Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 91 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)

[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.

____________________