the world is turned upside down.
  It is exactly that very reason that this second amendment right to 
bear arms and use legally possessed firearms in defense of yourself, 
your life, and your property is so crucial, because you know what, your 
phone line in this very unique situation doesn't work, your cell phone 
and Blackberry don't work, there is no communication, and you can't 
reach out to the law enforcement authorities and have them there in a 
reasonable amount of time when your home is being broken into. All of 
that is gone. All of that is gone. The only thing that remains, in many 
instances, is your legally possessed firearm. That is the only thing 
for the defense of yourself, your life, your family's life and health, 
and your possessions. That is exactly why protecting this fundamental 
constitutional right is so very important, precisely for this sort of 
time of emergency.
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey made some remarks and read 
a letter talking about leaving it up to the judgment and discretion of 
law enforcement personnel. Well, I have great respect in general for 
law enforcement personnel, but I don't think their judgment or their 
discretion trumps the Constitution, and that is what happened and that 
is the attitude many of them took, unfortunately, after Hurricane 
Katrina in Louisiana. They thought their judgment and their discretion 
trumped the Constitution. They confiscated legally held firearms from 
law-abiding citizens, in some cases literally older, defenseless women, 
older citizens trapped in their homes with a legally possessed firearm 
as their only means of defense. That should never happen again. The 
Constitution, the second amendment, should never be abused again, 
particularly in such a state of emergency.
  Mr. President, in closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this commonsense, straightforward amendment. It is supported by the 
Fraternal Order of Police, it is supported by the National Rifle 
Association, which intends to grade this vote, and I urge all Members 
to offer their support for this straightforward, commonsense amendment.
  With that, I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


  Amendments Nos. 4618, 4616, 4578, 4592, 4638, as Modified, 4642, as 
  Modified, 4619, as Modified, 4635, as Modified, 4550, as Modified, 
           4624, as Modified, and 4661, as Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that prior to this vote, we do a 
little housekeeping. The following amendments have been cleared. I ask 
unanimous consent that they be deemed to be called up and read and 
approved en bloc after I have read them out. The first one would be No. 
4618, Senator Dayton; No. 4616, Senator Durbin; No. 4578, Senator 
Warner; No. 4592, Senator Feingold; No. 4638, Senator Boxer, as 
modified; No. 4642, Senator Pryor, as modified; No. 4619, Senator 
Durbin, as modified; No. 4635, Senator Carper, as modified; No. 4550, 
Senator Specter, as modified; No. 4624, Senator Obama, as modified; and 
No. 4661, Senator Lautenberg, as modified.
  I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4618

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to take an action 
  that would violate Executive Order 13149 (relating to greening the 
    government through Federal fleet and transportation efficiency))

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to take an action that would violate Executive Order 
     13149 (65 Fed. Reg. 24607; relating to greening the 
     government through Federal fleet and transportation 
     efficiency).


                           amendment no. 4616

      (Purpose: To provide funding for mass evacuation exercises)

       On page 93, strike lines 7 and 8 and insert the following:
       (4) $331,500,000 for training, exercises, technical 
     assistance, and other programs (including mass evacuation 
     preparation and exercises):

                           amendment no. 4578

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Office of National Capital Region 
                 Coordination, and for other purposes)

       On page 90, line 15, strike ``of which $8,000,000'' and 
     insert ``of which no less than $2,741,000 may be used for the 
     Office of National Capital Region Coordination, and of which 
     $8,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 4592

    (Purpose: To require the Under Secretary of Transportation for 
Transportation Security to assist in the coordination of the voluntary 
       provision of emergency services during commercial flights)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. (a) The Transportation Security Administration 
     shall require each air carrier and foreign air carrier that 
     provides air transportation or intrastate air transportation 
     to submit plans to the Transportation Security Administration 
     on how such air carrier will participate in the voluntary 
     provision of emergency services program established by 
     section 44944(a) of title 49, United States Code.
       (b)(1) Not more than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Transportation Security 
     Administration shall prepare a report that contains the 
     following:
       (A) Procedures that qualified individuals need to follow in 
     order to participate in the program described in subsection 
     (a).
       (B) Relevant contacts for individuals interested in 
     participating in the program described in subsection (a).
       (2) The Transportation Security Administration shall make 
     the report required by paragraph (1) available, by Internet 
     web site or other appropriate method, to the following:
       (A) The Congress.
       (B) The emergency response agency of each State.
       (C) The relevant organizations representing individuals to 
     participate in the program.

[[Page S7495]]

                    amendment no. 4638, As Modified

 (Purpose: To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
 Agency in conjunction with the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Standards and Technology to submit a report outlining Federal 
   earthquake response plans for high risk earthquake regions in the 
                             United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FEDERAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLANS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     in conjunction with the Director of the National Institutes 
     of Standards and Technology shall submit a report to the 
     Senate Committee on Appropriations outlining Federal 
     earthquake response plans for high risk earthquake regions in 
     the United States as determined by the United States 
     Geological Survey.


                    amendment no. 4642, As Modified

       On page 66, line 5, strike ``$166,456,000'' and insert 
     ``$163,456,000''.
       On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,400,000,000''.
       On page 93, strike lines 7 and 8 and insert the following:
       (4) $338,000,000 for training, exercises, technical 
     assistance, and other programs: Provided, That not less than 
     $18,000,000 is for technical assistance:
       On page 120, increase the amount on line 9 by $3,500,000.


                    amendment no. 4619, as modified

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish revised procedures for expeditiously clearing 
     individuals whose names have been mistakenly placed on a 
     terrorist database list or who have names identical or 
     similar to individuals on a terrorist database list. The 
     Secretary shall advise Congress of the procedures 
     established.


                    amendment no. 4635, as modified

       On page 114, line 8, insert the following: ``Until the 
     Secure Flight program or a follow on or successor passenger 
     screening program has been deployed or implemented, the 
     Transportation Security Administration shall provide airlines 
     with technical or other assistance to better align their 
     reservation and ticketing systems with terrorist databases to 
     assist in alleviating travel delays and other problems 
     associated with mistaken identification.''.


                    amendment no. 4550, as modified

       On page 92, line 2, strike the semicolon and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That not later than September 30, 
     2007, the Secretary shall distribute any unallocated funds 
     provided for in title III of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-90; 119 
     Stat. 2075) under the heading ``state and local programs'' 
     under the heading ``Office for Domestic Preparedness'' to 
     assist organizations (as described under section 501(c)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code) determined by the Secretary to 
     be at high-risk or potential high-risk of a terrorist attack: 
     Provided further, That applicants shall provide for the 
     Secretary's consideration prior threats or attacks (within or 
     outside the U.S.) by a terrorist organization, network, or 
     cell against an organization described in the previous 
     proviso and the Secretary shall consider prior threats or 
     attacks (within or outside the U.S.) against such 
     organizations when determining risk: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     the risk to each designated tax exempt grantee at least 3 
     full business days in advance of the announcement of any 
     grant award;


                    amendment no. 4624, as modified

       On page 99, line 4, insert after ``Act'' the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under this heading may be used to 
     enter into contracts using procedures based upon the unusual 
     and compelling urgency exception to competitive procedures 
     requirements under section 303(c)(2) of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2)) 
     or section 2304(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, unless 
     the contract is for the procurement of only such property and 
     services as are necessary to address the immediate emergency 
     and is only for so long as is necessary to put competitive 
     procedures in place in connection with such procurement and 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
     of the Senate and Appropriations and Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives of such contract not later than 7 
     days after the contract is entered into''.


                    amendment no. 4661, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) National Capital Region Air Defense Mission of 
     the Coast Guard.--
       Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     title II of this Act under the heading ``United States Coast 
     Guard'', ``operating expenses'', $13,934,000 may be available 
     for the purpose of the National Capital Region Air Defense 
     mission of the Coast Guard.


                           Amendment No. 4550

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to support and cosponsor 
Senator Specter's amendment to make sure funding to nonprofit 
institutions that are at high risk of terrorist attack receive the 
funds we have given to them. I have worked with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania on legislation to help nonprofits that serve communities 
throughout the Nation but that are threatened daily by the risk of 
terrorist attack. We have also worked together to provide these 
vulnerable communities with needed funding for the past 2 years. Yet 
despite our efforts to protect these ``soft targets'' of terrorism, the 
Department of Homeland Security has refused to release any of last 
year's money to these nonprofits. This is unacceptable. Today, we are 
making it clear that the $25 million provided for nonprofits must be 
spent to protect these institutions.
  We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States, 
Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey. These 
attacks by al-Qaida on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, 
train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and 
cultural centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of 
all types in order to conduct its campaign of terror.
  I want to make sure that our communities are safe and the buildings 
where citizens live, learn and work are strong and secure to safeguard 
American lives in the event of a terrorist attack. Local communities 
are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This Congress must 
do its share to make sure that they do not have to bear the full cost 
of this war. We have done this by providing funds for security 
enhancements in buildings that Americans visit everyday. Yet DHS has 
failed to give local communities the funds they need. DHS has not 
released any of the funds despite instruction from Congress to do so.
  This amendment is very simple--it requires the Office for State and 
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to release the $25 
million Congress provided to enhance the security and safety to these 
nonprofits. This funding will help nonprofits make the needed security 
improvements to protect these ``soft targets'' of terrorism. These 
nonprofits are worried now, they are under threat now, and they need 
our help now. This Congress has acted and now DHS must act now to make 
these nonprofits and the communities that they serve safer and 
stronger.
  As a nation our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be 
safer, stronger, and smarter so that we are able to better detect, 
prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This amendment gets us one 
step closer to meeting those goals by making vulnerable targets smarter 
in detecting and preventing terrorist attacks and by making sure that 
if terror strikes one of these facilities, security and safety measures 
are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around these 
buildings.
  Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America 
security and Americans safety. I am pleased that this amendment has 
been accepted because it does exactly that. In the battle to protect 
our nation from terrorist attacks, we must be sure to provide 
assistance to these high-risk nonprofit organizations that provide 
vital health, social, cultural, and educational services to the 
American people.


                           Amendment No. 4616

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to improve the 
Nation's preparedness and response to natural disasters and terrorist 
attacks.
  This amendment is based on legislation that I introduced last year, 
the Mass Evacuation Exercise Assistance Act of 2005, S. 2043, which 
would implement a recommendation in the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee's report ``Hurricane Katrina: A Nation 
Still Unprepared'' that Federal agencies work with State and local 
officials to develop evacuation plans.
  That bill would address a gaping hole in our Nation's disaster 
preparedness by providing grants for evacuation exercises and the 
implementation of emergency response plans. It would establish a grant 
program to ensure that

[[Page S7496]]

cities across America have the resources they need to develop 
comprehensive evacuation plans; stage drills and exercises to practice 
and perfect evacuation procedures; and stockpile the materials needed 
to supply evacuation areas. In addition, the legislation would help 
cities prepare for future emergencies and evacuations to ensure that 
their citizens will be evacuated quickly and safely should a natural 
disaster or terrorist attack occur. Otherwise, like the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina, citizens can easily become trapped without food or 
water in a devastated area or along an escape route.
  Based on that bill, S. 2043, my amendment today specifically includes 
evacuation exercises among the list of activities funded by homeland 
security grants. Evacuation planning and exercises are already 
permitted, but adding the words ``evacuation preparation and 
exercises'' to the bill would encourage state and local governments to 
request homeland security funds for that particular purpose. States and 
localities need to practice their evacuation plans in order to test and 
improve their systems before they must be executed in real emergencies.
  The Department of Homeland Security recently reported to Congress 
that many states, territories, and urban areas lack confidence in the 
adequacy and feasibility of their plans to deal with catastrophic 
events. The Department's report also highlighted the importance of 
exercises in preparing first responders for disasters and revealing 
shortcomings in disaster plans. The Washington Post recently called for 
increased attention to evacuation exercises and disaster preparation in 
preventing a reoccurrence of the disaster that followed Hurricane 
Katrina. According to the Post, the insufficient Federal and local 
response to Hurricane Katrina was ``a failure of execution, not 
prediction.''
  Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this important 
amendment to strengthen our Nation's emergency and disaster 
preparedness and response.


                           Amendment No. 4619

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the fiscal 
year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. This measure would 
direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to revise existing procedures 
and establish new methods for expeditiously clearing the names of 
individuals who have been mistakenly placed on a terrorist database 
list, including the Transportation Security Administration's, TSA, No-
Fly and Selectee watch list, or who have names identical to or 
substantially similar to names on these database lists. The Secretary 
of Homeland Security would report the revised procedures to Congress no 
later than 6 months after enactment of this bill.
  Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the TSA and other 
Government agencies have maintained terrorist database lists containing 
the names of individuals suspected of posing a risk of terrorism or 
other threat to airline or passenger safety. The TSA watch list 
contains the names of individuals who have been placed into two 
categories. One is the group of individuals in the ``No Fly'' category. 
Any individual whose name appears in this category will not be 
permitted to board a commercial flight, as the Department of Homeland 
Security and other Federal agencies have deemed that person is a known 
terrorist or someone who has solid ties to terrorist activity. The 
second category is known as ``Selectees,'' and they may be on this list 
for a variety of reasons, such as attempting to pass a weapon through a 
security checkpoint or otherwise exhibiting behavior that presents 
suspicion that the person may engage in future terrorist acts, even 
though information about the individual is not sufficient to place them 
in the ``No Fly'' category.
  Unfortunately, thousands of innocent passengers have been placed on 
the TSA watch list mistakenly or, as is often the case, because they 
have the same name as others on the list. This prevents those 
passengers from using the internet or electronic kiosks located at the 
airport to check in when they fly. This causes these passengers to wait 
in long lines to be cleared by airline personnel at the check-in 
counter, sometimes even resulting in missed flights.
  The TSA procedure for differentiating the innocent travelers from 
those who pose a threat is long and still results in the cleared 
passengers having to check in at the counter and present a clearance 
letter from the TSA. In other words, after going through the clearance 
and verification process, innocent passengers still cannot use the 
internet and kiosks that airlines rely on for passengers to obtain 
their boarding passes.
  I truly hope that as a result of this amendment, the TSA will 
establish a better system to not only clear innocent passengers from 
any terrorist database lists, but also to work with the airlines to 
devise a safe and secure check-in procedure that differentiates between 
the criminals and the innocent.
  I thank Senator Carper for joining as an original cosponsor of my 
amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.


            Amendments Nos. 4669, 4670, 4671, 4672, and 4673

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send five amendments to the desk, one on 
behalf of Senator Baucus, one on behalf of Senator Kyl, one on behalf 
of Senator Schumer, one on behalf of Senator Grassley, and one on 
behalf of Senator Levin, and I ask unanimous consent that those 
amendments be considered read and approved en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4669

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Customs and Border 
Protection should continue to focus on reporting and analysis of trade 
            flows to prevent the spread of methamphetamine)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 540. (a) The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Domestic methamphetamine production in both small-and 
     large-scale laboratories is decreasing as a result of law 
     enforcement pressure and public awareness campaigns.
       (2) It is now estimated that 80 percent of methamphetamine 
     consumed in the United States originates in Mexico and is 
     smuggled into the United States.
       (3) The movement of methamphetamine into the United States 
     poses new law enforcement challenges at the border, in the 
     financial system, and in communities affected by 
     methamphetamine.
       (4) Customs and Border Protection is working to stop the 
     spread of methamphetamine by examining the movement of the 
     drug and its precursors at the borders and points of entry.
       (5) Customs and Border Protection is a vital source of 
     information for the Drug Enforcement Administration and other 
     law enforcement agencies.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that Customs and Border 
     Protection should continue to focus on methamphetamine in its 
     reporting and analysis of trade flows to prevent the spread 
     of methamphetamine throughout the United States.


                           amendment no. 4670

   (Purpose: To increase the total number of Department of Homeland 
 Security additional detention bed spaces by 1,700 beds in fiscal year 
                                 2007)

       On page 76, line 15, before the period insert ``: Provided 
     further, That an additional $58,000,000 shall be available 
     under this heading and authorized for 1,700 additional 
     detention beds spaces and the necessary operational and 
     mission support positions, information technology, relocation 
     costs, and training for those beds and the amount made 
     available under the heading `DISASTER RELIEF' in this Act is 
     reduced by $58,000,000''.


                           amendment no. 4671

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress 
  addressing its compliance with the recommendations from the July 6, 
  2006 Inspector General Report ``Progress in Developing the National 
                           Asset Database'')

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 540. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH INSPECTOR GENERAL 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations a report addressing the 
     compliance by the Department of Homeland Security with the 
     recommendations set forth in the July 6, 2006, Inspector 
     General of Homeland Security report entitled ``Progress in 
     Developing the National Asset Database''. The report shall 
     include the status of the prioritization of assets by the 
     Department of Homeland Security into high-value, medium-
     value, and low-value asset tiers, and how such tiers will be 
     used by the Secretary of Homeland Security in the issuance of 
     grant funds.

[[Page S7497]]

                           amendment no. 4672

    (Purpose: To require the Inspector General of the Department of 
  Homeland Security to review each Secure Border Initiative contract 
  valued at more than $20,000,000 and to report the findings of such 
     reviews to the Secretary of Homeland Security and to Congress)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. (a) Not later than 60 days after the initiation 
     of any contract relating to the Secure Border Initiative that 
     is valued at more than $20,000,000, and upon the conclusion 
     of the performance of such contract, the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Homeland Security shall review each action 
     relating to such contract to determine whether such action 
     fully complies with applicable cost requirements, performance 
     objectives, program milestones, inclusion of small, minority-
     owned, and women-owned businesses, and time lines.
       (b) If a contract review under subsection (a) uncovers 
     information regarding improper conduct or wrongdoing, the 
     Inspector General shall, as expeditiously as practicable, 
     submit such information to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, or to another appropriate official of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, who shall determine if the 
     contractor should be suspended from further participation in 
     the Secure Border Initiative.
       (c) Upon the completion of each review under subsection 
     (a), the Inspector General shall submit a report to the 
     Secretary that contains the findings of the review, including 
     findings regarding--
       (1) cost overruns;
       (2) significant delays in contract execution;
       (3) lack of rigorous departmental contract management;
       (4) insufficient departmental financial oversight;
       (5) contract bundling that limits the ability of small 
     businesses to compete; or
       (6) other high risk business practices.
       (d)(1) Not later than 30 days after the receipt of each 
     report submitted under subsection (c), the Secretary shall 
     submit a report to the congressional committees listed in 
     paragraph (3) that describes--
       (A) the findings of the report received from the Inspector 
     General; and
       (B) the steps the Secretary has taken, or plans to take, to 
     address the problems identified in the report.
       (2) Not later than 60 days after the initiation of each 
     contract action with a company whose headquarters is outside 
     of the United States, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     regarding the Secure Border Initiative to the congressional 
     committees listed in paragraph (3).
       (3) The congressional committees listed in this paragraph 
     are--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (D) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (E) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate; and
       (F) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           amendment no. 4673

 (Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated by title VI for 
    Customs and Border Protection for air and marine interdiction, 
 operations, maintenance, and procurement, such funds as are necessary 
    may be available for the final Northern border air wing site in 
                               Michigan)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title VI for Customs 
     and Border Protection for Air and Marine Interdiction, 
     Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement, such funds as are 
     necessary may be available for the establishment of the final 
     Northern border air wing site in Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 4615

  Mr. GREGG. I believe we are now ready to go to a vote on the 
amendment of Senator Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
  The amendment (No. 4615), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendments Nos. 4608 and 4574

  Mr. GREGG. I send to the desk two amendments that have been agreed to 
that may have already been filed: Biden No. 4608 and Senator Coleman 
No. 4574. I ask unanimous consent they be considered as reported and 
read and they be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 4608 and 4574) were agreed to, as follows

  (Purpose: To require passenger and baggage screeners at New Castle 
 Airport in Wilmington, Delaware as long as commercial air service is 
                       provided at that airport)

       On page 78, line 20, strike the colon and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the Transportation 
     Security Administration shall provide passenger and baggage 
     screeners and related resources at the New Castle Airport in 
     Wilmington, Delaware as long as commercial air service is 
     provided at that airport:''.

                    amendment no. 4574, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PILOT INTEGRATED SCANNING SYSTEM.

         (a) Designations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     designate 3 foreign seaports through which containers pass or 
     are transshipped to the United States to pilot an integrated 
     scanning system that couples nonintrusive imaging equipment 
     and radiation detection equipment, which may be provided by 
     the Megaports Initiative of the Department of Energy. In 
     making designations under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall consider 3 distinct ports with unique features and 
     differing levels of trade volume.
       (2) Collaboration and cooperation.--The Secretary shall 
     collaborate with the Secretary of Energy and cooperate with 
     the private sector and host foreign government to implement 
     the pilot program under this subsection.
         (b) Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall achieve a 
     full-scale implementation of the pilot integrated screening 
     system, which shall--
       (1) scan all containers destined for the United States that 
     transit through the terminal;
       (2) electronically transmit the images and information to 
     the container security initiative personnel in the host 
     country and/or Customs and Border Protection personnel in the 
     United States for evaluation and analysis;
       (3) resolve every radiation alarm according to established 
     Department procedures;
       (4) utilize the information collected to enhance the 
     Automated Targeting System or other relevant programs; and
       (5) store the information for later retrieval and analysis.
         (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after achieving 
     full-scale implementation under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and 
     the Secretary of State, shall submit a report, to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, that includes--
       (1) an evaluation of the lessons derived from the pilot 
     program implemented under this section;
       (2) an analysis of the efficacy of the Automated Targeting 
     System or other relevant programs in utilizing the images 
     captured to examine high-risk containers;
       (3) an evaluation of software that is capable of 
     automatically identifying potential anomalies in scanned 
     containers; and
       (4) a plan and schedule to expand the integrated scanning 
     system developed under this section to other container 
     security initiative ports.
         (c) Implementation.--As soon as practicable and possible 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, an integrated 
     scanning system shall be implemented to scan all containers 
     entering the United States prior to arrival in the United 
     States.


[[Page S7498]]


  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I turn to the Senator from California who 
has an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4674

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take less than a minute to thank 
both sides.
  Can the Senator help me? This is my able assistant.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I must say what a thrill it is 
to work on the staff of Senator Boxer and to be able to help her.
  I wonder, Senator, if it is OK to go to work for Senator Jeffords?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have never had such a fantastic, underpaid, assistant 
in my life.
  I will take a minute to explain why I am very delighted that Senators 
Gregg and Murray have signed off on this amendment we are about to 
adopt.
  Senator Schumer has worked very hard on this issue. Here is what we 
say. We say the inspector general did an investigation and found out 
that on the out-of-place assets list--these are assets that the 
Department of Homeland Security will protect--were places such as the 
Nestle Purina Pet Food plant, the Sweetwater Flea Market, petting zoo, 
the beach at the end of a street, the Pepper and Herb Company, Auto 
Shop, groundhog zoo, high stakes bingo, mule day parade.
  We wish we could protect every activity in America, but I think when 
you are looking at a budget that is limited, we should go after the 
targets that al-Qaida has told us--the bridges, the highways, the 
infrastructure, the chemical plants, the nuclear plants. We do not have 
to spend taxpayer money protecting the bourbon festival, as an example.
  The point is, we are going to ask the Department to either accept the 
recommendations of the inspector general or tell us why not. That is 
the essence of the amendment.
  I thank my colleagues. I don't know if I need to ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. GREGG. I hope the Senator wouldn't.
  I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4674.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of certain funds for travel by officers 
  or employees of the Department of Homeland Security until the Under 
 Secretary for Preparedness has implemented the recommendations in the 
report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security 
 titled ``Progress in Developing the National Asset Database'', dated 
                               June 2006)

       On page 90, line 24, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available in this title under the heading ``Management and 
     Administration'' may be used for travel by an officer or 
     employee of the Department of Homeland Security until the 
     Under Secretary for Preparedness has implemented the 
     recommendations in the report by the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security titled `Progress in 
     Developing the National Asset Database', dated June 2006; or 
     until the Under Secretary for Preparedness submits a report 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives explaining why 
     such recommendations have not been fully implemented.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4674) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4574, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. I further ask unanimous consent the amendment numbered 
4574 by Senator Coleman should have been modified. Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent it be deemed modified as sent to the desk and that it 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the only 
remaining amendments to be considered prior to final passage will be 
the amendments of Senator Clinton, Senator Chambliss, and Senator 
Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. 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.


                    Amendment No. 4598, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Domenici's amendment 
numbered 4598, as modified, be considered pending and it be agreed to 
by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4598), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXPANSION OF THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE SIMULATION 
                   AND ANALYSIS CENTER.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Critical infrastructure.--The term ``critical 
     infrastructure'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
       (2) Emergency and major disaster.--The terms ``emergency'' 
     and ``major disaster'' have the meanings given the terms in 
     section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
       (3) National infrastructure simulation and analysis 
     center.--The term ``National Infrastructure Simulation and 
     Analysis Center'' means the National Infrastructure 
     Simulation and Analysis Center established under section 
     1016(d) of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(d)).
       (4) Protect.--The term ``protect'' means to reduce the 
     vulnerability of critical infrastructure in order to deter, 
     mitigate, or neutralize an emergency, natural disaster, 
     terrorist attack, or other catastrophic event.
       (b) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The National Infrastructure Simulation and 
     Analysis Center shall serve as a source of national 
     competence to address critical infrastructure protection and 
     continuity through support for activities related to--
       (A) counterterrorism, threat assessment, and risk 
     mitigation; and
       (B) an emergency, natural disaster, terrorist attack, or 
     other catastrophic event.
       (2) Infrastructure modeling.--
       (A) Particular support.--The support provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall include modeling, simulation, and 
     analysis of the systems comprising critical infrastructure, 
     in order to enhance critical infrastructure preparedness, 
     protection, response, and recovery activities.
       (B) Relationship with other agencies.--Each Federal agency 
     and department with critical infrastructure responsibilities 
     under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, or any 
     successor to such directive, shall establish a formal 
     relationship, including an agreement regarding information 
     sharing, between the elements of such agency or department 
     and the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis 
     Center.
       (C) Purpose.--
       (i) In general.--The purpose of the relationship under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be to permit each Federal agency and 
     department described in subparagraph (B) to take full 
     advantage of the capabilities of the National Infrastructure 
     Simulation and Analysis Center consistent with its workload 
     capacity and priorities (particularly vulnerability and 
     consequence analysis) for real-time response to reported and 
     projected emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, 
     or other catastrophic events.
       (ii) Recipient of certain support.--Modeling, simulation, 
     and analysis provided under this subsection shall be provided 
     to relevant Federal agencies and departments, including 
     Federal agencies and departments with critical infrastructure 
     responsibilities under Homeland Security Presidential 
     Directive 7, or any successor to such directive.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 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. 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.


                    Amendment No. 4649, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I address the Chambliss amendment numbered 
4649 and I ask unanimous consent it be called up, considered read, and 
passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4649), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with National 
     Council

[[Page S7499]]

     on Radiation Protection and Measurements (in this section 
     referred to as the ``NCRP'') and other qualified organization 
     and government organizations in preparing guidance and 
     recommendations for emergency responders, to assist recovery 
     operations, and to protect the general public with respect to 
     radiological terrorism, threats, and events.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a lot of work has been accomplished in 
the last 3 days. I particularly thank Senator Gregg, chairman of the 
committee, who has done a good job of balancing a very difficult budget 
in a very difficult year but has been great to work with. The numerous 
amendments came from both sides of the aisle, and I thank all of his 
staff for their work.
  I thank the ranking member on our committee, Senator Byrd, for his 
work on this committee and all of the effort he has put into making 
sure we have a balanced bill that has come before the Senate to 
appropriate funds for Homeland Security.
  I especially thank the staff that has been out here on our side 
working for the last numerous days, night and day, to get us to the 
point where we will shortly vote on this bill: Chuck Kieffer, Chip 
Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Adam Morrison, and all of our 
staff who have been out here.
  I end by thanking Senator Gregg for his tremendous work on this bill 
in a very difficult year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I join the Senator from Washington.
  I especially thank the Senator from Washington who has been drawn in 
here to help out. She has done a fabulous job. We would not have gotten 
to this point as promptly as we have without her assistance and 
leadership. It has been a joy to work with her. Her professionalism is 
extraordinary.
  I also, of course, thank Senator Byrd, the ranking member. He is a 
tremendous force. He has been for decades. His influence on this bill 
is very significant. He has been a very constructive individual to work 
with as my ranking member, although he is well my senior in both 
experience, knowledge, and ability.
  I especially thank my staff: Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, Shannon 
O'Keefe, Mark VandeWater, Nancy Perkins, and Christa Crawford. They 
have done a great job. They have been working long hours, as have other 
members of our staff, including interns who have been brought in and 
Budget staff who have been thrown in the breach. But the Appropriations 
staff is a small, rather effective cadre, and we admire what they do.

  On the minority side Chuck Kieffer and his team do a superb job, and 
we greatly admire their efforts. And, of course, we very much 
appreciate the assistance of the staff of the full committee, and 
especially the assistance of Senator Cochran and Keith Kennedy, Bob 
Putnam, Jack Conway, and Richard Larson. These are folks who come in 
and help us out a great deal. So we thank them immensely. We could not 
have gotten to this point without them.
  They work immense hours. We can never really adequately express our 
appreciation to them, but we do greatly appreciate all they have done.


                    Amendment No. 4582, As Modified

  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that we call up 
and proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 4582 on behalf of 
Senator Clinton, that it be modified with the modification I send to 
the desk, and that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4582), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. The Comptroller General shall provide a report to 
     the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations no later 
     than thirty days after enactment describing the impact on 
     public safety and the effectiveness of screening operations 
     resulting from the modification of the list of items 
     prohibited from being carried aboard a passenger aircraft 
     operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation set forth in 
     section 1540 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as of 
     December 1, 2005, to be carried aboard a passenger aircraft.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Byrd, the ranking member on our 
side, does have further remarks. I thank him and all of his staff
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. I commend Chairman Gregg 
for his leadership on this important legislation. I thank Senator 
Murray for her contributions to the bill this week. I also thank 
Chairman Gregg's staff and my staff for their excellent work on this 
legislation.
  The bill that is before the Senate contains numerous improvements to 
the President's request, both in terms of funding and in giving clear 
direction to the Department on how to improve its operations. 
Regrettably the President sent a budget to the Congress for Homeland 
Security programs that is hollow.
  This bill provides critical improvements to that request and does so 
in a fiscally responsible manner. Additional funding is provided for 
border security, port security, grants to equip, train, and hire 
firefighters, for the Coast Guard Deepwater program to replace its 
aging fleet of ships, planes and helicopters, as well as additional 
funding for emergency managers. In addition, we provide clear direction 
to the Secretary for securing our Nation's chemical facilities.
  While many of the Department's legacy agencies, such as the Coast 
Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service, continue 
to operate effectively, the Department itself has become an 
ineffective, behemoth. Rather than make America safer, the Department 
has become a cumbersome agency, burdened by malaise.
  FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been broken into 
ineffective pieces, separating the responsibilities for preparedness 
and response. We all learned after Hurricane Katrina that FEMA is no 
longer up to the task of responding to a catastrophic disaster, whether 
the disaster is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
  The Department has become a haven for contractors. DHS spends 
millions of dollars on contractors who produce lots of paper and data 
dumps, that sit in file cabinets and computer files. But the Department 
fails to use that information to make careful choices about how to 
secure the Nation.
  In addition to failing to address known vulnerabilities, the 
Department of Homeland Security is turning into a case study for failed 
management. The GAO and the DHS Inspector General have documented 
numerous financial management and procurement failures at the 
Department. DHS information systems are not secure. GAO alone has 
completed 494 evaluations of DHS programs. The DHS Office of the 
Inspector General is spread so thin that it was unable to follow 
through on 616 different allegations of wrongdoing last year.
  The Department continues to allow valuable homeland security dollars 
to gather dust in the Treasury. Last week was the 1-year anniversary of 
the London train bombing; yet, under the Department's plan, rail and 
transit security funding that was appropriated by Congress last October 
will not be awarded until this September. And the same malaise applies 
to grants to secure our ports, our buses, for securing buffer zones 
around nuclear and electrical plants, and grants to hire more 
firefighters.
  The Department, working with its contractors, put together a list of 
77,000 critical infrastructure sites around the country. It is an 
undifferentiated list including nuclear power plants and electrical 
grids, an Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a fleamarket, and an ice cream 
parlor. How ridiculous. Without careful choices, how does that 
investment make us safer?
  The Congress gave the Department authority to allocate first 
responder funds based on risk, and what did they do? They cut grants to 
New York by 37 percent and the Washington, DC, area by 43 percent.
  Nearly 5 years after 9/11, key issues, such as fixing FEMA, 
establishing

[[Page S7500]]

chemical security standards, inspecting cargo on commercial aircraft, 
inspecting air passengers for explosives, securing our ports, and 
making sure that State and local governments have effective mass 
evacuation plans, are all languishing at the Department. The list of 
issues that are festering at the Department goes on and on.
  To the Department of Homeland Security I have two words: Wake up.
  To the administration, I simply say, if you are not going to lead on 
making our homeland safer, than follow the lead of Chairman Gregg and 
the United States Senate.
  Chairman Gregg has done a masterful job on this bill.
  I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed Senator 
Byrd's amendment, which would require the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to set interim security regulations that establish homeland 
security requirements for chemical facilities. Today, I rise to support 
this amendment in conference.
  This amendment takes a necessary first step in ensuring that all 
chemical facilities presenting the greatest security risk are secure 
against potential threats. This first step will require these 
facilities to submit facility security plans to the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  In the U.S., 14,000 chemical plants, manufacturers and water 
utilities and other facilities store and use extremely hazardous 
substances that if suddenly released can injure or kill employees or 
residents in nearby communities. Of these facilities, nearly 450 
individually pose a risk of harm to more than 100,000 people.
  When I chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 
during the 107th Congress, the committee unanimously passed chemical 
security legislation that was offered by Senator Corzine. Industry 
concerns have stalled efforts to adopt strong bipartisan legislation 
ever since. In the 108th Congress, this committee passed weaker 
chemical security legislation that lacked adequate accountability to 
ensure compliance with essential protective requirements. We filed 
minority views articulating our concerns.
  In 2003 and in 2005, I introduced legislation to improve the security 
and safety of our Nation's wastewater treatment works. Again, this 
legislation takes into account our growing awareness of security needs 
that has developed in the nearly 5 years that have passed since the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. My wastewater security 
legislation requires all wastewater facilities to complete 
vulnerability assessments, emergency response plans, and site security 
plans and to submit them to the EPA.
  Senator Byrd's amendment is consistent with my legislation, in that 
wastewaster facilities would not be exempt from completing security 
plans and submitting them to the Federal Government.
  On May 23, 2006, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 
considered wastewater security legislation. I offered an amendment at 
that markup which would require wastewater facilities to complete and 
submit to the EPA the full range of security plans that I believe are 
essential to the protection of wastewater facilities. The amendment 
would also require facilities to switch to safer treatment chemicals 
and technologies if grant funding is available. My amendment was not 
successful and the bill reported out of committee did not require 
wastewater facilities to complete vulnerability assessments and submit 
them to the EPA.
  Senator Byrd's amendment takes the first step in hardening our 
Nation's entire chemical infrastructure against security threats.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to address yet another 
problem with the Department of Homeland Security. It has been 3 years 
since its creation, and the Department continues to have difficulties 
integrating a financial management system. The Department began with 18 
different financial systems. The Department's most recent effort to 
create a new, consolidated financial management system, known as 
Emerge2, has been canceled after the Department spent $23 million 
without making progress.
  History has shown that integrating Federal computer systems and 
migrating data can be a complicated and costly undertaking. As the 
Department of Homeland Security moves forward in its efforts on 
financial management integration, it should do so carefully and 
deliberately. It is my hope that the Department considers a range of 
possible solutions. This includes soliciting ideas from commercial 
providers with prior Department of Homeland Security experience and 
contemplating a pilot program with one of these providers to work 
through the complicated technical and operational problems.
  Mr. President, I also wish to address one of the most important 
issues the Congress faces today--protecting our homeland from terrorist 
threats. One threat we have only just begun to address is a possible 
attack on our food production, supply and distribution systems. 
Bioweapons could threaten both our crops and livestock, which would 
have profound impacts on the health of our society and our ability to 
export such products.
  The Senate must support funding for biodefense research, to prevent 
and prepare for such an attack. I am proud that the fiscal year 2007 
Homeland Security appropriations bill provides additional funding to 
complete planning and design of the National Bio and Agro-Defense 
Facility, an initiative to replace outdated labs transferred to the 
Department of Homeland Security from the Department of Agriculture when 
DHS was created in 2002.
  Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security solicited 
expressions of interests from around the country from consortiums 
qualified to operate this facility. DHS received twenty-nine proposals 
and will choose a set of finalists later this year. The chosen teams 
and sites will go through a competitive process and National 
Environmental Policy Act review to identify a final team and site. NBAF 
will be on the front-line of research and development of new ways to 
protect our nation's food supply, so the final choice of a team to 
operate NBAF must be made on the basis of scientific and technical 
merit.
  The Mid-Atlantic Bio-Ag Defense Consortium is among the 29 applicants 
to run NBAF. It consists of a group of researchers from leading 
universities and selected federal and state agencies in Maryland, 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Delaware. I believe that this 
five-state consortium, led by the University of Maryland's School of 
Medicine, offers unparalleled scientific expertise and critical 
understanding in large institutional management, and will present a 
strong proposal for the Department's consideration.
  The combined expertise of the Mid-Atlantic Consortium has a proven 
track record in research and development of countermeasures to many 
agents and toxins designated as threats by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This team has 
considerable ``hands on'' experience in handling the most sensitive 
kinds of material while adhering to the protocols essential for high 
quality and safely-managed scientific research. I believe this team is 
uniquely qualified define problems so as to develop, test and implement 
solutions to ensure that we can protect our crops and livestock from 
biological threats.
  To augment its exclusive research capability, the consortium has 
identified the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, BARC, to serve 
as the NBAF site. BARC offers the Department an integrated, secure and 
results-oriented approach to tackling plant and animal diseases of high 
consequence that could enter the U.S. through ordinary commerce or an 
act of terrorism. Its existing infrastructure and location would 
contribute to successfully protecting a highly sensitive facility like 
NBAF.
  I believe that the Mid-Atlantic Bio-Ag Defense Consortium offers a 
superior group of scientific talent, with world class leadership expert 
in running large, complex organizations. It also offers a solutions-
based approach to tackle the scientific and public health challenges to 
be undertaken at the NBAF. For these reasons, it is my hope that the 
Department will give strong consideration to this Consortium for the 
NBAF in the coming months.
  In the end, the Department's selection of a team and a site must be 
based

[[Page S7501]]

upon carefully reviewed and documented merit-based analysis, with the 
support of the community in which it will be located. As we move 
forward on this initiative, it is my hope that Secretary Chertoff will 
base the selection on merit, to ensure the integrity of NBAF and the 
important work that will be conducted there in the years ahead.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, when I was elected to the Senate, I 
promised the people of Colorado that protecting the homeland and 
supporting law enforcement would be among my highest priorities. In the 
year and a half since taking the oath of office, I have worked hard to 
fulfill that pledge by working with my colleagues to help pass the 
Combat Meth Act, working to find bipartisan compromise on the PATRIOT 
Act, working to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that 
increases border security, and most important, paying close attention 
to the concerns of Colorado's law enforcement and homeland security 
communities.
  But great challenges remain, challenges that should not be deferred 
for the next Congress to deal with, challenges that should not be 
turned into partisan weapons, challenges that will require reaching 
across the aisle to solve.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss just a few of these 
challenges. First, however, I want to briefly discuss the Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we passed today.
  Thank Senators Gregg and Byrd, who did an excellent job shepherding 
this bill through the committee process and on the floor. While there 
are some provisions in the bill with which I disagree--for example, I 
would like to see more funding for first responders, port, and rail 
security--the bill is a product of serious and careful deliberation.
  I would also like to draw attention to an issue of great importance: 
the training of our law enforcement and homeland security officials. I 
was pleased to see the DHS appropriations bill increase funding for the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I am also pleased that the 
bill classifies Federal Law Enforcement Training Center staff as 
serving an ``inherently governmental'' function, which guarantees that 
law enforcement training cannot be outsourced. Law enforcement training 
has been an issue of concern to me dating back to my time as attorney 
general, when we guaranteed an adequate stream of funding for the 
training of law enforcement officers through the Colorado Peace Officer 
Standards and Training Board. I look forward to working doing more work 
on this issue in the future.
  I also thank my colleagues for agreeing to the two amendments I 
offered to the appropriations bill.
  The first requires DHS to provide a detailed report on how it will 
improve the inspection of incoming agricultural products in order to 
protect U.S. agriculture from foreign pests and disease.
  Agriculture is the largest industry and employer in the United 
States, generating more than $1 trillion in economic activity each 
year. However, the agricultural sector is both a great strength and a 
potential vulnerability: the entry of foreign pests and disease could 
wreak havoc on the economy, the environment, and public health. In 
order to safeguard American agriculture, we need--first and foremost--
effective inspection at our points of entry. There have been some 
serious questions about the effectiveness of the inspection program at 
DHS, and my amendment will make sure that DHS has a sensible strategy 
in place to improve that program.
  My second amendment requires DHS to produce a detailed blueprint 
regarding how it will help Federal, State, and local officials achieve 
communications interoperability.
  More than 5 years after September 11, first responders are still 
struggling to achieve communications interoperability. Fixing this 
problem will require money, leadership, and sound planning by Federal, 
State, and local officials.
  In my own State of Colorado, first responders and emergency managers 
are working hard to solve this problem--and they are making progress. 
But they deserve to know exactly what DHS plans to do, in the short, 
intermediate, and long terms to help them get to where they need to be.
  So I thank my colleagues for agreeing to my amendments, for 
increasing funding for training, and for putting together a 
thoughtful--if imperfect--appropriations bill.
  I would like to spend just a few minutes discussing some important 
homeland security and law enforcement priorities which I hope the 
Senate will take up as soon as possible.
  Each of these issues share two important characteristics: they are 
vital to the security of our Nation, and they have broad bipartisan 
support.
  First and foremost is providing adequate funding for law enforcement.
  When I talk to law enforcement officials in Colorado, no issue comes 
up more often and I can understand why. When I was attorney general, I 
saw firsthand the importance of Federal assistance for law enforcement: 
Federal funds allow law enforcement agencies to hire more police 
officers and firefighters, to purchase equipment, to conduct training 
exercises, and to fight the meth epidemic. This is not a partisan or 
ideological issue: it is about protecting our communities and the first 
responders who serve them.
  To be honest, I have long been confused by this White House's annual 
effort to cut these vital programs. Of all the line items in the 
budget, of all the places to cut unnecessary Federal spending, the 
President keeps trying to cut key programs for first responders. For 
example, this year, the President's budget request proposed deep cuts 
to the COPS Program, which helps State and local law enforcement 
agencies hire police officers; the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance 
Grant Program, which makes grants to help States improve their criminal 
justice systems; firefighter assistance grants, which provide direct 
assistance to local fire departments; and the Office of Violence 
Against Women.
  These proposed cuts are particularly appalling at a time when the 
crime rate seems to be rising. Indeed, preliminary figures indicate 
that the national violent crime rate rose 2.5 percent in 2005 as 
compared to 2004.
  Fortunately, there is bipartisan support to restore many of these 
cuts. Indeed, this week the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee restored funding for many of the programs that the 
President proposed to cut or eliminate, including COPS and the Byrne 
JAG Program. For that, I applaud the subcommittee--and I hope the full 
Senate follows suit. The heroes who keep us safe every day deserve the 
best equipment, the best training, and the best support available--and 
they deserve Senators who will fight for them.
  Next, I want to discuss the need to pass a comprehensive immigration 
reform package that includes strong border security measures.
  We are now embroiled in a historic debate about immigration and 
border security. The reality is that our borders are broken and 
lawless--and that millions have crossed the border without the 
Government knowing who they are or why they are here. Indeed, the GAO 
released a report in March that detailed how two Federal investigators 
were able to smuggle enough nuclear material to make two dirty bombs 
across our northern and southern borders. The report stated that GAO 
investigators ``transported radioactive sources across both borders . . 
. with ease.''
  This is why the comprehensive immigration reform backed by a 
bipartisan majority of Senators includes thousands of new positions 
aimed at fixing the border. For example, the bill would add 12,000 new 
Border Patrol agents, 10,000 new ICE worksite inspectors, 2,500 new 
port-of-entry inspectors, 1,000 new document fraud inspectors, and 
hundreds of other related positions.
  I am hopeful that we can address this issue in the context of a 
comprehensive reform of our immigration laws--and that we can bring law 
and order to our porous borders.
  Next, I wish to address identity theft--another issue that calls for 
a bipartisan approach.
  Each year, roughly 5 percent of the population is victimized by 
identity theft. That means that in 10 years, roughly half of the 
population will have been affected. But not only does identity theft 
affect the victims--many of whom see their credit ratings ruined and 
their financial situations turned

[[Page S7502]]

upside down--it is also fueling and financing a good part of the meth 
epidemic that is ravaging so many communities. Indeed, meth addicts 
have become the driving force behind identity theft in Colorado--as 
they seek new ways to fund the production and consumption of the drug. 
So tackling identity theft is also a way of tackling the meth epidemic.
  I believe that a comprehensive approach to attacking identity theft 
will require working with the financial industry, law enforcement, 
retailers, and consumer groups. I applaud the Judiciary and Commerce 
Committees, both of which have bipartisan bills addressing this issue. 
There are elements of both bills that would go a good ways toward 
addressing identity theft, and I hope that the Senate takes action on 
this issue soon.
  I also wish to briefly discuss prisoner reentry--another vital law 
enforcement issue that cries out for a bipartisan solution.
  Approximately 650,000 State and Federal prisoners reenter society 
each year, and a staggering two-thirds of them are returned to prison 
for a new crime or parole violation within 3 years of release. 
Prisoners returning to society face difficulties with housing, 
employment, mental health, and substance abuse--all of which impose a 
great toll on families, communities, State and local governments, and 
overcrowded prison systems. The problem is truly multidimensional and 
calls out for a bipartisan approach.
  For that reason, I am happy to cosponsor the Second Chance Act, a 
bipartisan bill which provides badly needed resources for prisoner 
reentry programs. I hope the Senate takes action on this bill soon.
  Finally, I would like to briefly discuss port and chemical security.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bipartisan GreenLane Maritime 
Cargo Act and the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act. I cannot stress 
how important these bipartisan pieces of legislation are to protecting 
our homeland security.
  Indeed, each year roughly 9 million shipping containers enter the 
United States via our seaports. Those containers carry approximately 
2.4 billion tons of goods worth more than $1 trillion--and those 
numbers are expected to double in the next 20 years. Furthermore, the 
average container originating overseas will pass through over a dozen 
intermediate points before arriving in the United States--providing 
multiple points of vulnerability for both our security and our economy. 
The GreenLane Maritime Cargo Act would take some important steps to 
secure our ports--including requiring 100 percent screening of incoming 
containers within a year--and is a fine example of bipartisan problem-
solving.
  Regarding chemical security, we face a situation today where there 
are no Federal laws establishing minimum security standards at chemical 
facilities--this despite the fact that the roughly 15,000 chemical 
plants and refineries in this country pose a great vulnerability and 
despite the fact that dangerous chemicals routinely travel along our 
highways, inland waterways, and on railcars that pass through the heart 
of major cities. The cost of an attack would be staggering in terms of 
both loss of life and economic impact. Even DHS agrees that chemical 
security legislation is necessary. So I am very pleased to be a 
cosponsor of the bipartisan Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act.
  Neither port security nor chemical security is a partisan issue. Just 
look at these two bills: they both have strong bipartisan support. So I 
say to the Senate: let us take up these important bills soon.
  Mr. President, each of the issues I have discussed this morning has 
bipartisan support. Each is important to the security and safety of the 
American people.
  Our most important obligation as Senators is to protect the security 
and safety of our constituents--and each of the issues I have discussed 
this morning would take an important step in that direction. I hope the 
Senate can debate and act on these issues soon.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the fiscal year 2007 Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations bill before us today. Our Nation 
faces a serious terrorist threat and we need to adequately fund our 
security agencies. I am concerned, however, that the bill falls short 
in some areas of what is needed to effectively protect the homeland.
  For instance, the bill makes significant cuts to State grant programs 
from FY 2006 levels and does not ensure that funds are distributed 
using risk as the guiding principle. Although DHS Secretary Chertoff 
has assured us that the Department would follow the recommendation of 
the 9/11 Commission and distribute funds based purely on risk, when 
funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative was released in May the 
cities most at risk--New York, Washington, and Boston among them--
received the deepest cuts. I supported amendments during consideration 
of this bill that sought to rectify this problem and I hope that the 
bill can be improved in conference to ensure that funding is 
distributed where it is needed.
  I am also concerned that the bill calls for shutting down a large 
portion of the LORAN navigation system infrastructure, limiting it to 
Alaska and the northwest and northeast coasts. Although I realize that 
this is the result of a compromise, I strongly support maintaining the 
LORAN system nationwide and intend to work with Senator Stevens, 
Senator Murray and others in conference to prevent the premature 
shutdown of this important asset.
  Mr. President, we must take steps to secure the border, though I 
opposed Senator Sessions' amendment to appropriate additional funds to 
construct fencing along the southwest border because it would have 
raided discretionary funds used to hire more border patrol agents, buy 
more detention beds, train first responders, and fund other pressing 
needs. Although I support some limited fence construction, I do not 
believe we should be undermining critical homeland security programs to 
finance them. I remain committed to passing balanced immigration 
legislation that protects the border and allows immigrants to earn 
citizenship, and I hope that the Congress can reach an agreement to 
accomplish that in the upcoming weeks.
  Finally, I am pleased my amendment to repeal the Transportation 
Security Administration's exemption from Federal contracting laws was 
accepted. TSA has a record of mismanaging contracts and wasting 
billions in taxpayer dollars and it should not continue to be exempt 
from the same level of accountability that we require of every other 
Federal agency. I thank the managers for working with me to pass this 
amendment, and I hope that it is included in the final conference 
report.
  I hope that some of these important issues can be worked out in 
conference and that we can send the best bill possible to the 
President.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the fiscal 
year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill, the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and my friend from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd, for accepting two amendments that will help 
remedy some of the Government's failures in disaster response.
  The first amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, 
Senator Lieberman, will require the Department of Homeland Security, 
DHS, to develop a robust system to help people locate family members 
after a disaster. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, people searched 
the Astrodome and combed the Internet, hoping to locate their loved 
ones. Unfortunately, many of these people continue their search today.
  My amendment requires DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services and the Attorney General of the United 
States, to review the methods used by the Louisiana Family Assistance 
Call Center and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
to assist in the location of friends and family displaced by Hurricane 
Katrina. DHS must then report on these models and provide Congress with 
a detailed plan for the swift implementation of a family locator 
program for future disasters that reflects the lessons learned from 
these two models. The Department's plan should lead to the creation of 
an efficient means of helping those displaced by future disasters 
locate their friends and family.
  My second amendment is a commonsense attempt to stop the abuse of no-

[[Page S7503]]

bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster. After Hurricane 
Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency relied upon the 
``unusual and compelling urgency'' exception to allow no-bid contracts 
for everything from collecting debris to hauling and installing housing 
trailers. Unfortunately, some of these no-bid contracts were not merely 
emergency stop-gap measures--they were open-ended agreements and 
resulted in significant waste and abuse.
  My amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator 
Coburn, prohibits the use of no-bid contracts under the ``compelling 
urgency'' exception, unless these contracts are limited in time, scope 
and value, and notification is provided to the congressional oversight 
committees. This amendment will end the abuse of noncompetitive 
contracts by setting real and reasonable limits to the emergency 
exception. This amendment does nothing to inhibit a rapid response to 
emergencies; rather it closes a loophole that threatens the integrity 
of our Federal response, and it will save taxpayer money. I thank the 
Senators for accepting this amendment into the bill.
  I am pleased that these amendments have been accepted into the bill, 
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the 
failures of the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina are not 
repeated.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support final passage of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill today because its funding is 
vital to our first responders and all of those responsible for 
protecting us. Further, it includes important provisions that I worked 
to have included.
  I am very pleased that the Senate passed both my amendment and 
Senator Stabenow's amendment on Canadian trash imports. My amendment 
would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to deny entry to the 
United States of any commercial trash truck until the Secretary 
certifies that the methodologies and technologies used to screen the 
trash for the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological and 
radiological weapons are as effective as those used to screen for such 
materials in other items of commerce entering the U.S. The Department 
would first be given 90 days to assess the situation, and then another 
180 days to implement changes to address the security concerns. If 
however, such changes are not identified, which I expect will be the 
case, municipal solid waste will not be allowed to come into the State 
of Michigan or elsewhere in our country.
  With thousands of trash trucks coming into Michigan from Canada each 
week, this provision is critical for addressing the risks this garbage 
poses to our country's security, public health, and the environment. 
Senator Stabenow's trash amendment also addresses the security risks 
from trash by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to levy a 
fee on the trash shipments, in an amount that would cover the cost of 
such insepctions. It would therefore make it more expensive for Ontario 
to send their trash to Michigan, protecting U.S. landfills from being 
filled with Canadian trash.
  With the help of my friends from West Virginia and New Hampshire, 
Senators Byrd and Gregg, the Senate accepted my amendment related to 
the establishment of the fifth and final Northern Border Air Wing in 
Detroit, MI. The Northern Border Air Wing, NBAW, initiative was 
launched by the Department of Homeland Security 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, 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 which was adopted 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 
previously indicated he intends to do during fiscal year 2007.
  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 Secretary Chertoff's letter and 
enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy are printed in 
the Record at page S7405.
  Senator Baucus was also successful in his mission to press forward 
efforts to ensure that the northern Border is provided with 
proportionate resources as the southern border. His unmanned aerial 
vehicle pilot project will enabled the Customs and Border Patrol to 
perform a pilot project on the northern border between Canada and the 
United States. As the Senate knows, the northern border is nearly four 
times the length of the Southern border and it deserves an appropriate 
attention from the Department of Homeland Security.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes a provision offered by 
Senator Byrd that would give the Department of Homeland Security the 
authority to issue interim regulations for chemical facilities that 
pose the greatest security risk. There are over 15,000 chemical 
facilities in this country, and there still are no Federal laws that 
explicitly address the threat of terrorism activities at chemical 
plants. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism bill, S. 2145, which I 
cosponsored, and which was reported by the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee in June 2006, takes a much more 
comprehensive approach to this issue. However, because the Senate's 
Republican leadership is not allowing S. 2145 to come to the floor, I 
am pleased that Senator Byrd offered his amendment, which I supported, 
to address the very real risks posed by chemical facilities.
  While I am pleased that funding was increased for port security and 
border protection, I am disappointed that the Senate rejected 
amendments to provide additional funding for first responders. We 
cannot expect our first responders to be well-trained, properly 
equipped and fully staffed to protect us, if we cut their funding 
sources. I am hopeful that funding levels will be restored in 
conference.
  I am also disappointed that the Senate failed to move away from the 
current small State funding formula that is used to allocate funding 
for our first responder grant programs. I supported an amendment that 
would have allocated funding for the largest first responder funding 
programs based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability and 
consequences, and no State would have received less than .25 percent. 
This approach would have reduced the amount of funds allocated to 
States regardless of need and increased the funds available to be 
directed to states facing the greatest terrorist threats and greatest 
need. All Americans suffer when a major city is hurt by a terrorist 
attack; it is critical that Congress direct more funds to areas facing 
the most significant threats. I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to make the allocation of these scarce resources more 
equitable.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time we can go to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for final passage and ask for the 
yeas and yeas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page S7504]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The bill (H.R. 5441), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record)
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the next few minutes, we will be 
getting unanimous consents on two issues that will outline what we will 
be doing during the early to mid part of next week.
  Before doing that, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, 
request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Gregg, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Shelby, 
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Allard, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, 
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid of Nevada, and Mrs. 
Feinstein conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________