[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9454-S9501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4954, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security 
     through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 4936, to provide real national security, 
     restore United States leadership, and implement tough and 
     smart policies to win the war on terror.
       Schumer amendment No. 4930, to improve maritime container 
     security by ensuring that foreign ports participating in the 
     Container Security Initiative scan all containers shipped to 
     the United States for nuclear and radiological weapons before 
     loading.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:15 
p.m. shall be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside in order that I may send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4967

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Stabenow and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Ms. 
     Stabenow, for herself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, 
     Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Dayton, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4967.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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 authorize grants for interoperable communications)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND INTEROPERABILITY 
                   GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office of 
     Domestic Preparedness of the Office of State and Local 
     Government Preparedness and Coordination, shall make grants 
     to States, eligible regions, and local governments for 
     initiatives necessary to improve emergency communications 
     capabilities and to achieve short-term or long-term solutions 
     to statewide, regional, national, and, where appropriate, 
     international interoperability.
       (b) Use of Grant Funds.--A grant awarded under subsection 
     (a) may be used for initiatives to achieve short-term or 
     long-term solutions for emergency communications and 
     interoperability within the State or region and to assist 
     with any aspect of the communication life cycle, including--
       (1) statewide or regional communications planning;
       (2) system design and engineering;
       (3) procurement and installation of equipment;
       (4) training exercises;
       (5) modeling and simulation exercises for operational 
     command and control functions; and
       (6) other activities determined by the Secretary to be 
     integral to the achievement of emergency communications 
     capabilities and communications interoperability.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``eligible region'' means--
       (A) 2 or more contiguous incorporated municipalities, 
     counties, parishes, Indian tribes, or other general purpose 
     jurisdictions that--
       (i) have joined together to enhance emergency 
     communications capabilities or communications 
     interoperability between emergency response providers in 
     those jurisdictions and with State and Federal officials; and
       (ii) includes the largest city in any metropolitan 
     statistical area or metropolitan division, as those terms are 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget; or
       (B) any other area the Secretary determines to be 
     consistent with the definition of a region in the national 
     preparedness guidance issued under Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive 8; and
       (2) the terms ``emergency response providers'' and ``local 
     government'' have the meanings given the terms in section 2 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2011; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4945

 (Purpose: To provide emergency agricultural disaster assistance, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
call up my amendment No. 4945.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The amendment is called up, and the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Reid, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4945.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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 printed in the Record of Tuesday, September 12, 
2006, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, first I would like to point 
out the cosponsors. Senators Talent, Leahy, Obama, Durbin, Dayton, 
Schumer, and Clinton have all asked to be original cosponsors of my 
amendment.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4954 that will provide 
much needed emergency relief to farmers, ranchers, and small businesses 
in rural America that today and for some time have been suffering the 
devastating impacts of natural disasters, such as the long-running 
drought in my home State of Nebraska.
  A few years ago, I named the drought ``David'' to make the point that 
a drought is a natural disaster just like hurricanes--although it seems 
to be in slow motion--or floods or tornadoes and should be treated by 
Congress in much the same way because they are disastrous. Congress 
provides emergency relief to those who have suffered through 
devastating hurricanes, and there is no excuse for not helping farmers, 
ranchers, and businesses suffering from this natural disaster.
  Unfortunately, in parts of Nebraska, Drought David is celebrating its 
seventh birthday, and yet Congress has failed to provide relief. I 
believe this relief must be addressed before Congress heads home for 
the elections, and I believe it should be addressed this week. That is 
why I am offering my amendment.

  Ordinarily, I wouldn't offer an amendment to the port security bill 
because I certainly want to support that. But because of the lack of 
other opportunities and the increasing need for relief, I am faced, 
along with my cosponsors and others who will join me, with the 
recognition that there aren't many opportunities. And waiting until 
after

[[Page S9455]]

the election just doesn't seem appropriate. I thank Senator Conrad for 
his tireless efforts to get disaster assistance legislation passed 
through the Senate and for his work to draft and introduce the 
Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006 that is the basis for this amendment.
  Every time I check the U.S. Drought Monitor--and we can take a look 
at Drought David on this chart--showing where and how severely this 
drought is affecting the rural parts of America, I see the entire 
Central United States, as my colleagues can note from this 
demonstration, is suffering from drought conditions that are 
categorized as severe, extreme, or exceptional, including the western 
two-thirds of Nebraska, which is currently suffering from severe to 
extreme drought, Nebraska being located right here.
  In the Dakotas the same thing is true, and dropping down to Texas and 
moving east, we find that the entire central part of our country is 
under these extreme to severe drought conditions.
  So there is a great need for this relief. Recently, in my State of 
Nebraska, Professor Brad Lubben at the University of Nebraska released 
a report on the drought's impact on Nebraska's farmers and ranchers. He 
concluded that as of August 2006, this year, the drought has cost 
Nebraska agriculture a total of nearly $342 million--not much money by 
some measurements in Washington, DC, but extraordinary in the State of 
Nebraska. He found that the drought has thus far caused $98 million in 
crop losses, mostly wheat; $1 million in additional irrigation costs; 
and about $193 million in livestock production losses which have been 
incurred as well due to pasture and range conditions that are 
substantially below average. Grazing losses in western Nebraska are 
estimated to be from 50 percent to 70 percent. Pretty simple: no grass, 
no grazing, cattle losses.
  The 2006 production year is not yet complete, so we don't know the 
final impact this will have on corn, soybeans, and sorghum, but I have 
seen many fields that are devastated by this drought and many farmers 
who have been given the go-ahead to cut their crop for silage rather 
than corn production.
  Congress and the rest of Washington must understand this problem is 
critical and recognize the need to address the devastating impact our 
farmers and ranchers have suffered.
  This comprehensive package provides emergency funding to farmers and 
ranchers who have suffered weather-related crop production shortfalls, 
quality losses, and damage to livestock and feed supplies. The bill 
also helps farmers overcome losses as a result of energy prices that 
spiked during last year's hurricanes--certainly an incident our 
Presiding Officer knows very well.
  The bill would also expand funding for the Emergency Conservation 
Program, some of which could be made available for rehabilitating grass 
and ranch lands in places such as western Nebraska and, I would 
imagine, in the Dakotas as well that were damaged from recent 
wildfires.
  I recently toured some of the drought-stricken regions of western 
Nebraska, including Lake McConaughy which for so long has been called 
Big Mac but which now is, unfortunately, less affectionately referred 
to as Little Mac, and the communities that had been devastated by the 
wildfires last month. When I visited firefighting officials, emergency 
response coordinators, and community leaders, I asked them how we could 
help. This amendment will provide some meaningful and immediate 
assistance to Nebraskans who lost so much in these fires.
  Recognizing the devastating impact the disasters have had on Main 
Streets all over rural America, the amendment also provides assistance 
for thousands of small businesses simply fighting to keep their doors 
open. When farmers and ranchers have inadequate income, obviously it 
impacts the Main Street of that community. Lower purchasing power, 
lower sales, and fighting to keep doors open is an obvious result. 
Drought affects related businesses such as feed lots, grain dealers, 
implement dealers, and even local store fronts that service rural 
communities. Drought doesn't just destroy farms, it economically 
damages our rural communities and businesses.
  Now, I know we are discussing port security, as I said before. So, 
ordinarily, I wouldn't offer this amendment as a part of that bill, but 
I am offering it at this time because it is needed, and Congress needs 
to accomplish this before it leaves at the end of the month.
  My question is a very simple one: If not now, when? If not now, when?
  Our farmers and ranchers cannot wait. The devastating impact of 
Drought David threatens to drive many of our farmers and ranchers in 
rural communities and businesses out of operation, and without them we 
cannot expect to secure our food supply and we cannot expect to 
continue to grow our domestic alternative fuel supplies, which is such 
a critical part of our own fuel security in America today. When 
agriculture suffers, the opportunities for alternative fuels such as 
biofuels will suffer as well. That is why we need to do this.
  If we fail to act and by our inaction we allow farmers and ranchers 
and rural businesses to dry up under the impact of this drought, then 
we have failed to ensure both our food and fuel security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first I thank very much the Senator from 
Washington for her courtesy, and the Senator from Maine as well. I will 
be very brief.
  I also recognize my colleague from Nebraska for his leadership and 
thank him publicly and personally for offering this amendment right 
now. Normally, I would never join in offering this amendment on port 
security, but this involves the food security of the country, and this 
has now become a critical matter in our part of the Nation. We just had 
a drought rally yesterday with farmers from all across America, joined 
by 14 Senators, on a fully bipartisan basis, and joined by my State's 
governor and joined by Members of the House of Representatives from the 
heartland of the country as well.
  The message was clear and consistent: It is imperative that Congress 
act now. If there is a failure to act, literally thousands of farm 
families will be forced off the land. That is how acute this crisis has 
become. By scientific measure, they now tell us this is the third worst 
drought in the Nation's history.
  The extraordinary irony is that last year in my State we had massive 
flooding--flooding that prevented 1 million acres from even being 
planted. I note the occupant of the Chair represents the State of 
Louisiana which suffered so dramatically from Hurricane Katrina. Those 
of us outside that area agreed to help and support disaster assistance 
because it was clearly needed, and we were pleased to step forward and 
offer our assistance. I might say to the occupant of the Chair and to 
others who are listening: Now we have suffered as a result of a 
disaster. It is different. It is not as dramatic, but for those 
affected, it is every bit as dire. I say to my colleagues, this is one 
of the worst situations I have seen in my lifetime in the State of 
North Dakota.
  Last year, here is what the headlines said all across the State: 
``Heavy Rain Leads To Crop Diseases.'' ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding 
And Disease.'' ``Beet Crop Could Be Smallest In Ten years.'' ``Crops, 
Hay Lost To Flooding.'' ``Rain Halts Harvest.''
  It was a devastating year. As a result, last year I offered disaster 
legislation that formed the basis of this amendment. I updated that 
legislation on Wednesday of last week. We now have 20 cosponsors in the 
Senate on a fully bipartisan basis saying this legislation is needed, 
it is needed urgently, and it is needed now.
  This is a picture from last year of a farmstead in North Dakota 
completely surrounded by water. I know these are remembrances to the 
occupant of the Chair of what happened in his own State of Louisiana. 
Again, we would be quick to acknowledge the disaster in the Gulf States 
is more dramatic, more far-reaching, but this is national legislation. 
This wouldn't just help those of us hurt by flooding last year and 
drought this year; this would help all those wherever they are situated 
who have suffered from a natural disaster.
  This year, as the Senator from Nebraska just demonstrated, this is 
what

[[Page S9456]]

the Drought Monitor shows: Right down the center of the country, a very 
persistent and extreme drought. In fact, they have a schedule that goes 
from abnormally dry to moderate drought to severe drought to extreme 
drought to exceptional drought, exceptional drought being obviously the 
most extreme. And you can see the core of the exceptional drought is 
right in the heartland of America. But we are not alone because we can 
see areas of exceptional drought right down the center of the country, 
all the way over to the State of Arizona. Not only did we have 
extraordinary drought, we had the most incredible summer of extreme 
temperatures that I have ever seen in my lifetime, culminating on July 
30 in my hometown when it reached 112 degrees--112 degrees. I went to a 
corn farm south of Bismarck, ND, that was irrigated--irrigated corn. We 
stripped the corn of its husk and the ears weren't filling, even though 
they were putting tens of thousands of gallons of water on that field a 
day. Why not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a farm field in North Dakota. This 
is supposed to be a cornfield. You can see there is nothing there; it 
is devastated. This is widespread in my State.
  This picture is from Grant County, an alfalfa field, and you can see 
it is in a Moon state. There is nothing there.
  Let me just conclude by saying to my colleagues, this is an urgent 
matter. This is a response to a disaster. If we fail to act, the 
bankers of my State have told me we will lose 5 to 10 percent of the 
farmers and ranchers in my State. South Dakota is worse, and this 
disaster goes right down the center of our country. The time to act is 
now.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4936

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier today in morning business, the 
Democratic leader spoke in favor of the amendment that he has brought 
to the Senate floor which we will vote on shortly this afternoon. I 
rise in opposition to Senator Reid's amendment.
  Mr. President, this is Senator Reid's amendment, and this is the port 
security bill. I can barely hold up the 507 pages of the Democratic 
leader's amendment. It is an interesting hodgepodge of provisions that 
are irrelevant to the underlying bill--to port security. It includes 
provisions that have already been rejected by the Senate. It includes 
provisions that have already been enacted by the Congress and signed 
into law. It includes provisions that have just recently been passed by 
the Senate and added to the port security bill.
  What it does not include are provisions that have to do with port 
security. This proposal, 507 pages, includes 37 pages of findings, 16 
senses of Congress, and no fewer than 95 reports, certifications, and 
determinations.
  Let me tell my colleagues a bit about what is actually in Senator 
Reid's amendment. Let's go first to the category of provisions which 
have already been rejected by the Senate. Let me give two examples. The 
legislation includes, word for word, the exact same language regarding 
the involvement of the United States in Iraq that was soundly rejected 
by the Senate by a vote of 39 to 60 in June of this year. This is the 
language that calls for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. 
It has nothing to do with port security, and it is legislation that 
this body has already thoroughly considered and voted against.
  Let me give a second example of provisions of the Reid amendment on 
which the Senate has already spoken. The Reid amendment contains a 
first responder funding formula amendment that is almost identical to 
the one the Senate rejected earlier this year by a vote of 32 to 65. 
Indeed, the sponsor of this amendment voted against the formula change 
he has included in this bill, as did a total of 25 Democratic Senators, 
the majority of the Democratic caucus. It is not surprising that they 
did, for if the Reid amendment were to pass, 34 States would lose money 
for homeland security activities. It is also ironic that the funding 
formula included in Senator Reid's amendment is an implicit endorsement 
of the funding allocation decisions that were so widely and correctly 
criticized earlier this summer.
  This bill would give the Department of Homeland Security additional 
discretion in allocating homeland security funds. We know what happened 
when we gave the Department additional discretion. The outcome was not 
a good one.
  I mentioned that the amendment also includes provisions that have 
already been signed into law. Let me give an example. Mr. President, 
105 pages of this 507-page amendment have to do with implementing the 
9/11 Commission's recommendations on foreign policy and public 
diplomacy. The proposals outlined in that section of Senator Reid's 
amendment were signed into law as part of the Intelligence Reform Act 
of 2004. They are almost exactly the same as title VII of the 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Why do we need to repeat this? It is 
already law. How does enacting it a second time somehow improve our 
national security? It makes no sense.
  Let's move to the third category; that is, provisions in this 
amendment which have already passed the Senate. There are many good 
examples of that, but let me just cite two. They have to do with the 
rail security and mass transit security amendments which we have 
already adopted.
  Senator McCain's rail security amendment was adopted very early in 
the debate on this bill. The proposal offered by Senators Shelby and 
Sarbanes last night is identical to the mass transit security 
provisions in the Reid amendment. Since those two amendments have 
already been included in the bill, why would we want to do it all over 
again?
  I think what most disturbs me about Senator Reid's proposal is that 
it is clearly a partisan amendment that has been offered to a bill, the 
port security bill, that has been bipartisan every step of the way, 
from conception to introduction to committee consideration to the floor 
deliberations. Port security is so important. I know the Presiding 
Officer understands that well, coming from Louisiana. We have gone to 
great lengths to make sure that the port security bill was bipartisan.
  Patty Murray has been the leader on this bill on the Democratic side. 
Senator Lieberman worked hard on it in the Homeland Security Committee. 
Norm Coleman, Senator Coleman, on our side of the aisle, worked with 
Senator Levin to investigate port security programs.
  Even in the House, this has been a completely bipartisan--indeed, a 
nonpartisan--effort, with the legislation being authored by 
Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harman.
  At every step of the consideration, this has been a bipartisan bill. 
When it went through the Homeland Security Committee, it was 
bipartisan. In the negotiations with the Commerce Committee and the 
Finance Committee, it was bipartisan. It is very unfortunate that we 
are now having a blatantly partisan amendment offered to a bill that I 
had hoped would be the exception to the rule, a bill we could enact in 
a bipartisan manner, because it is so important that we act without 
delay.
  As I indicated, from the very beginning of the discussions on this 
bill, from the hearings, through the committee markups, through visits 
to ports around the country, it has always been bipartisan. Let's not 
weigh this bill down with partisan amendments. Instead, let's get the 
job done and send this bill, a bipartisan bill, to the President for 
his signature without delay.
  I reserve the remainder of the time on this side.
  Mr. DeMINT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time to the 
Senator from South Carolina?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield time to the 
Senator from South Carolina, depending on how much time he needs.
  Mr. DeMINT. About 5 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. That will be fine. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4970

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4970.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the calling up of the 
amendment?

[[Page S9457]]

  Mr. SALAZAR. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for unanimous consent 
that following the remarks by Senator DeMint, I be recognized for 6 
minutes on the time remaining on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Reserving the right to object, I would like to see a 
copy of the amendment. We may not object, but I would like to see a 
copy of the amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will speak on the amendment and we will 
call it up once the copies are available to the minority, if that is 
OK?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today, obviously, in support of 
amendment No. 4970 which we will distribute in a moment. The Maritime 
Transportation Security Act of 2002 required the Transportation 
Security Agency, which we call TSA, to develop a biometric security 
card for port workers to limit access to sensitive areas within a 
seaport. To satisfy this law, TSA is developing a transportation worker 
identification credential which we call a TWIC card. The law requires 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security issue a card to an individual 
requesting one unless determination can be made that they pose a 
terrorism threat. However, it should trouble Americans that the law 
specifically allows those who have been convicted of a felony more than 
7 years prior to their application or have been released from 
incarceration 5 years prior to their application to be eligible for a 
TWIC card. This standard is too lax and must be strengthened. DHS 
officials need clear rules that prevent those convicted of serious 
felonies from obtaining access to our secure port areas. My amendment 
does just that. It takes the standards the TSA uses for airport workers 
with access to secure areas and applies them to maritime port workers.
  Let me make that clear. The exact same standards that are used in our 
airports for workers are in this amendment to apply to transportation 
workers at our port. Just like the TSA airport safety regulations, my 
amendment automatically bars those convicted of serious felonies, which 
are listed in this amendment, including crimes of violence, fraud, 
bribery, and terrorism, from being allowed to obtain one of these 
transportation cards.
  TSA's airport rules have successfully kept felons out of the airport 
workforce, and it is time we do the same for our seaport workforce. 
Because of the gravity of the threat facing our ports, we cannot afford 
to roll the dice by hiring convicted felons. The stakes are too high.
  When setting policies that will keep our transportation system 
secure, we are continually told by experts that we must identify and 
reduce risk in every situation possible. This amendment will prevent 
high-risk individuals from having access to our most sensitive port 
areas.
  Keep in mind, felonies are serious crimes that are punishable by 
incarceration or death. This amendment is not aimed at so-called 
youthful offenses or individuals who have received several traffic 
tickets. My amendment also does not take away the current ability of 
the Secretary of DHS to grant a waiver for exceptional cases. Felons, 
through their previous criminal activity, are more likely to be 
persuaded to look the other way when a suspect shipment comes through 
the port. This suspect system could contain a variety of dangerous 
items--dirty bomb, weapon, contraband to sell that would help finance 
terrorist operations, just to name a few. Someone who will commit 
extortion, fraud, or traffic in drugs should not be trusted to protect 
the security of our maritime cargo. While felons do need a second 
chance, it should not come at the expense of an extremely vulnerable 
part of the U.S. port infrastructure.
  I know some people may object to my amendment by saying that 
longshoremen might be criminals but they are not terrorists. I do not 
believe longshoremen are criminals, by the way, but that is why we need 
to allow DHS to focus on crimes that specifically relate to terrorism. 
While it may be true that many of the criminals working in our ports do 
not wake up with the intent to promote terrorist activity, this does 
not mean they do not pose a terrorist security risk. What I and many 
others fear is that convicted felons could pose a security terrorist 
risk by working with those criminals associated with trying to sneak 
drugs or stolen goods into this country. It might actually turn out to 
be 50 grams of plutonium instead of 50 grams of cocaine that could be 
used as a dirty bomb that would poison--kill thousands of people, or 
maybe it is not part of a dirty bomb or chemical weapon. Maybe it is 
just ordinary contraband which could be used to help fund terrorist 
activity in the United States.
  Some others think it is too expensive to automatically exclude 
individuals who have committed one of these serious felonies from 
working in our ports.
  To those objecting colleagues I would say: please detail to us which 
one of the airports in their State these offenders should be working 
at, because the list of felonies we use was lifted right from the same 
list the TSA uses for airports.
  Another argument I have heard is that we are not going to have enough 
people to work in our ports.
  This is an exaggeration. The fact is, the TWIC card will be rolled 
out and workers who need to have access to the secure area will apply 
for the TWIC card. As a practical matter, felons know who they are, and 
they know that they will not be issued a TWIC card. The likely effect 
is that they will never apply for a card in the first place. The local 
union will immediately notice that a number of its workers are not 
applying for TWIC cards. They will then have the opportunity to reach 
out to their communities and find new union members to fill the spots.
  Logistically, this is not a huge challenge. The port of Charleston 
has 2,000 longshoremen working there. If severe criminality, as 
outlined under the amendment is rampant within the workforce and is at 
the high level of 10 percent--which is nearly double the national 
average for incarceration at one point in their lifetime of 6.6 
percent--that would only mean that they would need to replace 200 
workers in the whole port of Charleston.
  The bottom line is this applies the same protection to seaports that 
applies to airports. The current TWIC regulatory regime writes their 
security regulations to fit their workforce. It should be the other way 
around. The workforce regulations should be written to meet their 
security needs.
  Mr. President, I ask we call up the amendment and have it read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment and calling up this amendment? Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment 4970:

(Purpose: To prohibit the issuance of transportation security cards to 
         individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION OF ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
                   CARDS TO CONVICTED FELONS.

       Section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``decides that the 
     individual poses a security risk under subsection (c)'' and 
     inserting ``determines under subsection (c) that the 
     individual poses a security risk''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), an individual 
     shall be deemed to pose a security risk under this section if 
     the Secretary determines that the individual--
       ``(A) has been convicted (or has been found not guilty by 
     reason of insanity) of--
       ``(i) destruction of a vessel or maritime facility under 
     section 2291 of title 18;
       ``(ii) violence against maritime navigation under section 
     2280 of title 18;
       ``(iii) forgery of certificates of documentation, falsified 
     vessel identification, or other vessel documentation 
     violation under section 12507 or 12122 of this title;
       ``(iv) interference with maritime commerce under section 
     2282A of title 18;
       ``(v) improper transportation of a hazardous material under 
     section 46312 of title 49;
       ``(vi) piracy or privateering under chapter 81 of title 18;
       ``(vii) firing or tampering with vessels under section 2275 
     of title 18;

[[Page S9458]]

       ``(viii) carrying a dangerous weapon or explosive aboard a 
     vessel under section 2277 of title 18;
       ``(ix) failure to heave to, obstruction of boarding, or 
     providing false information under section 2237 of title 18;
       ``(x) imparting or conveying false information under 
     section 2292 of title 18;
       ``(xi) entry by false pretense to any seaport under section 
     1036 of title 18;
       ``(xii) murder;
       ``(xiii) assault with intent to murder;
       ``(xiv) espionage;
       ``(xv) sedition;
       ``(xvi) kidnapping or hostage taking;
       ``(xvii) treason;
       ``(xviii) rape or aggravated sexual abuse;
       ``(xix) unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or 
     manufacture of an explosive or weapon;
       ``(xx) extortion;
       ``(xxi) armed or felony unarmed robbery;
       ``(xxii) distribution of, or intent to distribute, a 
     controlled substance;
       ``(xxiii) felony arson;
       ``(xxiv) a felony involving a threat;
       ``(xxv) a felony involving illegal possession of a 
     controlled substance punishable by a maximum term of 
     imprisonment of more than 1 year, willful destruction of 
     property, importation or manufacture of a controlled 
     substance, burglary, theft, dishonesty, fraud, 
     misrepresentation, possession or distribution of stolen 
     property, aggravated assault, or bribery; or
       ``(xxvi) conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the 
     criminal acts listed in this subparagraph;
       ``(B) may be denied admission to the United States or 
     removed from the United States under the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); or
       ``(C) otherwise poses a terrorism security risk to the 
     United States.''.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I allowed the amendment to be read because 
our critics have already suggested that this amendment would include 
minor offenses. I will challenge critics of this bill to point out 
which of these felonies they would like transportation workers in our 
ports to be able to commit. It makes absolutely no sense for us to 
spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars as a nation to protect 
the security of our airports and our ports if we allow the workers who 
are using this scanning equipment for these inspections to be of a 
criminal nature.
  I thank the manager for allowing me to offer this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-six minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4945

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
emergency agricultural disaster assistance package. At the outset, I 
commend my colleague, Senator Kent Conrad, for having taken the 
leadership role in making sure we are taking care of the needs of 
family farmers and ranchers across America. I also congratulate Senator 
Nelson for his leadership on this issue this morning.
  Last night, as America went to sleep, much of America--the farmers 
and ranchers who bring us the food security in this country--continued 
to work way into the night. I can assure you that across this country, 
where those combines are running until 11 or 12 or 1 o'clock in the 
morning, those farmers are working. Today probably starting at about 3 
or 4 in the morning, there were many farmers who were out there trying 
to bale their hay with the leftover dew from the nighttime, making sure 
they were baling what was left in a way that would bring them the 
maximum production. While the rest of America slept, America's farmers 
and ranchers were working very hard to make sure that the food security 
of this country was, in fact, maintained. As those farmers and ranchers 
went home to get a few hours of sleep, what was probably on their minds 
was whether their family farm or ranch was going to be there the 
following year and whether they were going to be able to pay off their 
operating lines of credit for the mortgage payments at the local bank.
  The fact is, rural America is in trouble. Farmers and ranchers are 
very much in trouble because of two factors which have been totally out 
of their control for the last couple of years. One of them is drought 
and the other is the high cost of fuel. Those two factors combined 
create a disaster emergency that is unfolding across America today.
  On this picture to my left, you will see a cornfield in Kit Carson, 
CO, which turned completely brown because of the severe drought in my 
State. This drought we see going on in Colorado has had this kind of 
effect not only this year but for the last 7 years. Colorado is now in 
its seventh year of a very severe drought that will have a very major 
impact on the opportunities and the economies related to these farmers 
and to the farm community.
  Second is the high cost of fuel which has affected most Americans. 
The fact is that most Americans are upset by the very high cost of fuel 
we are paying. Farmers and ranchers consume a tremendous amount of gas 
and diesel as they operate these machines all across the farms in 
America. Today, farmers are paying twice as much as they were 2 years 
ago for the cost of fuel. Yet, during that same timeframe, the cost of 
the produce we have from these farms and ranches does not increase very 
much.
  We are facing a disaster emergency which is very much going to affect 
all of rural America.
  I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will join us in passage of 
the emergency agricultural disaster assistance package. I am also 
hopeful that we can sound a loud drumbeat that will be heard all the 
way to the White House, all the way to President Bush because he needs 
to send a signal that he is going to stand up for rural America and 
that he is going to support us as we try to bring emergency assistance 
to the farmers and ranchers of America.
  The last time we passed a similar bill in the Senate, it was killed 
in the House, frankly, because it did not have the support of the White 
House. Rural voters who gave support to President Bush ought to be 
knocking on the door of the White House and making sure the President 
understands that rural America is important and that this disaster 
emergency package is very important as well.


                           Amendment No. 4936

  Mr. President, I wish to spend the remainder of my time speaking on 
behalf of and in support of the Real Security Act which was offered by 
Senator Reid. The fact is, this legislation is a very important piece 
of legislation as we look forward to creating the safest America we 
possibly can.
  The fact is that 5 years after 9/11, we are not yet safe in America. 
We know our ports are not secure. We know law enforcement does not have 
the training they should have. I would imagine most Americans frankly 
today are feeling that we are not living in a secure world as we were 8 
or 9 or 10 years ago and that our world has continued to become 
increasingly dangerous.
  The components of the legislation that was set forth by Senator Reid 
are simple steps to move us in the right direction in creating greater 
security for the people of America here in our homeland. Very simply, 
the legislation first and foremost implements the recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission has been heralded as perhaps 
the most successful commission in the last 50 years in America. It 
handled a very important question of how can we make America safe. It 
came up with a series of recommendations. Many of those recommendations 
today, some 4 years later, have not yet been implemented.
  The first point that has been made with the Real Security Act is we 
will implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Second, the amendment also equips our intelligence community to fight 
against terrorists. For the first time in 18 years, this Republican-
controlled Congress has failed to pass the Intelligence authorization 
bill that would give the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and 
effective intelligence gathering. Senator Rockefeller has eloquently 
spoken to this issue. It is an abysmal neglect of duty on the part of 
the United States of America and its Government if we don't reauthorize 
the intelligence act as has been done in the past 28 years.
  Third, the amendment as proposed by Senator Reid will make sure we 
are investing additional money to secure our ports, our rails, our 
roads, our airports, our chemical and nuclear plants, and mass transit 
systems. We only need to look at what has happened in the United 
Kingdom and in Spain and

[[Page S9459]]

other places to know that our rails, our mass transit systems, and our 
ports are, in fact, not at all secure today.
  Fourth, we would refocus America on the war on terror by making sure 
we continue to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
  Fifth, the amendment would provide better updated tools so we can 
bring these terrorists to justice. Five years after 9/11, there are 
still hundreds of terrorists who need to be prosecuted and brought to 
justice. We can't afford to wait any longer.
  Finally, the amendment would, in fact, bring about a new 
understanding of how we ought to move forward with the war in Iraq.
  I believe strongly that the Real Security Act which has been proposed 
by Senator Reid should be supported by our colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last Thursday I introduced a bipartisan 
resolution urging the President to take immediate action to avert a 
looming tragedy in Darfur, Sudan. I urge the Senate to pass it today. 
The Government of Sudan has launched an all but military offensive in 
Darfur that could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The United 
States must lead the international community to save those lives. It is 
urgent that we act.
  Over the past 2 years the situation in Sudan has remained dire. As 
many as 400,000 people have died. Two million people have been 
displaced from their homes, over 200,000 are refugees in Chad, and 3 
million rely on international aid. Those numbers haven't diminished 
over time, they have gotten worse. And now, they may be on the brink of 
becoming even more catastrophic.
  In May of this year, the Government of Sudan and rebels in Darfur--
specifically the Minni Minawi faction of the Sudan Liberation Army--
signed a peace agreement. Tragically, instead of improving the security 
situation, the Darfur Peace Agreement has made things worse.
  The agreement never had the support of the entire SLA, or the other 
major rebel movement in Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement. Nor 
did it have the support of people living in displaced persons camps in 
Darfur. In the days and weeks after news of the agreement spread, 
violence in camps increased either because people misunderstood what 
was in the agreement, or they felt the agreement was flawed. And 
violence on the ground became worse, as the rebel factions split and 
fighting erupted between those who had signed the Darfur Peace 
Agreement and those who had not.
  Tens of thousands of people have been displaced in fighting since 
May--50,000 in the last 2 months alone. Many of them have taken refuge 
in camps for the internally displaced. Attacks on humanitarian aid 
convoys have increased by a factor of more than 10 compared to this 
time last year. Twelve humanitarian workers have been killed in the 
past 4 months--more than during the entire previous year. Two hundred 
internally displaced women have been raped and another 200 violently 
assaulted over the course of the past 5 weeks.
  The United Nations, after months of delay, finally extended the 
mandate of the U.N. Mission in Sudan--UNMIS--to Darfur at the end of 
August. And, through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706, it 
authorized the deployment of over 17,000 peacekeepers and 3,000 
civilian police to Darfur.
  However, the Government of Sudan has categorically rejected the 
deployment of the U.N. force. In fact, the Sudanese Government has 
launched a military offensive in the region. Khartoum has sent over 
10,000 troops to Darfur and has resumed aerial bombardments. Seven 
villages--villages, not military targets--were bombed just this 
weekend. African Union officials have stated that they will not extend 
the mission in Sudan past the end of this month. I understand that the 
African Union Peace and Security Council will meet in New York on 
September 18, just before the U.N. General Assembly meeting takes 
place. But it is unclear if the AU will reverse its decision to 
terminate its mission in Sudan. If it does terminate it, ``Katey, bar 
the door,'' all the carnage going on now will be increased multifold.
  Even if the impediments I just mentioned did not exist, it would be 
months--we are talking January--before a U.N. mission could fully 
deploy, so we need the AU to stay in place a while longer.
  In the mean time, Khartoum is doing its level best to be sure that no 
U.N. force comes to Darfur. The Government of Sudan's tactic seems to 
be to scorch enough earth--and people--such that there will be no need 
for the peacekeeping force because there will be no one left to protect 
and no peace to keep.
  At this point in time, right here today, we are at a pivotal moment. 
Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese are in camps, vulnerable to aerial 
and ground attacks from government forces. We cannot stand by and do 
nothing.
  This resolution is very straightforward. It calls on the President to 
undertake three key actions, some of which the Senate has asked him to 
do before:
  First, it once again calls on him to pursue the imposition of a no-
fly zone through the U.N. NATO or NATO allies. The Senate asked the 
President to propose that NATO consider how to implement and enforce 
such a no-fly zone in March of this year. If anything the need to 
enforce a no-fly zone has increased.
  Second, it asks that the President secure the necessary support from 
United Nations member states to schedule a special session on Sudan in 
the United Nations Human Rights Council. The international community 
must speak out on the atrocities which continue to unfold in Sudan--and 
it must act.
  Third, it asks the President to appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan to 
head the office that Senator DeWine and I established at the State 
Department through the supplemental appropriations bill signed into law 
in June. The administration has avoided naming a Special Envoy to Sudan 
for years, and our diplomatic efforts have suffered as a result.
  I am under no illusion that these actions alone will stop the 
Sudanese Government's murderous actions in Darfur. The international 
community must put a credible international force on the ground as soon 
as possible. NATO should be prepared to help the AMIS hand-off to the 
United Nations. The U.S. should impose targeted financial, travel, and 
diplomatic sanctions against the Sudanese leadership, rebel forces, and 
others determined to be responsible for the atrocities and pursue the 
immediate imposition of similar sanctions by the U.N. Security Council 
and the European Union as called for by U.N. Security Council 
Resolutions 1556 and 1564. It is long past time for the Security 
Council to take such action. If the Council cannot act because of 
threats of a Russian or Chinese veto, then the United States and Europe 
should do so together.
  I visited the camps across the border in Chad. It is an absolute 
tragedy. There are tens of thousands of people in that one camp alone, 
with no real protection. When the appropriate time comes I will 
introduce this resolution. I hope it meets the approval of my 
colleagues. I hope the President will listen.
  I thank the managers of the bill for yielding me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4962

(Purpose: To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
 Assistance Act to authorize the President to carry out a program for 
    the protection of the health and safety of residents, workers, 
               volunteers, and others in a disaster area)

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4962.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4962.


[[Page S9460]]


  Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, September 12, 
2006, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Disaster Area 
Health and Environmental Monitoring Act, an amendment to the port 
security bill.
  This legislation is vital because it provides for the monitoring of 
the health and safety of individuals exposed to harmful substances as a 
result of a presidentially declared disaster. The Senate passed this 
bill by unanimous consent in the 108th Congress, but jurisdictional 
disagreements between committees in the House caused it not to be 
passed in the House.
  This issue first came to my attention during a series of Environment 
and Public Works Committee hearings in 2002 when we learned of the 
severe health problems facing thousands of workers and volunteers who 
heroically responded to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World 
Trade Center. Perhaps some of my colleagues saw the ``60 Minutes'' 
segment this last Sunday that examined the problem in depth.
  I will never forget Joe Allbaugh, 3 months after September 11, before 
the committee. I asked him: What have you found out about what folks 
were exposed to, those who were first responders?
  And he said: I can't get the information.
  This bill would give the President the right to immediately go in and 
do the investigation to determine what these folks were exposed to.
  One of the things that we also did was discover that these first 
responders did not have the opportunity to have a screening. We were 
able to get $14 million set aside to do screening of first responders.
  In the case of Ohio--we had one of the first responding units there--
we found a variety of health problems, including respiratory illness, 
pneumonia, asthma, and many faced the possibility of long-term health 
issues.
  I am deeply saddened to note the recent passing of New York City 
Police Detective James Zadroga, a rescue worker at the World Trade 
Center, whose tragic death was directly caused by his exposure to toxic 
fumes and dust at Ground Zero.
  Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not hold the 
authority to conduct the necessary long-term monitoring of health 
impacts following environmental exposures in the wake of a disaster.
  In 2003, Federal funding helped establish the World Trade Center 
Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program at Mount Sinai Hospital 
and the University of Cincinnati. I have already referred to that. At 
least way afterwards we started doing the screening to let the folks 
know what they were subjected to. According to the findings, almost 70 
percent of the World Trade Center responders had a substantially worse 
respiratory system following their work at the World Trade Center. 
Among the responders who were asymptomatic before September 11, 61 
percent developed respiratory symptoms while working at the World Trade 
Center.
  In addition to that assistance at Ground Zero, OTF responded to the 
needs of communities around the country faced with the aftermath of 
natural disasters. OTF sent responders to Florida following Hurricane 
Dennis in July of 2005 and to Louisiana and Mississippi following 
Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005.
  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the need for public health 
monitoring became clear. The CDC and EPA have identified 13 
environmental health issues confronting first responders, including 
drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, debris and soil contamination 
from toxic chemicals. It is vital this legislation is enacted to 
address any health care needs that arise for the thousands of first 
responders who are active on the gulf coast. S. 1741 authorizes the 
President, if he determines that substances of concern have been 
released in a federally declared disaster area, to activate a program 
in a Federal partnership with appropriate medical institutions for the 
protection, assessment, monitoring, and study of the health and safety 
of individuals.

  The act also would direct Federal agencies to enter into a contract 
with the National Academies of Sciences to study and report on disaster 
area health protection and monitoring.
  It is extremely important we take care of these individuals because, 
as I stated in past hearings, whether people volunteer to be first 
responders depends on how we treat the first responders at the World 
Trade Center, the gulf coast, and other disaster areas. If they are not 
going to be able to find out immediately what they have been exposed 
to, and the President has the authority to get in there and find out 
what it is, we will have more and more people reluctant to come to the 
help in other disasters in the country.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill which 
is cosponsored by 16 of our Senate colleagues. It is strongly supported 
by the first responder community.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for this opportunity to share why it 
is important we get it passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4936

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Reid amendment, the 
Real Security Act, offered as an amendment, and I rise to say a word 
about the amendment offered by Senator Nelson today which Senator 
Conrad and I and many others have worked on and support, dealing with 
farm disaster aid.
  First, let me talk about this issue, the Real Security Act. I know 
there are some who say this is an omnibus piece of legislation offered 
as an amendment; it is moving too quickly. I don't think the U.S. 
Congress has ever been accused of speeding. I don't think we ever ought 
to be worried about moving too quickly. My concern with respect to 
security in this country is that we move too slowly.
  The issue of one, two, or three areas in which we deal with the 
security of this country--we do it here, there, elsewhere--over a month 
or two, a year or two, or 5 years, there is a lot to be done, and it 
needs to be done in an omnibus way, in a way that is organized.
  That is what my colleague, Senator Reid, has offered, the Real 
Security Act, which we have worked on in its various pieces for a long 
time.
  Let me describe why we need something like this and why this is a 
good place to begin discussing it. The fact is, it is 5 years after 
September 11. We just had the commemorative anniversary of that 
terrorist attack against our country in which thousands of Americans 
were murdered. We still have a circumstance where in many areas first 
responders cannot speak to each other. Firefighters, police officers, 
and so on are not able to communicate with each other. In the event of 
a future terrorist attack my hope is we have compatible communications.
  My colleague offers an amendment that deals with a whole range of 
issues, including emergency preparedness, response, communications, 
border security, increasing the number of special forces, safeguarding 
nuclear materials, and increasing the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program. He describes in this amendment a new approach with respect to 
rail security and mass transit security, as well as aviation security.
  As an aside, I point out that we have a situation with respect to 
aviation security that I know is very difficult for this country, for 
the traveling public, and for the airlines. There is no question we 
understand what the terrorists did. The terrorists used some box 
cutters and an airplane loaded with fuel to run into buildings. Both 
the World Trade Center attacks and the Pentagon were low-tech attacks. 
My understanding was that attack on September 11 cost around $500,000, 
with 19 people, some box cutters and some hijacked airplanes.
  We have a lot to do with respect to trying to understand where the 
next attack might come from and how to foil that attack. I commend all 
of those who have been working in these areas who have been successful 
in uncovering conspiracies and uncovering potential attack plans 
against our country and

[[Page S9461]]

foiling those plans. They deserve our undying thanks. We need to say to 
them: Stay on the job. Continue to do that excellent work.
  We also need to give them the tools. The Reid amendment offers those 
tools in a wide range of areas--the tools that will equip our first 
responders, the tools that will equip our intelligence community, the 
tools that will equip our soldiers. For example, there is a provision 
in the Reid amendment that talks about the funding necessary for new 
language capabilities in the Middle East and Asian languages in our 
intelligence communities. Yes, we are doing some of that, but we are 
not doing as much as we could.
  This amendment is an omnibus amendment that, in my judgment, moves in 
the right direction. As I said before, I know those who say it does too 
much, the danger is not that we are doing too much in Congress, the 
danger is we will do too little. With respect to this issue of real 
security, this Congress, this Senate, would be well advised to accept 
this amendment.
  I read in the paper this morning a congressional colleague on the 
other side of the aisle in the other body said:

       I wonder if Democrats are more interested in protecting 
     terrorists than in protecting the American people?

  That is a pathetic political statement not worthy of much response, 
except to say this: All Members in this Chamber care about this 
country. All in this Chamber are Americans who want to protect this 
great country of ours. There is a barrel full of politics around this; 
I understand that. When you read what I read in the paper this morning 
by someone from the other body, it is pretty pathetic.
  What we ought to do, it seems to me, is not worry about trying to 
move too fast. Let's worry we are not moving fast enough. Let's embrace 
this Reid amendment and have a debate on it and add this to the port 
security bill and we will have done this country a significant amount 
of good work in protecting America's future.


                           Amendment No. 4945

  I take a couple of minutes to say I strongly support the agricultural 
disaster piece offered as an amendment by Senator Nelson. I have twice 
offered an agricultural disaster piece that has gone through the full 
Senate. We have gone to conference two times. In both circumstances, 
once last December and once this spring, we lost it because the 
President threatened to veto it and the House conferees would not 
accept it as a result of that Presidential veto threat.
  I will just show three charts very briefly. This is a soybean field 
that is supposed to be about a foot high at this point. There is almost 
nothing growing. This is a man from my State. He is walking in a creek 
bed. The creek is dry. We have suffered a devastating drought. When 
farmers lose everything, when they have no crop, when their pasture is 
gone and it looks like a moonscape, when they have to send their cows 
to market because there is nothing for a cow to eat, that is a 
disaster.
  This country goes all over the world: You have trouble, let us help; 
we want to help you. Good for us. That is a good value system. How 
about doing that at home? When farmers and ranchers lose everything, 
how about us saying: We want to help you. We want to extend a helping 
hand.
  We have not done that yet because the President has threatened a 
veto. I hope the President will work with us rather than against us and 
decide it worthy to help Americans who are in trouble.
  So my colleague, Senator Nelson, has offered an amendment on this 
bill. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I, and many others have worked 
in a bipartisan way. This is not a partisan issue in the Senate. We 
passed it twice on a bipartisan basis. I hope we will add this 
amendment to this underlying bill as well. I hope in between now and 
when it gets to the White House the President will understand the 
urgency of this situation.
  Times change. Things change. The fact is, these folks need help. We 
have a responsibility to do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment is laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 4975

  (Purpose: To establish a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety 
Trust Fund and refocus Federal priorities toward securing the Homeland, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4975.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since I only have 2 minutes--and I am not 
going to ask for a vote on it now--my amendment talks about the dirty 
little word no one wants to talk about: How are we going to pay for all 
this? The fact is, we are arguing over peanuts. The fact is, we should 
set up a trust fund as we did with the violent crime trust fund. We 
should fund everything everyone knows we need to fund here, all those 
elements the 9/11 Commission called for, plus reinstating local law 
enforcement.
  The whole cost of that would be less than 1 year--1 year--of the tax 
cut for people making over $1 million. My amendment sets up a trust 
fund, has $53 billion put into that trust fund, displaced over 5 
years--$10 billion a year--to pay for all we are doing here.
  Rich folks are just as patriotic as poor folks. It instructs the 
Finance Committees to go out and find the means by which they would 
deal with that, take it 1 year or take a piece of it over 5 years.
  The bottom line is, this is crazy. We are talking about all that we 
do not have. We are passing amendments like the Biden-McCain amendment 
or the McCain-Biden amendment on rail. We know it is never going to be 
funded. We know the cost is about $50 billion to fund what we all need. 
Yet, at the same time, we are spending three times as much on a tax cut 
as we are spending on how we are going to do it.
  This is only for people making over $1 million. Again, I floated this 
with millionaires. I have been with groups who are millionaires. I have 
asked them: Would you object to giving up 1 year of your tax cut?
  The response is: No, if you guarantee me it is going to go to provide 
for security.
  This amendment would guarantee that, set up a trust fund. For those 
who are skeptical about trust funds, let me remind you, we did it with 
the violent crime trust fund. It worked, and it reduced crime. We 
should step to the plate and say how we are going to pay for it.
  Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. 
Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders 
have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we 
are ill-equipped to respond to one.
  Hurricane Katrina, which happened just over a year ago, demonstrated 
this unfortunate truth and showed us the devastating consequences of 
our failure to act responsibly here in Washington.
  And, last December, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on 
the administration's and Congress's progress in implementing their 
recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's. 
And, to add to this, the FBI reported earlier this summer that violent 
crime and murders are on the rise for the first time in a decade.
  Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we 
should be. To turn this around, we have to get serious about our 
security.
  If we establish the right priorities, we can do the job. We can fund 
local law enforcement, which the President has attempted to slash by 
over $2 billion. We can give the FBI an additional 1,000 agents to 
allow them to implement reforms without abandoning local crime. We can 
secure the soft targets in our critical infrastructure, to ensure that 
our chemical plants and electricity grids are protected from attacks. 
We can immediately re-allocate

[[Page S9462]]

spectrum from the television networks and give it to our first 
responders so they can talk during an emergency.
  I know what many of my colleagues here will argue. They will argue 
that it is simply too expensive to do everything. That is malarkey. 
This is all about priorities. And, quite frankly, this Congress and 
this administration has had the wrong priorities over the past 5 years.
  For example, this year the tax cut for Americans who make over $1 
million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just 1 year of the 
Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million is nearly $60 
billion.
  In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that--approximately $32 
billion--for the entire operations of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less 
than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department 
intended to help secure the entire Nation.
  For a nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we 
face, how can this be the right priority?
  The amendment that I am offering would change this by taking less 
than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires--$53.3 billion--and invest 
it in homeland security over the next 5 years.
  By investing this over the next 5 years at just over $10 billion per 
year, we could implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and do 
those commonsense things that we know will make us safer.
  For example, under this amendment, we could hire 50,000 additional 
police officers and help local agencies create locally based 
counterterrorism units.
  We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that the 
FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its 
traditional crime-fighting functions.
  We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical 
infrastructure and nearly double the funding for State homeland 
security grants.
  And, the list goes on.
  The bill that we are debating today is a good bill, and I am sure it 
will pass, but does anyone really believe that the $400 million in port 
security grants authorized in it will really be funded? A look back at 
our recent appropriations bills tells us that this is not likely.
  Just this July we passed the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations budget. In that legislation, the Senate allocated only 
$210 million for port security grants--just over one-half of what we 
are advocating be authorized in this bill.
  Another example of this problem is our shameful record on providing 
funding for rail security. For the last two Congresses. the Senate has 
passed bipartisan rail security legislation sponsored by myself and 
Senator McCain, and others.
  This legislation authorizes $1.2 billion to secure the soft targets 
in our rail system, such as the tunnels and stations. In fact, this 
legislation was added as an amendment to this bill 2 days ago. I thank 
my colleagues for including it, but we all understand that there is no 
chance of fully funding it unless we change our priorities.
  Indeed, this body has voted against funding rail security when I have 
offered it as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill the past 2 years. During that time, only $150 
million per year has been allocated for rail and transit security with 
less than $15 million allocated for Amtrak security.
  So while I thank my colleagues for recognizing the need for increased 
rail security by adopting the McCain-Biden amendment, it is clear that 
it won't mean much. Unfortunately, this is an example that is repeated 
over and over.
  We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer 
shortage in communities throughout the Nation. Yet, we provide zero 
funding for the COPS hiring program and we have slashed funding for the 
Justice Assistance Grant.
  We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have 
enough interoperable equipment. Yet, we have not forced the networks to 
turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local 
agencies purchase equipment every year.
  We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are screened, yet we 
do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems.
  We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow 
industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden 
soft targets.
  The 9/11 Commission's Report Card issued last December stated bluntly 
that ``it is time we stop talking about setting priorities and actually 
set some.''
  With this amendment, we set some priorities.
  I won't go through the entire amendment on the floor, but I would 
like to touch on the highlights.
  First, we provide the funding necessary to implement the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Next, we take the commonsense steps to make our Nation safer.
  We make sure that law enforcement and first responders have the 
personnel, equipment, training, and are sufficiently coordinated to do 
the job.
  With this trust fund we could provide: $1.15 billion per year for 
COPS grants; $160 million per year to hire 1,000 FBI agents; $200 
million to hire and equip 1,000 rail police; $900 million for the 
Justice Assistance Grants; $1 billion per year for interoperable 
communications; and $1 billion for Fire Act and SAFER grants.
  We could invest in screening technologies: $100 million to improve 
airline screening checkpoints; $100 million for research and 
development on improving screening technologies.
  We set aside funding for our critical infrastructure: $500 million 
per year for general infrastructure grants; $500 million per year for 
port security grants; $200 million per year to harden our rail 
infrastructure.
  And, the list goes on.
  Mr. President, I will conclude where I started. This is all about 
setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut 
to the richest Americans who don't need it we should take some of it 
and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans.
  Our Nation's most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle 
class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our 
Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice.
  If we adopt this amendment, we will be asking them to sacrifice for 
the good of the Nation, and I am convinced that they would gladly help 
us out. We have done this before with the Violent Crime Trust Fund.
  This amendment is about reordering our homeland security priorities, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Washington, for 
yielding me the time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 4936

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to be as constrained as possible 
on this concept, but I do want to talk about this amendment of Senator 
Reid's. It is a 500-plus-page amendment to be added to our port 
security bill, and most of the provisions are totally unrelated to port 
security. It covers Iraq policy; intelligence reform; all of the 9/11 
Commission reforms; troop redeployment concepts; Iraqi contractor 
provisions; a section regarding detainees, such as those people at 
Guantanamo Bay; immigration and border security; and a whole section on 
transportation.
  Now, I do not know if the Senate realizes, but the port security bill 
that our committee, the Commerce Committee, reported was originally 
Senator Inouye's bill. As a matter of fact, we took it and reviewed it 
and made some minor modifications to it, and Senator Inouye suggested 
that my name go first since I was chairman. We are cochairmen of the 
committee. As a matter of fact, it was the Inouye, Stevens, Collins, 
Lieberman, Grassley, Baucus, Coleman, Murray amendment that we were 
talking about when we finally got to the floor and put everything 
together.
  We worked on trying to make this bill before the Senate a bipartisan 
bill, and what does my good friend--he is my good friend--the 
Democratic leader, do? He brings us a bill, 500 pages, totally 
partisan. There is no bipartisanship in that bill at all. In each 
instance, it is the minority's position on these very controversial 
subjects.
  We have worked 18 months to come to the floor with bills from three 
committees--a bipartisan approach--and

[[Page S9463]]

we are at the last minute supposed to vote on an amendment with 500-
plus pages on a whole series of things.
  I remember people used to say: It's everything but the kitchen sink. 
Do you know what I mean? There is so much in this bill that is totally 
partisan--it is awesome--when we are working to try to finish up this 
year and trying to reach out and be bipartisan. Above all bills, this 
bill we brought to the floor was bipartisan--three separate committees 
on a bipartisan basis. And from all three committees, the ranking 
members and the chairmen signed that bill.
  Now, I cannot think of anything that has been done to destroy the 
bipartisanship we seek to have to deal with issues such as security 
other than this bill. Why should we be forced to have a cloture vote or 
raise a point of order against a bill like that? It should not have 
been brought to the floor.
  Now, it is time we settled down and started thinking about: How can 
we get our work done? There are going to be elections soon, and it is a 
tough period for everybody. One-third of the Senate is up for election. 
I know that. We all know that. And we try to understand, on a 
bipartisan basis, we should do some things and not be offensive to 
people who are up for election.
  I hope I am not being offensive to my friend from Nevada. But I am 
telling him he should not, as a leader, do this. And it is time we 
thought about how we can settle problems like the security at our 
ports. The bill we brought to the floor could have been passed with one 
or two amendments in a few hours. As a matter of fact, we thought that 
was going to happen. We really did. Because of the cooperation that was 
there from each committee and the work we did literally through our 
staffs and through the members of consolidating the work of three 
different committees on a bipartisan basis, we thought we had this 
subject covered. But the amendments that are being brought to us now 
have nothing to do with port security.
  We thought we would emphasize port security. At the suggestion of the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, we put rail security in. It, too, is 
so interlocked with port security, it was justifiable. And, again, that 
portion of the bill was bipartisan. No question about it. That was part 
of the work of our committee on railroad and rail security.
  But I say to the Senate, time is now a commodity before the election. 
There is very little of it left. I would hope we don't have any more of 
these amendments. And if we do, I think we ought to face the question 
of just immediately tabling them. Let's stay directed toward what our 
work demands of us; and that is, to take the action that is necessary 
to assure security in the different modes of transportation that our 
people must use. I hope we will have no more of these amendments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the time situation between the 
two parties?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 28 minutes 41 seconds. The 
minority has 21 minutes 23 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time in the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me just add to the comments made by 
the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee about the 
amendment offered by the Democratic leader. I mentioned earlier that 
this amendment is 507 pages. This, in my hand, is the port security 
bill. Now, this, in my hand, is the Reid amendment. I can barely lift 
it. It requires no fewer than 95 reports, certifications, and 
determinations. It has 37 pages of findings. It has 16 sense-of-the-
Congress resolutions. It requires 36 GAO reports and audits.
  But what is not in there? There is virtually nothing in there that 
relates to port or maritime security. In fact, we have now done a 
search of the entire amendment. We found one--one--reference to port 
security and one reference to maritime and cargo security in the entire 
Reid amendment.
  I think that makes the point. I think that says it all. This 
amendment is irrelevant to the underlying bill.
  As I mentioned earlier, it includes provisions that the Senate has 
already decisively rejected on what our policy should be in Iraq and 
what the funding formula should be for the homeland security grant 
program. It is not as if those provisions were rejected years ago; they 
were rejected just a few months ago. So it makes no sense for this 
amendment to include formula changes and a change in our policy in Iraq 
that this body, by more than 60 votes in each case, decisively 
rejected.
  In fact, when it comes to the funding formula for homeland security 
grants, the majority of the Democratic Caucus rejects the formula 
change that is included in the Reid amendment. As I mentioned, over 100 
pages of the Reid amendment deal with foreign policy recommendations, 
public diplomacy recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that are 
already law. They are virtually identical to a title of the 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which is already law. Other provisions 
in the Reid amendment we have passed during the debate on the port 
security bill--the proposals of Senator McCain and Senators Shelby and 
Sarbanes on rail and mass transit security. We already adopted those. 
Those are redundant at best.
  What it comes down to is, unfortunately, this is simply a partisan 
amendment. That is so unfortunate because the work on this port 
security bill has never been partisan--never. There have been leaders 
such as Senator Murray and Senator Lieberman on the Democratic side. 
There have been leaders on the Republican side. The Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee did 
investigations of the port security programs that were completely 
bipartisan, headed by Senators Norman Coleman and Carl Levin. The 
committee consideration both in the Homeland Security Committee and the 
Commerce Committee was completely bipartisan. This has been a 
bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives, as well, where the 
bill was sponsored by Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harmon. It 
has been bipartisan since the conception to where we are today.
  It is so unfortunate to have a blatantly partisan amendment, 507 
pages, that swamps the bill and has nothing to do with the bill offered 
by the Democratic leader. So I hope our colleagues will take a look at 
what is really in the Reid amendment. I fear we may well have a 
partisan vote. I hope we do not. I think if my friends and colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle actually look at what is in the Reid 
amendment, I would be surprised if they vote for it because they voted 
against large chunks of it in the past.
  So I hope once we have disposed of the Democratic leader's amendment, 
we can return to the constructive, bipartisan approach that we have 
taken on this bill. This is an important bill. It is a bill that 
matters to the security of our country. It is a bill that is too 
important to be bogged down in partisan politics. It has never been 
bogged down in partisan politics. It has been bipartisan every step of 
the way. Let's conclude consideration of this bill in a bipartisan way, 
in a way that reflects well on this Senate, and send this important 
bill to the President for his signature.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her good work. I thank Senator Collins for her work on port security. I 
am proud to say that in the Commerce Committee, in a bipartisan way, we 
have worked over and over again to make this country safer. I was part 
of that

[[Page S9464]]

under the leadership of Senator McCain at the time, and first Senator 
Hollings and now Senator Stevens.
  I want to show you a little bit of history about what has happened in 
the Republican Congress every time we have voted out one of these good 
bills because you can say what you want about partisan politics, but 
the fact is, almost every single time we reported one of these bills 
out of our committee, it simply died and went nowhere. I want to talk 
about that history because, of course, Senator Collins is right that 
protecting Americans is our job. It has nothing to do with being a 
Democrat or a Republican.
  Here is what happened. In the 107th Congress, we passed the Ship, 
Seafarer, and Container Security Act; no action by the full Senate. In 
the 108th Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
of 2004. It passed the Senate on September 21, 2004, and was not even 
considered in the House of Representatives. In the 109th Congress, we 
passed the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005. Commerce 
passed it on November 17, 2005; no action by the full Senate.
  There you have it. Do you wonder why the 9/11 Commission has given 
this Congress and this administration failing grades? You can talk 
about bipartisanship. We reported these bills out of the committee on a 
bipartisan basis, but the leadership never bothered. So when I heard 
that the last days of this session were going to be about homeland 
defense, I said thank God for that, thank goodness for that. Whether it 
is an election driving it or anything else, I could not care less. 
Let's get it done. This Congress and this administration have received 
failing grades from the 
9/11 Commission.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record, 
which is a final report on 9/11 Commission recommendations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   FINAL REPORT ON 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, DECEMBER 5, 2005

     Part I: Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response

     Recommendation--Grade


                  emergency preparedness and response

     Provide adequate radio spectrum for first responders--F (C if 
         bill passes)
       The pending Fiscal Year 2006 budget reconciliation bill 
     would compel the return of the analog TV broadcast (700 Mhz) 
     spectrum, and reserve some for public safety purposes. Both 
     the House and Senate bills contain a 2009 handover date--too 
     distant given the urgency of the threat. A 2007 hand over 
     date would make the American people safer sooner.
     Establish a unified Incident Command 
         System--C
       Although there is awareness of and some training in the 
     ICS, hurricane Katrina demonstrated the absence of full 
     compliance during a multi-jurisdictional/statewide 
     catastrophe--and its resulting costs.
     Allocate homeland security funds based on risk--F (A if House 
         provision passes)
       Congress has still not changed the underlying statutory 
     authority for homeland security grants, or benchmarks to 
     insure that funds are used wisely. As a result, homeland 
     security funds continue to be distributed without regard for 
     risk, vulnerability, or the consequences of an attack, 
     diluting the national security benefits of this important 
     program.
     Critical infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities 
         assessment--D
       A draft National Infrastructure Protection Plan (November 
     2005) spells out a methodology and process for critical 
     infrastructure assessments. No risk and vulnerability 
     assessments actually made; no national priorities 
     established; no recommendations made on allocation of scarce 
     resources. All key decisions are at least a year away, It is 
     time that we stop talking about setting priorities, and 
     actually set some.
     Private sector preparedness--C
       National preparedness standards are only beginning to find 
     their way into private sector business practices. Private 
     sector preparedness needs to be a higher priority for DHS and 
     for American businesses.


                        TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

     National Strategy for Transportation 
         Security--C-
       DHS has transmitted its National Strategy for 
     Transportation Security to the Congress. While the strategy 
     reportedly outlines broad objectives, this first version 
     lacks the necessary detail to make it an effective management 
     tool.
     Improve airline passenger pre-screening--F
       Few improvements have been made to the existing passenger 
     screening system since right after 9/11. The completion of 
     the testing phase of TSA's pre-screerung program for airline 
     passengers has been delayed. A new system, utilizing all 
     names on the consolidated terrorist watch list, is therefore 
     not yet in operation.
     Improve airline screening checkpoints to detect explosives--C
       While more advanced screening technology is being 
     developed, Congress needs to provide the funding for, and TSA 
     needs to move as expeditiously as possible with, the 
     appropriate installation of explosives detection trace 
     portals at more of the Nation's commercial airports.
     Checked bag and cargo screening--D
       Improvements here have not been made a priority by the 
     Congress or the administration. Progress on implementation of 
     in-line screening has been slow. The main impediment is 
     inadequate funding.


                            border security

     Better terrorist travel strategy--Incomplete
       The first Terrorist Travel Strategy is in development, due 
     to be delivered by December 17, 2005 as required by PL 108-
     458.
     Comprehensive screening system--C
       We still do not have a comprehensive screening system. 
     Although agencies are moving ahead on individual screening 
     projects, there is lack of progress on coordination between 
     agencies. DHS' new Screening Coordination OffIce still needs 
     to establish and implement goals for resolving differences in 
     biometric and traveler systems, credentialing and 
     identification standards.
     Biometric entry-exit screening system--B
       The US-VISIT system is running at 115 airports and 15 
     seaports, and is performing secondary screening at the 50 
     busiest land borders. But border screening systems are not 
     yet employed at all land borders, nor are these systems 
     interoperable. The exit component of the US-VISIT system has 
     not been widely deployed.
     International collaboration on borders and document 
         security--D
       There has been some good collaboration between US-VISIT and 
     Interpol, but little progress elsewhere. There has been no 
     systematic diplomatic effort to share terrorist watchlists, 
     nor has Congress taken a leadership role in passport 
     security.
     Standardize secure identifications--B-
       The REAL ID Act has established by statute standards for 
     state-issued IDs acceptable for federal purposes, though 
     states' compliance needs to be closely monitored. New 
     standards for issuing birth certificates (required by law by 
     December 17, 2005) are delayed until at least spring 2006, 
     probably longer. Without movement on the birth certificate 
     issue, state-issued IDs are still not secure.

           Part II: Reforming the Institutions of Government

     Recommendation--Grade


                       The Intelligence Community

     Director of National Intelligence--B
       The framework for the DNI and his authorities are in place. 
     Now his challenge is to exercise his authorities boldly to 
     smash stovepipes, drive reform, and create a unity of 
     effort--and act soon. He must avoid layering of the 
     bureaucracy andJ focus on transformation of the Intelligence 
     Community. The success of this office will require decisive 
     leadership from the DNI and the president, and active 
     oversight by the Congress.
     National Counterterrorism Center--B
       Shared analysis and evaluation of threat information is in 
     progress; joint operational planning is beginning. But the 
     NCTC does not yet have sufftcient resources or personnel to 
     fulfill its intelligence and planning role.
     Create FBI national security workforce--C
       Progress is being made--but it is too slow. The FBI's shift 
     to a counterterrorism posture is far from institutionalized, 
     and significant deficiencies remain. Reforms are at risk from 
     inertia and complacency; they must be accelerated, or they 
     will fail. Unless there is improvement in a reasonable period 
     of time, Congress will have to look at alternatives.
     New missions for CIA Director--Incomplete
       Reforms are underway at the CIA, especially of human 
     intelligence operations. But their outcome is yet to be seen. 
     If the CIA is to remain an effective arm of national power, 
     Congress and CIA leadership need to be committed to 
     accelerating the pace of reforms, and must address morale and 
     personnel issues.
     Incentives for information sharing--D
       Changes in incentives, in favor of information sharing, 
     have been minimal. The office of the program manager for 
     information sharing is still a start-up, and is not getting 
     the support it needs from the highest levels of government. 
     There remain many complaints about lack of information 
     sharing between federal authorities and state and local level 
     officials.
     Government-wide information sharing--D
       Designating individuals to be in charge of information 
     sharing is not enough. They need resources, active 
     presidential backing, policies and procedures in place that 
     compel sharing, and systems of performance evaluation that 
     appraise personnel on how they carry out information sharing.
     Homeland airspace defense--B-
       Situational awareness and sharing of information has 
     improved. But it is not routine or comprehensive, no single 
     agency currently leads the interagency response to airspace 
     violations, and there is no overarching

[[Page S9465]]

     plan to secure airspace outside the National Capital region.


                  civil liberties and executive power

     Balance between security and civil liberties--B
       The debate surrounding reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act 
     has been strong, and concern for civil liberties has been at 
     the heart of it. Robust and continuing oversight, both within 
     the Executive and by the Congress, will be essential.
     Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board--D
       We see little urgency in the creation of this Board. The 
     President nominated a Chair and Vice Chair in June 2005, and 
     sent their names to the Senate in late September. To date, 
     the Senate has not confirmed them. Funding is insufficient, 
     no meetings have been held, no staff named, no work plan 
     outlined, no work begun, no office established.
     Guidelines for government sharing of personal information--D
       The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has not yet 
     begun its work. The DNI just named a Civil Liberties 
     Protection Officer (November 2005).


                congressional and administrative reform

     Intelligence oversight reform--D
       The House and Senate have taken limited positive steps, 
     including the creation of oversight subcommittees. However, 
     the ability of the intelligence committees to perform 
     oversight of the intelligence agencies and account for their 
     performance is still undermined by the power of the Defense 
     Appropriations subcommittees and Armed Services committees.
     Homeland Security committees--B
  The House and Senate have taken positive steps, but Secretary 
Chertoff and his team still report to too many bosses. The House and 
Senate homeland security committees should have exclusive jurisdiction 
over all counterterrorism functions of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
     Declassify overall intelligence budget--F
  No action has been taken. The Congress cannot do robust intelligence 
oversight when funding for intelligence programs is buried within the 
defense budget. Declassifying the overall intelligence budget would 
allow for a separate annual intelligence appropriations bill, so that 
the Congress can judge better how intelligence funds are being spent.
     Standardize security clearances--B
  The President put the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in charge 
of standardizing security clearances. OMB issued a plan to improve the 
personnel security clearance process in November 2005. The Deputy 
Director of OMB is committed to its success. All the hard work is 
ahead.

    Part III: Foreign Policy, Public Diplomacy, and Nonproliferation

     Recommendation--Grade


                            Nonproliferation

     Maximum effort by U.S. government to secure WMD--D
  Countering the greatest threat to America's security is still not the 
top national security priority of the President and the Congress.


                             Foreign Policy

     Long-term commitment to Afghanistan--B
  Progress has been made, but attacks Taliban and other extremists 
continue and the drug situation has worsened. The U.S. and its partners 
must commit to a long-term economic plan in order to ensure the 
country's stability.
     Support Pakistan against extremists--C+
  U.S. assistance to Pakistan has not moved sufficiently beyond 
security assistance to include significant funding for education 
efforts. Musharraf has made efforts to take on the threat from 
extremism, but has not shut down extremist-linked madrassas or 
terrorist camps. Taliban forces still pass freely across the Pakistan-
Afghanistan border and operate in Pakistani tribal areas.
     Support reform in Saudi Arabia--D
  Saudi authorities have taken initial steps but need to do much more 
to regulate charities and control the flow of funds to extremist 
groups, and to promote tolerance and moderation. A U.S.-Saudi strategic 
dialogue to address topics including reform and exchange programs has 
just started; there are no results to report.
     Identify and prioritize terrorist sanctuaries--B
  Strategies have been articulated to address and eliminate terrorist 
sanctuaries, but they do not include a useful metric to gauge progress. 
There is little sign of long-term efforts in place to reduce the 
conditions that allow the formation of terrorist sanctuaries.
     Coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism--C
       Components of a common strategy are evident on a bilateral 
     basis, and multilateral policies exist in some areas. But no 
     permanent contact group of leading governments has yet been 
     established to coordinate a coalition counterterrorism 
     strategy.
     Coalition standards for terrorist detention--F
       The U.S. has not engaged in a common coalition approach to 
     developing standards for detention and prosecution of 
     captured terrorists. Indeed, U.S. treatment of detainees has 
     elicited broad criticism, and makes it harder to build the 
     necessary alliances to cooperate effectively with partners in 
     a global war on terror.
     Economic policies--B+
       There has been measurable progress in reaching agreements 
     on economic reform in the Middle East, including a free trade 
     agreement with Bahrain and the likely admission of Saudi 
     Arabia to the WTO before long. However, it is too early to 
     judge whether these agreements will lead to genuine economic 
     reform.
     Vigorous effort against terrorist financing--A-
       The U.S. has won the support of key countries in tackling 
     terrorism finance--though there is still much to do in the 
     Gulf States and in South Asia. The government has made 
     significant strides in using terrorism finance as an 
     intelligence tool. However, the State Department and Treasury 
     Department are engaged in unhelpful turf battles, and the 
     overall effort lacks leadership.


                            Public Diplomacy

     Define the U.S. message--C
       Despite efforts to offer a vision for U.S. leadership in 
     the world based on the expansion of democratic governance, 
     public opinion approval ratings for the U.S. throughout the 
     Middle East remain at or near historic lows. Public diplomacy 
     initiatives need to communicate our values, way of life, and 
     vision for the world without lecturing or condescension.
     International broadcasting--B
       Budgets for international broadcasting to the Arab and 
     Muslim world and U.S.-sponsored broadcasting hours have 
     increased dramatically, and audience shares are growing. But 
     we need to move beyond audience size, expose listeners to new 
     ideas and accurate information about the U.S. and its 
     policies, and measure the impact and influence of these 
     ideas.
     Scholarship, exchange, and library programs--D
       Funding for educational and cultural exchange programs has 
     increased. But more American libraries (Pakistan, for 
     example) are closing rather than opening. The number of young 
     people coming to study in the U.S. from the Middle East 
     continues to decline (down 2% this year, following declines 
     of 9% and 10% in the previous two years).
     Support secular education in Muslim countries--D
       An International Youth Opportunity Fund has been 
     authorized, but has received no funding; secular education 
     programs have been initiated across the Arab world, but are 
     not integrated into a broader counterterrorism strategy. The 
     U.S. has no overarching strategy for educational assistance, 
     and the current level of education reform funding is 
     inadequate.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, here are some of the things on which we 
received bad grades: We are not providing adequate radio spectrum for 
first responders. We are not establishing a unified incident command 
system. We are not allocating homeland security funds based on risk. We 
are not protecting the critical infrastructure. We don't have a private 
sector that is prepared. We don't have a national strategy for 
transportation security. We are not prescreening passengers like we 
should be. We don't have screening checkpoints detecting explosives. We 
are still not screening the cargo that goes into passenger planes, even 
though they are taking away our lip gloss. I don't care about giving up 
my lip gloss, believe me. I would give up my lip gloss and everything 
else, but how about protecting the cargo that goes underneath that 
passenger plane? How about making sure it is safe, making sure it won't 
explode?
  I have an amendment that I will offer to this bill--unless the 
majority shuts me down--to say that until we are screening all of the 
cargo, let's make sure there is a blast-resistant container on these 
aircrafts. That is a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that has not 
been followed. So when you have a suspect piece of cargo and you are 
not sure about it, put it into the blast-resistant cargo container. We 
pushed this in the Commerce Committee. TSA tested it and we know it 
works. But it is not happening.
  I could go on, page after page of this document, where this Congress 
and this administration have failed. I say they have been soft on 
homeland defense. Why? I say two reasons: They cannot afford it because 
they are spending our money in Iraq instead of protecting us from the 
terrorists at home, instead of going after Osama bin Laden in 
Afghanistan. The President says over and over again that it is one

[[Page S9466]]

and the same. Do you know what? The bipartisan Senate Intelligence 
Committee was right out there and said Saddam Hussein--the tyrant 
though he is, and he deserves whatever fate awaits him--had not one 
thing to do with al-Qaida. As a matter of fact, he was threatened by 
them because he had a secular government. He was fearful of them, and 
rumors were that he wanted some of them assassinated.
  The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran. It is a recruiting tool for 
Osama bin Laden. It is busting the budget. It is causing the debt to 
explode, not to mention the deaths of close to 3,000 of our service men 
and women, and 20,000 have been severely injured. The money going there 
is about $10 billion a month. We could protect every single American 
aircraft today from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles with the cost 
of Iraq in 1 month.
  Then there is the other priority of this administration--tax breaks 
for billionaires. That is costing trillions. Look at every other 
President in the history of our country; they didn't do that in a time 
of war. So you have the war in Iraq, and the only strategy we have from 
this President is that we are going to be there ``as long as I am the 
President.'' Well, that is not a strategy; that is a recipe for more 
death, more destruction. That is clear.
  There are many ways that we could begin reducing the cost over 
there--the cost to our troops. We can say to the Iraqi people that our 
people have fought and died for you; now take the reins of your own 
government and protect yourselves. If you cannot figure out how to 
protect neighbor from neighbor, you have a problem. Nobody did it for 
us. Everybody always says compare what happened in Iraq to the American 
Revolution. I don't get the comparison, but if we go with that for a 
minute, it is true that other countries helped us in that battle--
France, for example--but at the end of the day, we had to take over the 
security on the ground and make our new country a success. So we cannot 
force democracy and force people to love each other at the point of a 
gun. It is their business.
  We have spent our treasure and are spending our treasure to the point 
where we cannot afford a comprehensive bill. You heard Senator Collins 
say, ``I hope you will vote against this broad bill.'' Why? We have 
been condemned by the 9/11 Commission for not doing enough in a broad 
way. This bill just does port security. Thank goodness we have 
amendments to add rail and transit. It is moving toward the Reid bill. 
Let this go on because the more we debate and the more we offer 
amendments, the more this bill looks like the Democratic alternative. 
It has taken a big step in that direction.
  We know what happened in Madrid. We saw what happened in London. We 
know our infrastructure is at risk. But 5 years after 9/11, we get 
failing grades. It is a sad moment.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Collins, and I thank my colleague, 
Senator Murray, two fantastic women who fought hard to get a port 
security bill to the floor. But let's welcome this as an opportunity to 
protect our people, not just focus narrowly on one problem.
  I hate to say it, we have an array of problems. We have 41 problems 
and 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan 
Commission we have not listened to, and that is what the Reid bill 
does. It is very important.
  I thank my colleagues for going as far as they have gone, but I hope 
we will go even further and change this truth that this Congress has 
been soft on homeland defense. We can change that, and I welcome the 
fact that we will be debating security from now until we get out of 
here because if ever there were a place we have neglected, it is 
homeland security.
  I am very happy to be part of this debate. I look forward to 
supporting the Reid amendment and all the other amendments that will 
make our country safer. We can scare people. We can make speeches and 
frighten them. That is not our job. Our job is to protect them, not to 
scare them. We haven't done that, and we have an opportunity to do that 
between now and the time we get out of here and go home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 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, how much time is remaining on the 
Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield all our remaining time to Senator 
Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 
6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague 
from the State of Washington for her leadership on this bill relative 
to port security. It is a very important bill.
  Of course, the Port of Chicago is concerned about these issues, as 
many are around the country. We understand this is basically an 
authorization bill and that before things will happen, money has to be 
appropriated. So an authorization is a promise; an appropriation is a 
reality. I hope we can follow through with the good promises that are 
included in this bill, many important good promises, with the reality 
of appropriating money for that particular effort. But what we have 
offered in addition to the port security bill is the Real Security Act 
which has been proposed by the Democratic side.
  In just the few moments I have, I wish to outline what we do.
  First, we are going to rely on the expertise of a bipartisan group 
that has gained great respect across the Nation, and that, of course, 
is the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission, with Governor Kean of New 
Jersey, a Republican, and Congressman Hamilton, a Democrat, came up 
with 41 recommendations to make America safer. They published those 
recommendations more than 2 years ago. It was a blueprint for making 
this a safer nation.
  This Commission has stayed in business long enough to grade the 
administration and Congress on its response. The results of their last 
report card were alarming. Last December, they graded our Government's 
progress as follows: 5 F's, 12 D's, 9 C's, and one A-minus. That is it. 
For 41 recommendations, we ended up being told by this Commission that 
we are not paying attention.
  The Real Security Act, which the Democrats propose, basically says as 
a starting point that we need to establish a comprehensive system to 
make certain the 9/11 recommendations are followed. That, to me, should 
be a bipartisan starting point. But the President's budget and the 
actions of Congress have not allowed us to reach that goal.
  We also believe we cannot talk about a secure America without 
speaking about the obvious: 145,000 Americans are risking their lives 
in Iraq today as we stand in the safety of this Chamber; 2,671 of our 
bravest soldiers have died, 19,000 seriously injured; and a war that 
has cost us $325 billion with no end in sight. That is the reality.
  We believe that if we learned the lessons of 9/11, we need to bring 
our troops home with their mission truly accomplished. That means a 
partial redeployment of troops this year so the Iraqis take 
responsibility for their own defense and their own future.
  There is also an element in this bill that is near and dear to me, 
and it relates to the issue of transportation. We are just not doing 
enough. We know at the airports, when we have to take off our shoes, 
they go through our luggage, and we hand over our toothpaste, what is 
going on there. What is happening in other places? We are not doing 
enough when it comes to making Amtrak safer.
  Three million Illinoisans ride Amtrak each year. Yet neither Amtrak's 
tracks nor its Midwest hub, Chicago's Union Station, is as secure as it 
should be. The Chicago Transit Agency alone has over $500 million in 
unmet security needs. And the Port of Chicago, as I mentioned earlier, 
needs more funds for homeland security.

  I am afraid that the Bush administration and this Republican-led 
Congress have also done little or nothing

[[Page S9467]]

to deal with the potential threats at our nuclear powerplants and our 
chemical industry plants. These, I am afraid, could be a tempting 
terrorist target.
  In our bill, the Real Security Act, on the Democratic side, proposes 
we spend money to make certain they are safer, that we authorize this 
expenditure. We want to equip our intelligence community to fight the 
war against terrorism. Intelligence is our first line in defense. For 
the first time in 28 years, the Republican Congress has failed to pass 
an intelligence authorization act. Our amendment does that, to make 
sure the intelligence agencies have the authorizations they need and 
the guidance they need to keep America safe.
  We also need to provide better tools to bring terrorists to justice. 
We believe we can do this without abandoning the Constitution or the 
rule of law.
  I salute the Presiding Officer, who has shown extraordinary 
leadership in this area. His background in the Air Force and his 
service in the Judge Advocate General Service Corps has made him a very 
valuable voice in this debate.
  I am hopeful that we can show we can keep America safe without 
abandoning our values, that we can fight terrorism while still honoring 
those basic principles, those constitutional principles we have all 
sworn to uphold. We can bring these terrorists to justice. We can do it 
in a way that we can point to with pride, that the world can judge was 
a fair proceeding and, in so doing, we can demonstrate to the world 
that the rule of law is worth following, even when a nation is under 
attack and threat of terrorism.
  This Real Security Act of 2006 is a comprehensive effort on the 
Democratic side to complement the underlying bill and to make sure we 
don't do just part of the job but do the entire job, that we move 
forward to make America safer.
  We understand the threat. We live in a dangerous world. The fifth 
anniversary of 9/11 was a reminder to all of us where we were on that 
fateful day. If we are going to look forward and say to the American 
people: We can make your country and our country safer, then we should 
enact the Real Security Act, the amendment pending before the Senate.
  Wouldn't it be refreshing if our Republican colleagues would join us 
in supporting this amendment, if we could return to the bipartisan 
spirit that followed 9/11 and do something in concert without partisan 
division? It really makes America safer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes 28 seconds for the 
majority and 29 seconds for the minority.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment that is proposed by Senator Reid. The title of the act 
Senator Reid has proposed is called Real Security. If my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle actually believe this amendment is real 
security, I encourage every American to go home and simply lock their 
doors.
  There are provisions in the amendment that I like. In particular, I 
support the passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act as it was 
reported by the Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees. I hope 
the Senate can act on that bill by unanimous consent without insisting 
on needless partisan debate on a bill that has bipartisan support.
  But now, on the other hand, I oppose the sense-of-Congress language 
Senator Reid has inserted in that bill that suggests the terrorist 
surveillance program is unlawful. Talk about the sense of the 
Congress--that means the Congress would not have any sense.
  Like most Americans, I believe the President should use all the 
authority provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States to 
prevent terrorists from killing innocent Americans. If terrorists 
outside the United States are placing calls to individuals in the 
United States, as many people have said over and over and over and over 
and over again, our intelligence agencies should know about it.
  The terrorist surveillance program is lawful. It has been effective. 
I will oppose any legislation that does not support the continuation of 
that very valuable program. The bottom line on the terrorist 
surveillance program is this: The men and women of the NSA are working 
hard to protect our country day in and day out. We should let these 
patriotic Americans get back to doing their job.

  Beyond that, I am convinced that my colleagues consulted perhaps a 
group of tenth grade English teachers in preparing this amendment. I 
haven't seen so many assigned reports since I was in high school.
  Instead of providing flexible authorities to protect our Nation, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed approximately 
52--a deck of cards, 52--I say that again, 52 new and continuing 
reporting requirements. That is one new reporting requirement for every 
9 pages of the amendment.
  The U.S. Government should be focused on securing our borders, 
disrupting terrorists, and protecting our ports. This amendment does 
nothing but divert focus to reporting requirements.
  My colleagues have also resorted to an old standby: If you don't have 
any ideas, throw money and people at a problem. There are about 29 
sections that propose new or additional ways to spend our limited 
resources. We haven't had any committee hearings on these, but they are 
reported. There are three provisions that increase the size of our 
Government by adding more personnel.
  As a substitute for congressional consideration of legislation to 
respond to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, my colleagues have 
proposed yet another national commission--yet another national 
commission. I am not going to go through the trouble of listing all of 
the commissions that we have had in the last 4 or 5 years. This one, 
however, is to focus on the detention and interrogation of terrorists 
captured in the war on terror. Let me give my colleagues the bottom 
line on the Government's detention and interrogation programs--and 
there will be legislation that already is reported from the Senate 
Judiciary Committee to take care of that--they have kept this Nation 
safe. I think we can forego another commission.
  Finally, Senator Reid's amendment would authorize three new 
administrative subpoenas: one for the new commission, one for the 
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and one for a new Senate 
committee.
  If Senator Reid and his colleagues want real security, they should 
strip out these provisions and simply give the FBI an administrative 
subpoena to track terrorists and spies. But that is the point of this 
bill; it is not about real security. This bill is about real Monday 
morning quarterbacking. It is about tying the hands of our homeland 
security and intelligence professionals as they attempt to protect this 
Nation.
  The only way this amendment would make the Nation safer is if we made 
copies of all of the reports that it requires and carpet-bombed Osama 
bin Laden. I am certain he would suffocate.
  I will not support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it 
as well.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am voting today to remove the 
budgetary point of order in order to consider the REAL security 
amendment offered by Senator Reid. In doing so, I am following through 
on my longstanding commitment to pass and adequately fund all of the 
key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for preventing future 
terrorist attacks and protecting our country and our people.
  If the Senate votes to allow consideration of the amendment, I will 
introduce a second-degree amendment to strike the provisions on Iraq 
from the REAL security proposal because they contain language calling 
for a deadline-driven withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which I have 
consistently opposed.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S9468]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is interesting to hear my friends on 
the other side of the aisle talk about the 9/11 Commission and then 
imply that the Reid amendment would finish the job of the 9/11 
Commission. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, over 100 pages of the 
507-page Reid amendment already are law. They are the foreign policy 
and public diplomacy recommendations that were recommended by the 9/11 
Commission and included in the Intelligence Reform Act which became law 
2 years ago--2 years ago. Many of the other recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission were enacted as part of that legislation.
  Now, there is one area where the 9/11 Commission did recommend 
changes that have not been completely made, and that is in the area of 
congressional oversight and the reorganization of committees. Instead, 
the Senate and the House adopted some, but not all, of those 
recommendations. But, ironically, the amendment proposed by the 
Democratic leader does not deal with that unfinished recommendation of 
the 9/11 Commission. So I don't want to leave the impression that the 
9/11 Commission's recommendations are what are largely found in this 
amendment; they are not, other than the more than 100 pages on the 
foreign policy and public diplomacy recommendations, which are already 
law and have been for almost 2 years.
  The fact is, our country has made tremendous progress in 
strengthening our security since 9/11. We have taken many actions, and 
if we talk to the experts, they will all tell us that those actions 
have made a difference. Are we completely safe? Of course not. We can 
never say that we are completely safe, but we are clearly safer than we 
were 5 years ago due to actions taken by this Congress, this 
administration, and State and local law enforcement. We have a ways to 
go, and the underlying bill on port security will help advance the 
security of this country.
  So for the reasons I have already spoken on extensively today, I hope 
that our colleagues will vote to sustain the point of order which I 
will shortly be raising against Senator Reid's amendment. It does 
violate the Budget Act, and I will be raising a point of order against 
it.
  But aside from the budget issues, the procedural objections, I hope 
my colleagues will actually look at the Reid amendment and look at what 
it does contain. If they do, they will find only one reference in it to 
port security--only one reference in it to maritime and cargo security. 
They will instead find page after page of policy that this Senate has 
already rejected with regard to our engagement in Iraq and the policy 
on the formula for homeland security grants. They will also find 
legislation that is already law, and they will find amendments that we 
have already adopted having to do with rail and mass transit security.
  So, unfortunately--and I mean this--sadly, this amendment is simply a 
partisan hodgepodge of provisions that have been cobbled together. I 
hope we can dispense with it quickly and then move back to the port 
security bill, an enormously important bill, a bill that many of us 
have worked on for years, a bill that has been bipartisan from the very 
start in both the House and the Senate. That is unusual, as the 
Presiding Officer knows. This bill is an exception to the rule. But, 
apparently, we couldn't quite get through the floor debate without 
having a partisan bomb lobbed at this bill, and I think that is 
unfortunate. But I hope once we get through this, we can go back to 
bipartisan consideration of relevant and germane amendments and we can 
get this work done.
  This is a gap in our homeland security. When we talk to the experts, 
they all tell us they are worried about the security of our seaports 
and the 11 million shipping containers that come into this country each 
year. We have a carefully crafted, balanced bill that strikes the right 
balance between the need to strengthen security and the need to 
facilitate trade.
  Again, I recognize the work that Senator Murray has done on this 
bill. She originated a lot of the concepts in this bill. It has been 
that kind of bipartisan partnership that has brought us to where we are 
today. So let's get this partisanship out of the way, and let's return 
to a bipartisan debate. This bill is so important to the security of 
people living near our seaports, to those working on our seaports, to 
the retailers in this country that rely on the cargo brought into our 
seaports, to our farmers who rely on shipping their crops out of our 
seaports. Let's remember the impact of this bill on communities not 
just on our coasts where the seaports are located but communities all 
across this country that rely on the products brought to our shores by 
cargo ships, or rely on the cargo ships to export these products.
  So I hope we can return to the underlying bill. It is a good bill, 
and it deserves continued bipartisan support.
  Could the Presiding Officer inform me how many minutes are remaining 
on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining on the 
majority side.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, has all time expired under the time 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I raise a point of order against the 
Reid amendment because it violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of 
that act for purposes of the pending amendment.
  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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Chafee
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 41, the nays 
are 57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that a vote subject to reconsideration?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

[[Page S9469]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4975

  Mr. STEVENS. The Biden amendment is now the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Biden amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wish to discuss this for a few 
minutes.
  I call to the attention of the Senate that this, too, is an all-
inclusive amendment. It restores the cuts for law enforcement. It deals 
with all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It deals with 
requiring 100 percent screening of cargo containers, which is our 
objective. But we cannot do it all at once. It seeks to bring about 
screening technologies for liquid explosives and other hazardous 
materials. It has some interoperable language in it.
  This represents a 32-percent annual increase over the current 
allocation of funds for the Department of Homeland Security. It 
requires a substantial addition to the Department of Homeland Security.
  The interesting thing--and my friend from Delaware is innovative in 
terms of this--is it does not appropriate the money, but it requires 
the committee to come forward with a bill to provide $53 billion 
additional for the Department of Homeland Security.
  It is a very interesting amendment, there is no question about that. 
This is another one of those things everyone would like to do if they 
had the money to do it. Beyond that, the way it is done, it is a 
difficult amendment to deal with.
  It is not necessary to carry out the port security bill or the real 
portion of this bill. It deals with an enormous number of issues beyond 
the scope of the bill. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative 
but to move to table this amendment. I give my friend from Delaware a 
chance if he wishes to make a final statement. I move to table the 
Senator's amendment, but I ask that there be consideration of a period 
of time prior to voting on that so the Senator may express his point of 
view; I would say 4 minutes equally divided, or something like that, 
before the vote.
  I have been requested to state that we would like to have that vote 
take place at 2 p.m. today and prior to the vote have 4 minutes equally 
divided, with no amendments or other motions in order, and the motion 
to table subject only to the provision of 4 minutes before a vote is 
taken on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                    Amendment No. 4930, as Modified

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 4930.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a modification at the deck.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4930), as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To improve maritime container security by ensuring that 
 foreign ports participating in the Container Security Intiative scan 
      all containers shipped to the United States for nuclear and 
                  radiological weapons before loading)

       On page 5, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 
     62, line 11, and insert the following:
       (9) Integrated scanning system.--The term ``integrated 
     scanning system'' means a system for scanning containers with 
     the following elements:
       (A) The container passes through a radiation detection 
     device.
       (B) The container is scanned using gamma-ray, x-ray, or 
     another internal imaging system.
       (C) The container is tagged and catalogued using an on-
     container label, radio frequency identification, or global 
     positioning system tracking device.
       (D) The images created by the scans required under 
     subparagraph (B) are reviewed and approved by the Secretary, 
     or the designee of the Secretary.
       (E) Every radiation alarm is resolved according to 
     established Department procedures.
       (F) The information collected is utilized to enhance the 
     Automated Targeting System or other relevant programs.
       (G) The information is stored for later retrieval and 
     analysis.
       (10) International supply chain.--The term ``international 
     supply chain'' means the end-to-end process for shipping 
     goods to or from the United States from a point of origin 
     (including manufacturer, supplier, or vendor) through a point 
     of distribution.
       (11) Radiation detection equipment.--The term ``radiation 
     detection equipment'' means any technology that is capable of 
     detecting or identifying nuclear and radiological material or 
     nuclear and radiological explosive devices.
       (12) Scan.--The term ``scan'' means utilizing nonintrusive 
     imaging equipment, radiation detection equipment, or both, to 
     capture data, including images of a container.
       (13) Screening.--The term ``screening'' means a visual or 
     automated review of information about goods, including 
     manifest or entry documentation accompanying a shipment being 
     imported into the United States, to determine the presence of 
     misdeclared, restricted, or prohibited items and assess the 
     level of threat posed by such cargo.
       (14) Search.--The term ``search'' means an intrusive 
     examination in which a container is opened and its contents 
     are devanned and visually inspected for the presence of 
     misdeclared, restricted, or prohibited items.
       (15) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
       (16) Transportation disruption.--The term ``transportation 
     disruption'' means any significant delay, interruption, or 
     stoppage in the flow of trade caused by a natural disaster, 
     labor dispute, heightened threat level, an act of terrorism, 
     or any transportation security incident defined in section 
     70101(6) of title 46, United States Code.
       (17) Transportation security incident.--The term 
     ``transportation security incident'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code.

              TITLE I--SECURITY OF UNITED STATES SEAPORTS

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 101. AREA MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLAN TO 
                   INCLUDE SALVAGE RESPONSE PLAN.

       Section 70103(b)(2) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) include a salvage response plan--
       ``(i) to identify salvage equipment capable of restoring 
     operational trade capacity; and
       ``(ii) to ensure that the waterways are cleared and the 
     flow of commerce through United States ports is reestablished 
     as efficiently and quickly as possible after a maritime 
     transportation security incident.''.

     SEC. 102. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MARITIME FACILITY SECURITY 
                   PLANS.

       Section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``facility'' and 
     inserting ``facility, including access by individuals engaged 
     in the surface transportation of intermodal containers in or 
     out of a port facility'';
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) in the case of a security plan for a facility, be 
     resubmitted for approval of each change in the ownership or 
     operator of the facility that may substantially affect the 
     security of the facility.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A) The Secretary shall require that the qualified 
     individual having full authority to implement security 
     actions for a facility described in paragraph (2) shall be a 
     citizen of the United States.
       ``(B) The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to an individual if the 
     Secretary determines that it is appropriate to do so based on 
     a complete background check of the individual and a review of 
     all terrorist watch lists to ensure that the individual is 
     not identified on any such terrorist watch list.''.

     SEC. 103. UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS OF MARITIME FACILITIES.

       Section 70103(c)(4)(D) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) subject to the availability of appropriations, verify 
     the effectiveness of each such facility security plan 
     periodically, but not less than twice annually, at least 1 of 
     which shall be an inspection of the facility that is 
     conducted without notice to the facility.''.

     SEC. 104. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARD.

       (a) In General.--Section 70105 of title 46, United States, 
     Code is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Applications for Merchant Mariner's Documents.--The 
     Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for the 
     Transportation Security Administration and the Commandant of 
     the Coast Guard shall concurrently process an application 
     from an individual for merchant mariner's documents under 
     chapter 73 of title 46, United States Code, and an 
     application from that individual for a transportation 
     security card under this section.
       ``(h) Fees.--The Secretary shall ensure that the fees 
     charged each individual obtaining a transportation security 
     card under this section who has passed a background check 
     under section 5103a of title 49, United States

[[Page S9470]]

     Code, and who has a current and valid hazardous materials 
     endorsement in accordance with section 1572 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, and each individual with a current 
     and valid Merchant Mariner Document--
       ``(1) are for costs associated with the issuance, 
     production, and management of the transportation security 
     card, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) do not include costs associated with performing a 
     background check for that individual, unless the scope of 
     said background checks diverge.
       ``(i) Implementation Schedule.--In implementing the 
     transportation security card program under this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) conduct a strategic risk analysis and establish a 
     priority for each United States port based on risk; and
       ``(2) implement the program, based upon risk and other 
     factors as determined by the Secretary, at all facilities 
     regulated under this chapter at--
       ``(A) the 10 United States ports that are deemed top 
     priority by the Secretary not later than July 1, 2007;
       ``(B) the 40 United States ports that are next in order of 
     priority to the ports described in subparagraph (A) not later 
     than January 1, 2008; and
       ``(C) all other United States ports not later than January 
     1, 2009.
       ``(j) Transportation Security Card Processing Deadline.--
     Not later than January 1, 2009, the Secretary shall process 
     and issue or deny each application for a transportation 
     security card under this section for individuals with current 
     and valid merchant mariner's documents on the date of 
     enactment of the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006.
       ``(k) Vessel and Facility Card Reader Assessments.--
       ``(1) Pilot programs.--
       ``(A) Vessel pilot program.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     pilot program in 3 distinct geographic locations to assess 
     the feasibility of implementing card readers at secure areas 
     of a vessel in accordance with the Notice of Proposed 
     Rulemaking released on May 22, 2006, (TSA-2006-24191; USCG-
     2006-24196).
       ``(B) Facilities pilot program.--In addition to the pilot 
     program described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     conduct a pilot program in 3 distinct geographic locations to 
     assess the feasibility of implementing card readers at secure 
     areas of facilities in a variety of environmental settings.
       ``(C) Coordination with transportation security cards.--The 
     pilot programs described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
     be conducted concurrently with the issuance of the 
     transportation security cards as described in subsection (b), 
     of this section to ensure card and card reader 
     interoperability.
       ``(2) Duration.--The pilot program described in paragraph 
     (1) shall commence not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 
     and shall terminate 1 year after commencement.
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the termination 
     of the pilot program described under subparagraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall submit a comprehensive report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 
     2(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(2)) 
     that includes--
       ``(A) the actions that may be necessary to ensure that all 
     vessels and facilities to which this section applies are able 
     to comply with the regulations promulgated under subsection 
     (a);
       ``(B) recommendations concerning fees and a statement of 
     policy considerations for alternative security plans; and
       ``(C) an analysis of the viability of equipment under the 
     extreme weather conditions of the marine environment.
       ``(l) Progress Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of the Port Security Improvement Act 
     2006 and every 6 months thereafter until the requirements 
     under this section are fully implemented, the Secretary shall 
     submit a report on progress being made in implementing such 
     requirements to the appropriate congressional committees (as 
     defined in section 2(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (6 U.S.C. 101(2)).''.
       (b) Clarification of Eligibility for Transportation 
     Security Cards.--Section 70105(b)(2) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (E);
       (2) by striking ``Secretary.'' in subparagraph (F) and 
     inserting ``Secretary; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) other individuals as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary including individuals employed at a port not 
     otherwise covered by this subsection.''.
       (c) Deadline for Section 70105 Regulations.--The Secretary 
     shall promulgate final regulations implementing section 70105 
     of title 46, United States Code, no later than January 1, 
     2007.

     SEC. 105. LONG-RANGE VESSEL TRACKING.

       (a) Regulations.--Section 70115 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended in the first sentence by striking ``The 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``Not later than April 1, 2007, the 
     Secretary''.
       (b) Voluntary Program.--The Secretary may issue regulations 
     to establish a voluntary long-range automated vessel tracking 
     system for vessels described in section 70115 of title 46, 
     United States Code, during the period before regulations are 
     issued under such section.

     SEC. 106. ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERAGENCY OPERATIONAL CENTERS 
                   FOR PORT SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 70107 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 70107A. Interagency operational centers for port 
       security

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish 
     interagency operational centers for port security at all 
     high-priority ports not later than 3 years after the date of 
     the enactment of the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006.
       ``(b) Characteristics.--The interagency operational centers 
     established under this section shall--
       ``(1) utilize, as appropriate, the compositional and 
     operational characteristics of centers, including--
       ``(A) the pilot project interagency operational centers for 
     port security in Miami, Florida; Norfolk/Hampton Roads, 
     Virginia; Charleston, South Carolina; San Diego, California; 
     and
       ``(B) the virtual operation center of the Port of New York 
     and New Jersey;
       ``(2) be organized to fit the security needs, requirements, 
     and resources of the individual port area at which each is 
     operating;
       ``(3) provide, as the Secretary determines appropriate, for 
     participation by representatives of the United States Customs 
     and Border Protection, the Transportation Security 
     Administration, the Department of Justice, the Department of 
     Defense, and other Federal agencies, and State and local law 
     enforcement or port security personnel, members of the Area 
     Maritime Security Committee, and other public and private 
     sector stakeholders; and
       ``(4) be incorporated in the implementation and 
     administration of--
       ``(A) maritime transportation security plans developed 
     under section 70103;
       ``(B) maritime intelligence activities under section 70113 
     and information sharing activities consistent with section 
     1016 of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 
     (6 U.S.C. 485) and the Homeland Security Information Sharing 
     Act (6 U.S.C. 481 et seq.);
       ``(C) short and long range vessel tracking under sections 
     70114 and 70115;
       ``(D) protocols under section 201(b)(10) of the Port 
     Security Improvement Act of 2006;
       ``(E) the transportation security incident response plans 
     required by section 70104; and
       ``(F) other activities, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Security Clearances.--The Secretary shall sponsor and 
     expedite individuals participating in interagency operational 
     centers in gaining or maintaining their security clearances. 
     Through the Captain of the Port, the Secretary may identify 
     key individuals who should participate. The port or other 
     entities may appeal to the Captain of the Port for 
     sponsorship.''.
       (b) 2005 Act Report Requirement.--Nothing in this section 
     or the amendments made by this section relieves the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard from complying with the 
     requirements of section 807 of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 1082). The Commandant 
     shall utilize the information developed in making the report 
     required by that section in carrying out the requirements of 
     this section.
       (c) Budget and Cost-Sharing Analysis.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a proposed budget analysis for implementing 
     section 70107A of title 46, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), including cost-sharing arrangements with 
     other Federal departments and agencies involved in the 
     interagency operation of the centers to be established under 
     such section.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     701 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 70107 the following:

``70107A. Interagency operational centers for port security.''.

    Subtitle B--Port Security Grants; Training and Exercise Programs

     SEC. 111. PORT SECURITY GRANTS.

       (a) Basis for Grants.--Section 70107(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``for making a fair and 
     equitable allocation of funds'' and inserting ``for the 
     allocation of funds based on risk''.
       (b) Multiple-Year Projects, etc.--Section 70107 of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) as subsections (i), 
     (j), (k), (l), and (m), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Multiple-Year Projects.--
       ``(1) Letters of intent.--The Secretary may execute letters 
     of intent to commit funding to such authorities, operators, 
     and agencies.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the grant 
     funds awarded under this subsection in any fiscal year may be 
     awarded for projects that span multiple years.
       ``(f) Consistency With Plans.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that each grant awarded under subsection (e)--

[[Page S9471]]

       ``(1) is used to supplement and support, in a consistent 
     and coordinated manner, the applicable Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan; and
       ``(2) is coordinated with any applicable State or Urban 
     Area Homeland Security Plan.
       ``(g) Applications.--Any entity subject to an Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan may submit an application for a 
     grant under this subsection, at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information and assurances as the Secretary, 
     working through the Directorate for Preparedness, may 
     require.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subsection (l) of 
     section 70107 of title 46, United States Code, as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $400,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry out this section.''.

     SEC. 112. PORT SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under 
     Secretary for Preparedness and in coordination with the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard, may establish a Port Security 
     Training Program (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Program'') for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of 
     each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare 
     for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from 
     threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, 
     and other emergencies.
       (b) Requirements.--The Program shall provide validated 
     training that--
       (1) reaches multiple disciplines, including Federal, State, 
     and local government officials, commercial seaport personnel 
     and management, and governmental and nongovernmental 
     emergency response providers;
       (2) provides training at the awareness, performance, and 
     management and planning levels;
       (3) utilizes multiple training mediums and methods;
       (4) addresses port security topics, including--
       (A) seaport security plans and procedures, including how 
     security plans and procedures are adjusted when threat levels 
     increase;
       (B) seaport security force operations and management;
       (C) physical security and access control at seaports;
       (D) methods of security for preventing and countering cargo 
     theft;
       (E) container security;
       (F) recognition and detection of weapons, dangerous 
     substances, and devices;
       (G) operation and maintenance of security equipment and 
     systems;
       (H) security threats and patterns;
       (I) security incident procedures, including procedures for 
     communicating with governmental and nongovernmental emergency 
     response providers; and
       (J) evacuation procedures;
       (5) is consistent with, and supports implementation of, the 
     National Incident Management System, the National Response 
     Plan, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the 
     National Preparedness Guidance, the National Preparedness 
     Goal, the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan, and 
     other such national initiatives;
       (6) is evaluated against clear and consistent performance 
     measures;
       (7) addresses security requirements under facility security 
     plans; and
       (8) educates, trains, and involves populations of at-risk 
     neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual 
     basis for neighborhoods to learn what to be watchful for in 
     order to be a ``citizen corps'', if necessary.

     SEC. 113. PORT SECURITY EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under 
     Secretary for Preparedness and in coordination with the 
     Commandant of the Coast Guard, may establish a Port Security 
     Exercise Program (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Program'') for the purpose of testing and evaluating the 
     capabilities of Federal, State, local, and foreign 
     governments, commercial seaport personnel and management, 
     governmental and nongovernmental emergency response 
     providers, the private sector, or any other organization or 
     entity, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, to 
     prevent, prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and 
     recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other 
     emergencies at commercial seaports.
       (b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     Program--
       (1) conducts, on a periodic basis, port security exercises 
     at commercial seaports that are--
       (A) scaled and tailored to the needs of each port;
       (B) live, in the case of the most at-risk ports;
       (C) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk 
     assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and 
     consequences;
       (D) consistent with the National Incident Management 
     System, the National Response Plan, the National 
     Infrastructure Protection Plan, the National Preparedness 
     Guidance, the National Preparedness Goal, the National 
     Maritime Transportation Security Plan, and other such 
     national initiatives;
       (E) evaluated against clear and consistent performance 
     measures;
       (F) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be shared 
     with appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, seaport 
     personnel and management; governmental and nongovernmental 
     emergency response providers, and the private sector; and
       (G) followed by remedial action in response to lessons 
     learned; and
       (2) assists State and local governments and commercial 
     seaports in designing, implementing, and evaluating exercises 
     that--
       (A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
       (B) are consistent with any applicable Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan and State or Urban Area Homeland 
     Security Plan.
       (c) Improvement Plan.--The Secretary shall establish a port 
     security improvement plan process to--
       (1) identify and analyze each port security exercise for 
     lessons learned and best practices;
       (2) disseminate lessons learned and best practices to 
     participants in the Program;
       (3) monitor the implementation of lessons learned and best 
     practices by participants in the Program; and
       (4) conduct remedial action tracking and long-term trend 
     analysis.

                      Subtitle C--Port Operations

     SEC. 121. DOMESTIC RADIATION DETECTION AND IMAGING.

       (a) Examining Containers.--Not later than December 31, 
     2007, all containers entering the United States through the 
     busiest 22 seaports of entry shall be examined for radiation.
       (b) Strategy.--The Secretary shall develop a strategy for 
     the deployment of radiation detection capabilities that 
     includes--
       (1) a risk-based prioritization of ports of entry at which 
     radiation detection equipment will be deployed;
       (2) a proposed timeline of when radiation detection 
     equipment will be deployed at each port of entry identified 
     under paragraph (1);
       (3) the type of equipment to be used at each port of entry 
     identified under paragraph (1), including the joint 
     deployment and utilization of radiation detection equipment 
     and nonintrusive imaging equipment;
       (4) standard operating procedures for examining containers 
     with such equipment, including sensor alarming, networking, 
     and communications and response protocols;
       (5) operator training plans;
       (6) an evaluation of the environmental health and safety 
     impacts of nonintrusive imaging technology;
       (7) the policy of the Department for using nonintrusive 
     imagining equipment in tandem with radiation detection 
     equipment; and
       (8) a classified annex that--
       (A) details plans for covert testing; and
       (B) outlines the risk-based prioritization of ports of 
     entry identified under paragraph (1).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the 
     strategy developed under subsection (b) to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       (d) Update.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary may update the strategy 
     submitted under subsection (c) to provide a more complete 
     evaluation under subsection (b)(6).
       (e) Other Weapons of Mass Destruction Threats.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall submit a strategy for the development of 
     equipment to detect chemical, biological, and other weapons 
     of mass destruction at all ports of entry into the United 
     States to the appropriate congressional committees.
       (f) Standards.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall publish 
     technical capability standards and recommended standard 
     operating procedures for the use of nonintrusive imaging and 
     radiation detection equipment in the United States. Such 
     standards and procedures--
       (1) should take into account relevant standards and 
     procedures utilized by other Federal departments or agencies 
     as well as those developed by international bodies; and
       (2) shall not be designed so as to endorse specific 
     companies or create sovereignty conflicts with participating 
     countries.
       (g) Implementation.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall fully 
     implement the strategy developed under subsection (b).

     SEC. 122. PORT SECURITY USER FEE STUDY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the need for, and 
     feasibility of, establishing a system of ocean-borne and 
     port-related transportation user fees that may be imposed and 
     collected as a dedicated revenue source, on a temporary or 
     continuing basis, to provide necessary funding for legitimate 
     improvements to, and maintenance of, port security. Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that contains--
       (1) the results of the study;
       (2) an assessment of the annual amount of customs fees and 
     duties collected through ocean-borne and port-related 
     transportation and the amount and percentage of such fees and 
     duties that are dedicated to improve and maintain security;
       (3)(A) an assessment of the fees, charges, and standards 
     imposed on United States ports, port terminal operators, 
     shippers, and persons who use United States ports, compared 
     with the fees and charges imposed on ports and port terminal 
     operators in Canada and Mexico and persons who use those 
     foreign ports; and
       (B) an assessment of the impact on the competitiveness of 
     United States ports, port terminal operators, and shippers; 
     and

[[Page S9472]]

       (4) the Secretary's recommendations based upon the study, 
     and an assessment of the consistency of such recommendations 
     with the international obligations and commitments of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 123. INSPECTION OF CAR FERRIES ENTERING FROM ABROAD.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, and 
     in coordination with the Secretary of State, and in 
     cooperation with appropriate foreign government officials, 
     shall seek to develop a plan for the inspection of passengers 
     and vehicles before such passengers board, or such vehicles 
     are loaded onto, a ferry bound for a United States seaport.

     SEC. 124. RANDOM SEARCHES OF CONTAINERS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, 
     shall develop and implement a plan, utilizing best practices 
     for empirical scientific research design and random sampling, 
     to conduct random searches of containers in addition to any 
     targeted or preshipment inspection of such containers 
     required by law or regulation or conducted under any other 
     program conducted by the Secretary. Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to mean that implementation of the random 
     sampling plan precludes additional searches of containers not 
     inspected pursuant to the plan.

     SEC. 125. WORK STOPPAGES AND EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER DISPUTES.

       Section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``In this 
     paragraph, the term `economic disruption' does not include a 
     work stoppage or other nonviolent employee-related action not 
     related to terrorism and resulting from an employee-employer 
     dispute.''.

          TITLE II--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 201. STRATEGIC PLAN TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN.

       (a) Strategic Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal government 
     agencies and private-sector stakeholders responsible for 
     security matters that affect or relate to the movement of 
     containers through the international supply chain, shall 
     develop, implement, and update, as appropriate, a strategic 
     plan to enhance the security of the international supply 
     chain.
       (b) Requirements.--The strategic plan required under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) describe the roles, responsibilities, and authorities 
     of Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies and 
     private-sector stakeholders that relate to the security of 
     the movement of containers through the international supply 
     chain;
       (2) identify and address gaps and unnecessary overlaps in 
     the roles, responsibilities, or authorities described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) identify and make recommendations regarding 
     legislative, regulatory, and organizational changes necessary 
     to improve coordination among the entities or to enhance the 
     security of the international supply chain;
       (4) provide measurable goals, including objectives, 
     mechanisms, and a schedule, for furthering the security of 
     commercial operations from point of origin to point of 
     destination;
       (5) build on available resources and consider costs and 
     benefits;
       (6) provide incentives for additional voluntary measures to 
     enhance cargo security, as determined by the Commissioner;
       (7) consider the impact of supply chain security 
     requirements on small and medium size companies;
       (8) include a process for sharing intelligence and 
     information with private-sector stakeholders to assist in 
     their security efforts;
       (9) identify a framework for prudent and measured response 
     in the event of a transportation security incident involving 
     the international supply chain;
       (10) provide protocols for the expeditious resumption of 
     the flow of trade in accordance with section 202, including--
       (A) the identification of the appropriate initial incident 
     commander, if the Commandant of the Coast Guard is not the 
     appropriate initial incident commander, and lead departments, 
     agencies, or offices to execute such protocols;
       (B) a plan to redeploy resources and personnel, as 
     necessary, to reestablish the flow of trade in the event of a 
     transportation disruption; and
       (C) a plan to provide training for the periodic instruction 
     of personnel of the United States Customs and Border 
     Protection in trade resumption functions and responsibilities 
     following a transportation disruption;
       (11) consider the linkages between supply chain security 
     and security programs within other systems of movement, 
     including travel security and terrorism finance programs; and
       (12) expand upon and relate to existing strategies and 
     plans, including the National Response Plan, National 
     Maritime Transportation Security Plan, and the 8 supporting 
     plans of the Strategy, as required by Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive 13.
       (c) Consultation.--In developing protocols under subsection 
     (b)(10), the Secretary shall consult with Federal, State, 
     local, and private sector stakeholders, including the 
     National Maritime Security Advisory Committee and the 
     Commercial Operations Advisory Committee.
       (d) Communication.--To the extent practicable, the 
     strategic plan developed under subsection (a) shall provide 
     for coordination with, and lines of communication among, 
     appropriate Federal, State, local, and private-sector 
     stakeholders on law enforcement actions, intermodal rerouting 
     plans, and other strategic infrastructure issues.
       (e) Utilization of Advisory Committees.--As part of the 
     consultations described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall, to the extent practicable, utilize the Homeland 
     Security Advisory Committee, the National Maritime Security 
     Advisory Committee, and the Commercial Operations Advisory 
     Committee to review, as necessary, the draft strategic plan 
     and any subsequent updates to the strategic plan.
       (f) International Standards and Practices.--In furtherance 
     of the strategic plan required under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary is encouraged to consider proposed or established 
     standards and practices of foreign governments and 
     international organizations, including the International 
     Maritime Organization, the World Customs Organization, and 
     the International Organization for Standardization, as 
     appropriate, to establish standards and best practices for 
     the security of containers moving through the international 
     supply chain.
       (g) Report.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report that 
     contains the strategic plan required by subsection (a).
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which the strategic plan is submitted under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that contains an update of the 
     strategic plan.

     SEC. 202. POST INCIDENT RESUMPTION OF TRADE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise determined by the 
     Secretary, in the event of a maritime transportation 
     disruption or a maritime transportation security incident, 
     the initial incident commander and the lead department, 
     agency, or office for carrying out the strategic plan 
     required under section 201 shall be determined by the 
     protocols required under section 201(b)(10).
       (b) Vessels.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall, to 
     the extent practicable and consistent with the protocols and 
     plans required under paragraphs (10) and (12) of section 
     201(b), ensure the safe and secure transit of vessels to 
     ports in the United States after a maritime transportation 
     security incident, with priority given to vessels carrying 
     cargo determined by the President to be critical for response 
     and recovery from such a disruption or incident, and to 
     vessels that--
       (1) have either a vessel security plan approved under 
     section 70103(c) of title 46, United States Code, or a valid 
     international ship security certificate, as provided under 
     part 104 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (2) are manned by individuals who are described in section 
     70105(b)(2)(B) of title 46, United States Code, and who--
       (A) have undergone a background records check under section 
     70105(d) of title 46, United States Code; or
       (B) hold a transportation security card issued under 
     section 70105 of title 46, United States Code; and
       (3) are operated by validated participants in the Customs-
     Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program.
       (c) Cargo.--Consistent with the protocols and plans 
     required under paragraphs (10) and (12) of section 201(b), 
     the Commissioner shall give preference to cargo--
       (1) entering a port of entry directly from a foreign 
     seaport designated under Container Security Initiative;
       (2) determined by the President to be critical for response 
     and recovery;
       (3) that has been handled by a validated C-TPAT 
     participant; or
       (4) that has undergone (A) a nuclear or radiological 
     detection scan, (B) an x-ray, density or other imaging scan, 
     and (C) an optical recognition scan, at the last port of 
     departure prior to arrival in the United States, which data 
     has been evaluated and analyzed by United States Customs and 
     Border Protection personnel.
       (d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall ensure that there is 
     appropriate coordination among the Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard, the Commissioner, and other Federal officials 
     following a maritime disruption or maritime transportation 
     security incident in order to provide for the resumption of 
     trade.
       (e) Communication.--Consistent with section 201 of this 
     Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Commissioner, and 
     other appropriate Federal officials, shall promptly 
     communicate any revised procedures or instructions intended 
     for the private sector following a maritime disruption or 
     maritime transportation security incident.

     SEC. 203. AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall--
       (1) identify and seek the submission of data related to the 
     movement of a shipment of cargo through the international 
     supply chain; and
       (2) analyze the data described in paragraph (1) to identify 
     high-risk cargo for inspection.

[[Page S9473]]

       (b) Consideration.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall--
       (1) consider the cost, benefit, and feasibility of--
       (A) requiring additional nonmanifest documentation;
       (B) reducing the time period allowed by law for revisions 
     to a container cargo manifest;
       (C) reducing the time period allowed by law for submission 
     of certain elements of entry data, for vessel or cargo; and
       (D) such other actions the Secretary considers beneficial 
     for improving the information relied upon for the Automated 
     Targeting System and any successor targeting system in 
     furthering the security and integrity of the international 
     supply chain; and
       (2) consult with stakeholders, including the Commercial 
     Operations Advisory Committee, and identify to them the need 
     for such information, and the appropriate timing of its 
     submission.
       (c) Determination.--Upon the completion of the process 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, may require importers to submit certain 
     elements of non-manifest or other data about a shipment bound 
     for the United States not later than 24 hours before loading 
     a container on a vessel at a foreign port bound for the 
     United States.
       (d) System Improvements.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall--
       (1) conduct, through an independent panel, a review of the 
     effectiveness and capabilities of the Automated Targeting 
     System;
       (2) consider future iterations of the Automated Targeting 
     System;
       (3) ensure that the Automated Targeting System has the 
     capability to electronically compare manifest and other 
     available data for cargo entered into or bound for the United 
     States to detect any significant anomalies between such data 
     and facilitate the resolution of such anomalies; and
       (4) ensure that the Automated Targeting System has the 
     capability to electronically identify, compile, and compare 
     select data elements for cargo entered into or bound for the 
     United States following a maritime transportation security 
     incident, in order to efficiently identify cargo for 
     increased inspection or expeditious release.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the United States Customs and Border Protection in the 
     Department of Homeland Security to carry out the Automated 
     Targeting System for identifying high-risk ocean-borne 
     container cargo for inspection--
       (A) $33,200,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $35,700,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $37,485,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Supplement for other funds.--The amounts authorized by 
     this subsection shall be in addition to any other amount 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Automated 
     Targeting System.

     SEC. 204. CONTAINER SECURITY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a 
     rulemaking proceeding to establish minimum standards and 
     procedures for securing containers in transit to an importer 
     in the United States.
       (2) Interim rule.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue an 
     interim final rule pursuant to the proceeding described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Missed deadline.--If the Secretary is unable to meet 
     the deadline established pursuant to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall transmit a letter to the appropriate 
     congressional committees explaining why the Secretary is 
     unable to meet that deadline and describing what must be done 
     before such minimum standards and procedures can be 
     established.
       (b) Review and Enhancement.--The Secretary shall regularly 
     review and enhance the standards and procedures established 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       (c) International Cargo Security Standards.--The Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Energy, and other government officials, as appropriate, and 
     with the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, the 
     Homeland Security Advisory Committee, and the National 
     Maritime Security Advisory Committee, is encouraged to 
     promote and establish international standards for the 
     security of containers moving through the international 
     supply chain with foreign governments and international 
     organizations, including the International Maritime 
     Organization and the World Customs Organization.

     SEC. 205. CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall establish and implement a program 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Container Security 
     Initiative'') to identify and examine or search maritime 
     containers that pose a security risk before loading such 
     containers in a foreign port for shipment to the United 
     States, either directly or through a foreign port.
       (b) Assessment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, may designate foreign seaports to participate 
     in the Container Security Initiative after the Secretary has 
     assessed the costs, benefits, and other factors associated 
     with such designation, including--
       (1) the level of risk for the potential compromise of 
     containers by terrorists, or other threats as determined by 
     the Secretary;
       (2) the volume and value of cargo being imported to the 
     United States directly from, or being transshipped through, 
     the foreign seaport;
       (3) the results of the Coast Guard assessments conducted 
     pursuant to section 70108 of title 46, United States Code;
       (4) the commitment of the government of the country in 
     which the foreign seaport is located to cooperate with the 
     Department to carry out the Container Security Initiative; 
     and
       (5) the potential for validation of security practices at 
     the foreign seaport by the Department.
       (c) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the 
     appropriate congressional committees of the designation of a 
     foreign port under the Container Security Initiative or the 
     revocation of such a designation before notifying the public 
     of such designation or revocation.
       (d) Negotiations.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of State and in consultation with the United States 
     Trade Representative, may enter into negotiations with the 
     government of each foreign nation in which a seaport is 
     designated under the Container Security Initiative to ensure 
     full compliance with the requirements under the Container 
     Security Initiative.
       (e) Overseas Inspections.--The Secretary shall enter into 
     agreements with the governments of foreign countries 
     participating in the Container Security Initiative that 
     establish criteria and procedures for an integrated scanning 
     system and shall monitor operations at foreign seaports 
     designated under the Container Security Initiative to ensure 
     the use of such criteria and procedures. Such criteria and 
     procedures--
       (1) shall be consistent with relevant standards and 
     procedures utilized by other Federal departments or agencies, 
     or developed by international bodies if the United States 
     consents to such standards and procedures;
       (2) shall not apply to activities conducted under the 
     Megaports Initiative of the Department of Energy;
       (3) shall not be designed to endorse the product or 
     technology of any specific company or to conflict with the 
     sovereignty of a country in which a foreign seaport 
     designated under the Container Security Initiative is 
     located;
       (4) shall be applied to the equipment operated at each 
     foreign seaport designated under the Container Security 
     Initiative, except as provided under paragraph (2); and
       (5) shall prohibit, beginning on October 1, 2008, the 
     shipment of any container from a foreign seaport designated 
     under Container Security Initiative to a port in the United 
     States unless the container has passed through an integrated 
     scanning system.
       (f) Savings Provision.--The authority of the Secretary 
     under this section shall not affect any authority or 
     duplicate any efforts or responsibilities of the Federal 
     Government with respect to the deployment of radiation 
     detection equipment outside of the United States under any 
     program administered by the Department.
       (g) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the 
     Secretary of Energy to--
       (1) provide radiation detection equipment required to 
     support the Container Security Initiative through the 
     Department of Energy's Second Line of Defense and Megaports 
     programs; or
       (2) work with the private sector to obtain radiation 
     detection equipment that meets the Department's technical 
     specifications for such equipment.
       (h) Staffing.--The Secretary shall develop a human capital 
     management plan to determine adequate staffing levels in the 
     United States and in foreign seaports including, as 
     appropriate, the remote location of personnel in countries in 
     which foreign seaports are designated under the Container 
     Security Initiative.
       (i) Annual Discussions.--The Secretary, in coordination 
     with the appropriate Federal officials, shall hold annual 
     discussions with foreign governments of countries in which 
     foreign seaports designated under the Container Security 
     Initiative are located regarding best practices, technical 
     assistance, training needs, and technological developments 
     that will assist in ensuring the efficient and secure 
     movement of international cargo.
       (j) Lesser Risk Port.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, may treat cargo loaded in a foreign seaport 
     designated under the Container Security Initiative as 
     presenting a lesser risk than similar cargo loaded in a 
     foreign seaport that is not designated under the Container 
     Security Initiative, for the purpose of clearing such cargo 
     into the United States.
       (k) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2007, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall, in 
     consultation with other appropriate government officials and 
     the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, submit a report 
     to the appropriate congressional committee on the 
     effectiveness of, and the need for any improvements to, the 
     Container Security Initiative. The report shall include--
       (A) a description of the technical assistance delivered to, 
     as well as needed at, each designated seaport;
       (B) a description of the human capital management plan at 
     each designated seaport;
       (C) a summary of the requests made by the United States to 
     foreign governments to conduct physical or nonintrusive 
     inspections of

[[Page S9474]]

     cargo at designated seaports, and whether each such request 
     was granted or denied by the foreign government;
       (D) an assessment of the effectiveness of screening, 
     scanning, and inspection protocols and technologies utilized 
     at designated seaports and the effect on the flow of commerce 
     at such seaports, as well as any recommendations for 
     improving the effectiveness of screening, scanning, and 
     inspection protocols and technologies utilized at designated 
     seaports;
       (E) a description and assessment of the outcome of any 
     security incident involving a foreign seaport designated 
     under the Container Security Initiative; and
       (F) a summary and assessment of the aggregate number and 
     extent of trade compliance lapses at each seaport designated 
     under the Container Security Initiative.
       (2) Updated report.--Not later than September 30, 2010, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall, in 
     consultation with other appropriate government officials and 
     the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, submit an 
     updated report to the appropriate congressional committees on 
     the effectiveness of, and the need for any improvements to, 
     the Container Security Initiative. The updated report shall 
     address each of the elements required to be included in the 
     report provided for under paragraph (1).
       (l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the United States Customs and Border 
     Protection in the Department of Homeland Security to carry 
     out the provisions of this section--
       (1) $144,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (2) $146,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (3) $153,300,000 for fiscal year 2010.

        Subtitle B--Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

     SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner is authorized to establish a voluntary 
     government-private sector program (to be known as the 
     ``Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism'' or ``C-
     TPAT'') to strengthen and improve the overall security of the 
     international supply chain and United States border security, 
     and to facilitate the movement of secure cargo through the 
     international supply chain, by providing benefits to 
     participants meeting or exceeding the program requirements. 
     Participants in C-TPAT shall include tier 1 participants, 
     tier 2 participants, and tier 3 participants.
       (b) Minimum Security Requirements.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Commissioner, shall review the minimum security 
     requirements of C-TPAT at least once every year and update 
     such requirements as necessary.

     SEC. 212. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       Importers, customs brokers, forwarders, air, sea, land 
     carriers, contract logistics providers, and other entities in 
     the international supply chain and intermodal transportation 
     system are eligible to apply to voluntarily enter into 
     partnerships with the Department under C-TPAT.

     SEC. 213. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

       An applicant seeking to participate in C-TPAT shall--
       (1) demonstrate a history of moving cargo in the 
     international supply chain;
       (2) conduct an assessment of its supply chain based upon 
     security criteria established by the Secretary, acting 
     through the Commissioner, including--
       (A) business partner requirements;
       (B) container security;
       (C) physical security and access controls;
       (D) personnel security;
       (E) procedural security;
       (F) security training and threat awareness; and
       (G) information technology security;
       (3) implement and maintain security measures and supply 
     chain security practices meeting security criteria 
     established by the Commissioner; and
       (4) meet all other requirements established by the 
     Commissioner in consultation with the Commercial Operations 
     Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 214. TIER 1 PARTICIPANTS IN C-TPAT.

       (a) Benefits.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall offer limited benefits to a tier 1 
     participant who has been certified in accordance with the 
     guidelines referred to in subsection (b). Such benefits may 
     include a reduction in the score assigned pursuant to the 
     Automated Targeting System of not greater than 20 percent of 
     the high risk threshold established by the Secretary.
       (b) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall update the guidelines for certifying a C-
     TPAT participant's security measures and supply chain 
     security practices under this section. Such guidelines shall 
     include a background investigation and extensive 
     documentation review.
       (c) Time Frame.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Commissioner, shall complete the tier 1 
     certification process within 90 days of receipt of an 
     application for participation in C-TPAT.

     SEC. 215. TIER 2 PARTICIPANTS IN C-TPAT.

       (a) Validation.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall validate the security measures and supply 
     chain security practices of a tier 1 participant in 
     accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (c). 
     Such validation shall include on-site assessments at 
     appropriate foreign locations utilized by the tier 1 
     participant in its supply chain and shall, to the extent 
     practicable, be completed not later than 1 year after 
     certification as a tier 1 participant.
       (b) Benefits.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall extend benefits to each C-TPAT 
     participant that has been validated as a tier 2 participant 
     under this section, which may include--
       (1) reduced scores in the Automated Targeting System;
       (2) reduced examinations of cargo; and
       (3) priority searches of cargo.
       (c) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall develop a schedule and update the 
     guidelines for validating a participant's security measures 
     and supply chain security practices under this section.

     SEC. 216. TIER 3 PARTICIPANTS IN C-TPAT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall establish a third tier of C-TPAT 
     participation that offers additional benefits to participants 
     who demonstrate a sustained commitment to maintaining 
     security measures and supply chain security practices that 
     exceed the guidelines established for validation as a tier 2 
     participant in C-TPAT under section 215 of this Act.
       (b) Criteria.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall designate criteria for validating a C-
     TPAT participant as a tier 3 participant under this section. 
     Such criteria may include--
       (1) compliance with any additional guidelines established 
     by the Secretary that exceed the guidelines established 
     pursuant to section 215 of this Act for validating a C-TPAT 
     participant as a tier 2 participant, particularly with 
     respect to controls over access to cargo throughout the 
     supply chain;
       (2) voluntary submission of additional information 
     regarding cargo prior to loading, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       (3) utilization of container security devices and 
     technologies that meet standards and criteria established by 
     the Secretary; and
       (4) compliance with any other cargo requirements 
     established by the Secretary.
       (c) Benefits.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, in consultation with the Commercial Operations 
     Advisory Committee and the National Maritime Security 
     Advisory Committee, shall extend benefits to each C-TPAT 
     participant that has been validated as a tier 3 participant 
     under this section, which may include--
       (1) the expedited release of a tier 3 participant's cargo 
     in destination ports within the United States during all 
     threat levels designated by the Secretary;
       (2) in addition to the benefits available to tier 2 
     participants--
       (A) further reduction in examinations of cargo;
       (B) priority for examinations of cargo; and
       (C) further reduction in the risk score assigned pursuant 
     to the Automated Targeting System;
       (3) notification of specific alerts and post-incident 
     procedures to the extent such notification does not 
     compromise the security interests of the United States; and
       (4) inclusion in joint incident management exercises, as 
     appropriate.
       (d) Deadline.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall designate appropriate criteria pursuant 
     to subsection (b) and provide benefits to validated tier 3 
     participants pursuant to subsection (c).

     SEC. 217. CONSEQUENCES FOR LACK OF COMPLIANCE.

       (a) In General.--If at any time a C-TPAT participant's 
     security measures and supply chain security practices fail to 
     meet any of the requirements under this subtitle, the 
     Commissioner may deny the participant benefits otherwise 
     available under this subtitle, in whole or in part.
       (b) False or Misleading Information.--If a C-TPAT 
     participant knowingly provides false or misleading 
     information to the Commissioner during the validation process 
     provided for under this subtitle, the Commissioner shall 
     suspend or expel the participant from C-TPAT for an 
     appropriate period of time. The Commissioner may publish in 
     the Federal Register a list of participants who have been 
     suspended or expelled from C-TPAT pursuant to this 
     subsection, and may make such list available to C-TPAT 
     participants.
       (c) Right of Appeal.--
       (1) In general.--A C-TPAT participant may appeal a decision 
     of the Commissioner pursuant to subsection (a). Such appeal 
     shall be filed with the Secretary not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the decision, and the Secretary shall issue 
     a determination not later than 180 days after the appeal is 
     filed.
       (2) Appeals of other decisions.--A C-TPAT participant may 
     appeal a decision of the Commissioner pursuant to subsection 
     (b). Such appeal shall be filed with the Secretary not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the decision, and the 
     Secretary shall issue a determination not later than 180 days 
     after the appeal is filed.

     SEC. 218. REVALIDATION.

       The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall 
     develop and implement--
       (1) a revalidation process for tier 2 and tier 3 
     participants;
       (2) a framework based upon objective criteria for 
     identifying participants for periodic

[[Page S9475]]

     revalidation not less frequently than once during each 5-year 
     period following the initial validation; and
       (3) an annual plan for revalidation that includes--
       (A) performance measures;
       (B) an assessment of the personnel needed to perform the 
     revalidations; and
       (C) the number of participants that will be revalidated 
     during the following year.

     SEC. 219. NONCONTAINERIZED CARGO.

       The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall 
     consider the potential for participation in C-TPAT by 
     importers of noncontainerized cargoes that otherwise meet the 
     requirements under this subtitle.

     SEC. 220. C-TPAT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner, shall establish sufficient internal quality 
     controls and record management to support the management 
     systems of C-TPAT. In managing the program, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the program includes:
       (1) Strategic plan.--A 5-year plan to identify outcome-
     based goals and performance measures of the program.
       (2) Annual plan.--An annual plan for each fiscal year 
     designed to match available resources to the projected 
     workload.
       (3) Standardized work program.--A standardized work program 
     to be used by agency personnel to carry out the 
     certifications, validations, and revalidations of 
     participants. The Secretary shall keep records and monitor 
     staff hours associated with the completion of each such 
     review.
       (b) Documentation of Reviews.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Commissioner, shall maintain a record management 
     system to document determinations on the reviews of each C-
     TPAT participant, including certifications, validations, and 
     revalidations.
       (c) Confidential Information Safeguards.--In consultation 
     with the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall develop and 
     implement procedures to ensure the protection of confidential 
     data collected, stored, or shared with government agencies or 
     as part of the application, certification, validation, and 
     revalidation processes.

     SEC. 221. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STAFFING PLAN.

       The Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, shall--
       (1) develop a staffing plan to recruit and train staff 
     (including a formalized training program) to meet the 
     objectives identified in the strategic plan of the C-TPAT 
     program; and
       (2) provide cross-training in post-incident trade 
     resumption for personnel who administer the C-TPAT program.

     SEC. 222. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL.

       In each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2009, the 
     Commissioner shall increase by not less than 50 the number of 
     full-time personnel engaged in the validation and 
     revalidation of C-TPAT participants (over the number of such 
     personnel on the last day of the previous fiscal year), and 
     shall provide appropriate training and support to such 
     additional personnel.

     SEC. 223. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) C-TPAT.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     United States Customs and Border Protection in the Department 
     of Homeland Security to carry out the provisions of sections 
     211 through 221 to remain available until expended--
       (1) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (2) $72,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (3) $75,600,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (b) Additional Personnel.--In addition to any monies 
     hereafter appropriated to the United States Customs and 
     Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of 
     meeting the staffing requirement provided for in section 222, 
     to remain available until expended--
       (1) $8,500,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (2) $17,600,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (3) $27,300,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       (4) $28,300,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       (5) $29,200,000 for fiscal year 2011.

     SEC. 224. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       In connection with the President's annual budget submission 
     for the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary shall 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees on the 
     progress made by the Commissioner to certify, validate, and 
     revalidate C-TPAT participants. Such report shall be due on 
     the same date that the President's budget is submitted to the 
     Congress.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 231. PILOT INTEGRATED SCANNING SYSTEM.

       (a) Designations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall designate 3 
     foreign seaports through which containers pass or are 
     transshipped to the United States for the establishment of 
     pilot integrated scanning systems that couple nonintrusive 
     imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment. The 
     equipment may be provided by the Megaports Initiative of the 
     Department of Energy. In making the designations under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall consider 3 distinct ports with 
     unique features and differing levels of trade volume.
       (b) Collaboration and Cooperation.--The Secretary shall 
     collaborate with the Secretary of Energy and cooperate with 
     the private sector and the foreign government of each country 
     in which a foreign seaport is designated pursuant to 
     subsection (a) to implement the pilot systems.
       (c) 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 port; and
       (2) electronically transmit the images and information to 
     the container security initiative personnel in the host 
     country and customs personnel in the United States for 
     evaluation and analysis.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 120 days after achieving full-
     scale implementation under subsection (c), 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 
     system implemented under this subsection;
       (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;
       (4) an analysis of the need and feasibility of expanding 
     the integrated scanning system to other container security 
     initiative ports, including--
       (A) an analysis of the infrastructure requirements;
       (B) a projection of the effect on current average 
     processing speed of containerized cargo;
       (C) an evaluation of the scalability of the system to meet 
     both current and future forecasted trade flows;
       (D) the ability of the system to automatically maintain and 
     catalog appropriate data for reference and analysis in the 
     event of a transportation disruption;
       (E) an analysis of requirements to install and maintain an 
     integrated scanning system;
       (F) the ability of administering personnel to efficiently 
     manage and utilize the data produced by a non-intrusive 
     scanning system;
       (G) the ability to safeguard commercial data generated by, 
     or submitted to, a non-intrusive scanning system; and
       (H) an assessment of the reliability of currently available 
     technology to implement an integrated scanning system.
       (e) Implementation.--Not later than October 1, 2010, an 
     integrated scanning system shall be implemented to scan all 
     containers entering the United States prior to arrival in the 
     United States.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON, Madam President, I will yield a few minutes to Senator 
Kerry in a moment, but I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside 
the pending amendment to call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4957

  Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent to call up Senate amendment 
4957.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] for herself and 
     Mrs. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 4957.

  Mrs. CLINTON. 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 facilitate nationwide availability of 2-1-1 telephone 
 service for information on and referral to human services, including 
   volunteer opportunities related to human services, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the end, insert the following:

                         TITLE _--2-1-1 SERVICE

     SEC. _1. GRANTS TO FACILITATE NATIONWIDE AVAILABILITY OF 2-1-
                   1 SERVICE FOR INFORMATION ON AND REFERRAL TO 
                   HUMAN SERVICES.

       (a) Grants Required.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Children 
     and Families, shall award a grant to each eligible State to 
     carry out a program for the purpose of making 2-1-1 telephone 
     service available to all residents of the State with phone 
     service for information on and referral to human services. 
     The grant, and the service provided through the grant, shall 
     supplement existing (as of the date of the award) funding 
     streams or services.
       (b) Period and Amount of Grants.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall award the grants for periods 
     determined by the Secretary. The Secretary shall award the 
     grants in amounts that are not less than a minimum amount 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Requirement on Share of Activities.--
       (1) Requirement.--A State may not be awarded a grant under 
     this section unless the State ensures that at least 50 
     percent of the resources of the program funded by the grant 
     will be derived from other sources.

[[Page S9476]]

       (2) In-kind contributions.--The requirement specified in 
     paragraph (1) may be satisfied by in-kind contributions of 
     goods or services.
       (d) Lead Entity.--
       (1) In general.--A State seeking a grant under this section 
     shall carry out this section through a lead entity (also 
     known as a ``2-1-1 Collaborative'') meeting the requirements 
     of this subsection.
       (2) 2-1-1 collaborative.--An entity shall be treated as the 
     2-1-1 Collaborative for a State under this subsection if the 
     entity--
       (A) exists for such purpose under State law;
       (B) exists for such purpose by order of the State public 
     utility commission; or
       (C) is a collaborative entity established by the State for 
     such purpose from among representatives of--
       (i) an informal existing (as of the date of establishment 
     of the entity) 2-1-1 statewide collaborative, if any, in the 
     State;
       (ii) State agencies;
       (iii) community-based organizations;
       (iv) faith-based organizations;
       (v) not-for-profit organizations;
       (vi) comprehensive and specialized information and referral 
     providers, including current (as of the date of establishment 
     of the entity) 2-1-1 call centers;
       (vii) foundations; and
       (viii) businesses.
       (3) Requirements for preexisting lead entities.--An entity 
     described by subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) may be 
     treated as a lead entity under this subsection only if such 
     entity collaborates, to the extent practicable, with the 
     organizations and entities listed in subparagraph (C) of that 
     paragraph.
       (e) Application.--
       (1) In general.--The lead entity for each State seeking a 
     grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application in such form as the Secretary shall require.
       (2) Information.--An application for a State under this 
     subsection shall contain information as follows:
       (A) Information, on the program to be carried out by the 
     lead entity for the State so that every resident of the State 
     with phone service may call the 2-1-1 telephone service at no 
     charge to the caller, describing how the lead entity plans to 
     make available throughout the State 2-1-1 telephone service 
     information and referral on human services, including 
     information on the manner in which the lead entity will 
     develop, sustain, and evaluate the program.
       (B) Information on the sources of resources for the program 
     for purposes of meeting the requirement specified in 
     subsection (c).
       (C) Information describing how the entity shall provide, to 
     the extent practicable, a statewide database available to all 
     residents of the State as well as all providers of human 
     services programs, through the Internet, that will allow them 
     to search for programs or services that are available 
     according to the data gathered by the human services programs 
     in the State.
       (D) Any additional information that the Secretary may 
     require for purposes of this section.
       (f) Subgrants.--
       (1) Authority.--In carrying out a program to make 2-1-1 
     telephone service available to all residents of a State with 
     phone service, the lead entity for the State may award 
     subgrants to such persons or entities as the lead entity 
     considers appropriate for purposes of the program, including 
     subgrants to provide funds--
       (A) for the provision of 2-1-1 telephone service;
       (B) for the operation and maintenance of 2-1-1 call 
     centers; and
       (C) for the collection and display of information for the 
     statewide database.
       (2) Considerations.--In awarding a subgrant under this 
     subsection, a lead entity shall consider--
       (A) the ability of the person or entity seeking the 
     subgrant to carry out activities or provide services 
     consistent with the program;
       (B) the extent to which the award of the subgrant will 
     facilitate equitable geographic distribution of subgrants 
     under this section to ensure that rural communities have 
     access to 2-1-1 telephone service; and
       (C) the extent to which the recipient of the subgrant will 
     establish and maintain cooperative relationships with 
     specialized information and referral centers, including Child 
     Care Resource Referral Agencies, crisis centers, 9-1-1 call 
     centers, and 3-1-1 call centers, if applicable.
       (g) Use of Grant and Subgrant Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts awarded as grants or subgrants 
     under this section shall be used solely to make available 2-
     1-1 telephone service to all residents of a State with phone 
     service for information on and referral to human services, 
     including telephone connections between families and 
     individuals seeking such services and the providers of such 
     services.
       (2) Particular matters.--In making 2-1-1 telephone service 
     available, the recipient of a grant or subgrant shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable--
       (A) abide by the highest quality existing (as of the date 
     of the award of the grant or subgrant) Key Standards for 2-1-
     1 Centers; and
       (B) collaborate with human services organizations, whether 
     public or private, to provide an exhaustive database of 
     services with which to provide information or referrals to 
     individuals utilizing 2-1-1 telephone service.
       (3) Use of funds.--Amounts of a subgrant under subsection 
     (f) may be used by subgrant recipients for statewide and 
     regional planning, start-up costs (including costs of 
     software and hardware upgrades and telecommunications costs), 
     training, accreditation, public awareness activities, 
     evaluation of activities, Internet hosting and site 
     development and maintenance for a statewide database, 
     database integration projects that incorporate data from 
     different 2-1-1 programs into a single statewide database, 
     and the provision of 2-1-1 telephone service. The amounts may 
     not be used for maintenance activities or any other ongoing 
     activity that promotes State reliance on the amounts.
       (h) Requirement on Allocation of Grant Amounts.--Of the 
     amounts awarded under this section, an aggregate of not more 
     than 15 percent shall be allocated for evaluation, training, 
     and technical assistance, and for management and 
     administration of subgrants awarded under this section.
       (i) Reports.--The lead entity for each State awarded a 
     grant under this section for a fiscal year shall submit to 
     the Secretary, not later than 60 days after the end of such 
     fiscal year, a report on the program funded by the grant. 
     Each report shall--
       (1) describe the program funded by the grant;
       (2) assess the effectiveness of the program in making 
     available, to all residents of the State with phone service, 
     2-1-1 telephone service, for information on and referral to 
     human services in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section; and
       (3) assess the effectiveness of collaboration with human 
     services resource and referral entities and service 
     providers.
       (j) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Human services.--The term ``human services'' means 
     services as follows:
       (A) Services that assist individuals in becoming more self-
     sufficient, in preventing dependency, and in strengthening 
     family relationships.
       (B) Services that support personal and social development.
       (C) Services that help ensure the health and well-being of 
     individuals, families, and communities.
       (2) Information and referral center.--The term 
     ``information and referral center'' means a center that--
       (A) maintains a database of providers of human services in 
     a State or locality;
       (B) assists individuals, families, and communities in 
     identifying, understanding, and accessing the providers of 
     human services and the human services offered by the 
     providers; and
       (C) tracks types of calls referred and received to document 
     the demands for services.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
     and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. _2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this title, $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations specified in subsection (a) 
     shall remain available until expended.


                           Amendment No. 4943

  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily 
set aside the pending amendment to call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent to call up Senate amendment 
4943.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4943.

  Mrs. CLINTON. 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 fund additional research to improve the detection of 
          explosive materials at airport security checkpoints)

       At the end, insert the following:

                       TITLE V--AIRPORT SECURITY

     SEC. 501. AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPLOSIVE 
                   DETECTION.

       (a) Advanced Explosives Detection Systems.--The Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for Science 
     and Technology and the Assistant Secretary of the 
     Transportation Security Administration, and in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Transportation, shall, in carrying out 
     research and development on the detection of explosive 
     materials at airport security checkpoints, focus on the 
     detection of explosive materials, including liquid 
     explosives, in a manner that--
       (1) improves the ability of airport security technologies 
     to determine which items could--
       (A) threaten safety;
       (B) be used as an explosive; or
       (C) assembled into an explosive device; and

[[Page S9477]]

       (2) results in the development of an advanced screening 
     technology that incorporates existing technologies into a 
     single screening system.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out this 
     section--
       (A) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (B) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.

                           Amendment No. 4958

  Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4958.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 4958.

  Mrs. CLINTON. 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 establish a grant program for individuals still suffering 
 health effects as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New 
                               York City)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GRANTS FOR 9/11-RELATED HEALTH CARE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), acting 
     through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, shall award grants to eligible entities to 
     provide medical and mental health monitoring, tracking, and 
     treatment to individuals whose health has been directly 
     impacted as a result of the attacks on New York City on 
     September 11, 2001.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall--
       (A) be an entity--
       (i) that serves individuals described in subsection (a), 
     including entities providing baseline and follow-up 
     screening, clinical examinations, or long-term medical or 
     mental health monitoring, analysis, or treatment to such 
     individuals such as the Mount Sinai Center for Occupational 
     and Environmental Medicine of New York City, the New York 
     City Fire Department's Bureau of Health Services and 
     Counseling Services Unit, the New York City Police 
     Foundation's Project COPE, the Police Organization Providing 
     Peer Assistance of New York City, and the New York City 
     Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's World Trade Center 
     Health Registry; or
       (ii) an entity not described in clause (i) that provides 
     similar services to the individuals described in such clause; 
     and
       (B) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (2) Eligible individuals.--Individuals eligible to receive 
     assistance from an entity under a grant under this section 
     shall include firefighters, police officers, paramedics, 
     workers, volunteers, residents, and any other individual who 
     worked at Ground Zero or Fresh Kills, or who lived or worked 
     in the vicinity of such areas, and whose health has 
     deteriorated as a result of the attacks described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Priority in Awarding Assistance.--An eligible entity 
     that receives a grant under this section shall use amounts 
     provided under such grant to provide assistance to 
     individuals in the following order of priority:
       (1) Individuals who are not covered under health insurance 
     coverage.
       (2) Individuals who need health care assistance beyond what 
     their health insurance coverage provides.
       (3) Individuals with insufficient health care insurance 
     coverage.
       (4) Individuals who are in need of health care coverage and 
     who are not described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3).
       (d) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and monthly thereafter, the Director 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shall 
     submit to the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives, a report on the use 
     of funds under this section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section, $1,914,000,000 for fiscal years 2007 
     through 2011.
       (2) Staff and administration.--The Secretary may use not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 of the amount appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) for staffing and administrative expenses related to the 
     implementation of this section.
       (3) Use of other funds.--The Secretary may use any funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     or any other funds specifically designated, to carry out this 
     section.

  Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Schumer as a 
cosponsor to 4958.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. At this time, I ask that we return to the regular 
order. I am going to yield 2 minutes to Senator Kerry and then reclaim 
the remainder of the time set aside for me on the Democratic side with 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. STEVENS. I object. Just a minute. We do not want to have a whole 
schedule here through one Senator having the floor.
  What amendment is now pending before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Schumer amendment. The amendment numbered 
4930 is now pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator from New York yielding time on Senator 
Schumer's amendment?
  Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent to set aside Senator Schumer's 
amendment and return to the regular order.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the request for time limitation on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Schumer amendment is the regular order. 
There is no time agreement on this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not objecting to her setting aside the Schumer 
amendment. She has made a request beyond that for a limitation of time 
on some amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask to speak on amendment 4958, 
which I ask to be pending at this time. The Senator from Massachusetts 
asked for a 2-minute timeframe. I was trying to accommodate the 
Senator. I had been told by our side I would have 20 minutes to speak 
on amendment No. 4958.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, if I could clarify for the Senate, on 
our side, what we would like to be able to do over the next half hour, 
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts would like 2 minutes, the Senator from 
New York would like 20 minutes, and we are willing to work with you in 
order to accommodate both those Senators.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't know who has the floor. I think the Senator from 
New York does.
  Madam President, we are perfectly willing to enter into a time 
agreement on the Senator's amendment, but we want some allocated to 
this side, too. We would like to know what the request is for time.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, could I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Kerry be given 2 minutes and I follow with 20 minutes and then 
we go back to the other side with their procedure as to their speakers?
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection to the Senator requesting time for 
herself and the Senator from Massachusetts. I just don't think it is 
right to have a time allocation without consideration of the Senators, 
that is all.
  Ms. COLLINS. And without checking with the managers of the bill. We 
have a great number of Senators who are seeking to bring up their 
amendments or speak on the bill, and it would be helpful if the Senator 
from New York would work through the managers of the bill.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I spoke with the Senator from 
Washington who is managing the bill on our side. That was the direction 
I received from the Senator from Washington. I would like the record to 
reflect that I am following the direction of the manager of the bill on 
our side.
  I hope we can move forward now with a unanimous consent order as to 
how we will proceed going forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York, and I 
thank the Senate.
  Madam President, I would like to speak as in morning business.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kerry are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 4958

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, is the pending business before the 
Senate amendment No. 4958?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this amendment goes to the heart of our obligations to 
one

[[Page S9478]]

another with respect to homeland security. It arises out of the attacks 
of 9/11, the extraordinary physical damage that has been done to 
thousands and thousands of New Yorkers and other Americans because they 
responded to that disaster, because they worked in the area of Ground 
Zero, because they lived or volunteered there.
  Each of us is marked in our own way by the events of 5 years ago. I 
need not recount them. We have just gone through a very painful 
anniversary of those attacks. My hope is we would not mark this 5-year 
anniversary merely by replayings and speeches and solemn readings of 
the names of the victims but that it would serve as a reminder of our 
unfinished business and a call to action on behalf of the service and 
sacrifice of first responders, workers, and volunteers who participated 
in the rescue and recovery at Ground Zero.
  I have worked over the past 5 years to honor the memories of those 
who died, to take care of their families, and to help rebuild New York. 
I have fought for the funding that has generously been offered by the 
American people to support the economic recovery of downtown New York, 
building new buildings, helping to support small businesses, creating 
new transportation infrastructure to replace that which was 
obliterated. And I have worked to secure funding, starting in the fall 
of 2001, to monitor those who were affected by the exposure to the 
toxic gases and substances in the air as a result of the attacks and 
the implosion of the buildings.
  I believe we have a moral obligation as a nation to take care of 
those who both took care of us and who attempted to return to their 
ordinary lives as a way of demonstrating solidarity and commitment, 
resilience and courage, in the face of the terrorist attacks.
  There is much we have to do, which is why we are debating this bill 
about port security. But there is so much more than port security. 
Democrats offered a comprehensive amendment to this bill that contained 
the recommendations of many experts, including the 9/11 Commission. 
Sadly, it was unsuccessful. But that does not mean it was not merited. 
We cannot rest until we have a comprehensive, well-funded strategy to 
deal with the threats we face.
  But I rise today to talk about a very specific issue. The toll of 
that fateful day goes beyond the families and friends and colleagues, 
the brave responders who saved 25,000 people in the greatest rescue 
mission in the history of the world. Their lives will always stand in 
our memory and in honor. But thousands of others rushed into that 
burning inferno. Thousands of others were there when that enormous, 
devastating cloud of death and destruction covered much of lower 
Manhattan, crossed the river to Brooklyn, crossed the river to New 
Jersey.
  We have been working to understand the health implications for the 
people who breathed that air. That is why I fought to get money for a 
monitoring and screening program that was established, both at the fire 
department to take care of our firefighters and also at one of our 
great hospitals, Mount Sinai, to figure out what happened to everybody 
else.
  The work that commenced from the moment the first plane hit was 
hazardous and difficult. For as long as 9 months, we had firefighters 
and police officers, trade and construction workers, other workers, 
volunteers, residents--we had probably at least 40,000 people coming 
and going and staying on that site. They worked and lived amidst the 
dust and the fog and the smog--a toxic mix of debris, smoke, and 
chemicals.
  I first visited the site about 24 hours after the attacks. I was 
within blocks of the epicenter of the attack, and I could not see 
anything. But I could smell it. I could taste it. I could literally 
feel it. And as I watched that curtain of darkness part and the 
firefighters walking out, covered in black soot, dragging their fire 
axes, barely able to stand after being on duty for probably 24 hours, I 
had the first inkling that the damaging effects of 9/11 would last far 
beyond the actual attack.
  Now, unfortunately, our Government officials in charge of making sure 
health and working conditions did not negatively impact our first 
responders sent mixed signals, at best. I would go further. They misled 
people. They said the air was safe. They made no effort to reach out 
and share the dangers that people knew were in this air.
  It was not only people from New York who responded; it was people 
from all over the country. My colleague, Senator Voinovich from Ohio, 
and I have a bill that would set up a system for the President to carry 
out a program for the monitoring of the health and safety of first 
responders who are exposed to harmful substances as a result of the 
disaster, rather than reacting on ad hoc basis, as we have had to do in 
the wake of 9/11.

  Because of what I witnessed firsthand, and what people started to 
tell me, the trademark World Trade Center cough appeared within days. 
People had trouble breathing. They had trouble swallowing. They were 
coughing. That is why I was so insistent upon getting $12 million to 
establish the World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening 
Program at Mount Sinai. We quickly realized they would need a lot more 
workers because thousands and thousands of people were signing up and 
coming. So we secured an additional $90 million, and we expanded the 
number of workers and volunteers, and that was in addition to what we 
did for the fire department, which ran its own program.
  Well, last week, Mount Sinai released a report that confirmed our 
worst fears. It confirmed an earlier report of the New York City Fire 
Department study. Tens of thousands of firefighters and all the others 
who were there were not only exposed but were suffering from 
significant medical and mental health problems. We are seeing young men 
and women in the prime of their lives, who were in excellent physical 
health, experiencing asthma, bronchitis, persistent sinusitis, 
laryngitis. They are suffering from serious diseases, reactive airwave 
disease. Their lungs are collapsing. Their livers are polluted. In 
fact, we are now seeing the first deaths.
  It is not enough to say we stand with the brave men and women who 
responded when we needed them. We have to do more. We appropriated $125 
million. And after a year and a half of struggle, money that was meant 
to go for the workers' comp system--because so many of these people 
cannot work anymore. They are on disability. They are forced into 
retirement. And so many of them--about 40 percent of them--who were 
screened at Mount Sinai had no insurance, so they cannot even get the 
treatment which they now know they need.
  We have met with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has 
promised to get the money released to begin treating these brave men 
and women. We have worked with Dr. John Howard, the Director of NIOSH, 
who has documented so many of the diseases and chronic conditions we 
have seen. But we have a long way to go, and we need to start now.
  I cannot give you an exact amount of money that it will take to take 
care of these thousands of people, but we know it is going to be a lot 
more than the $75 million we are waiting to be released on October 1. 
That is why this amendment would authorize $1.9 billion in grants to 
begin the process of setting up the system and over the next 5 years 
implementing a system to take care of thousands of people who are 
getting sick and who are dying.
  We had a bipartisan, bicameral hearing in New York City last week. 
One of the witnesses, Steve Cetrone, who is a Federal employee, sat 
before us--his skin yellowed from the disease of his liver, his memory 
shot, his lungs collapsing--and described in detail how his Government 
has let him down and left him behind.
  If we do not take care of these people now and start putting up a 
system we can have in place for the next several years, we are going to 
betray a fundamental responsibility to those whom we salute whenever it 
is convenient, when it is political. But enough with that. They do not 
want our speeches; they do not want our flowery rhetoric; they want our 
help.
  My amendment uses rough estimates of about $5,800 per individual per 
year to provide for the continuing monitoring, but, more importantly, 
to provide for the treatment of these individuals. These are the rough 
estimates, the best we have right now from the fire department and 
Mount Sinai.

[[Page S9479]]

  But we already know there are people on lung transplant lists who 
were on that pile. We already know people who have been disabled are 
unable to work and therefore have no insurance any longer. We know 
there are those who have died because of these exposures.
  Now, did everybody get sick? No. Will everybody who got sick die? No. 
Much of it depends upon where you were, what you were exposed to, what 
the intensity and the length of the exposure was. Some of it also 
depends upon your predisposition, your susceptibility, your genetic 
makeup.
  But take the case of Detective James Zadroga, a 34-year-old detective 
who joined the NYPD in 1992.
  He did not smoke. He had no known history of asthma. He was an 
exemplary New York PD detective, the kind they make TV shows about, 
someone with a shelf full of commendations, who put himself in harm's 
way time and time again to protect the people of New York. I spent time 
with his father Joseph, a retired police chief. You will hear about the 
450 hours that this decorated detective spent working on recovery 
efforts on the pile at Ground Zero in 2001. It filled his lungs with 
fiberglass, with pulverized concrete, and other toxic chemicals that 
destroyed his lungs. The stress and strain of his deteriorating 
physical condition was followed by the death of his wife, leaving him 
responsible for his 2-year-old daughter. He died on the floor of his 
bedroom with his little girl trying to wake him.
  I know this is an authorization bill, and I know that it doesn't 
appropriate money, but it does something equally important: it sets a 
marker, makes a statement, and it takes all of the words and claims of 
concern and puts them into action. It says we are not only with you in 
word and deed, but we will not abandon you in your time of need.
  If, as we hear, September 11 was a day that changed our Nation 
forever, and it is one that Americans will always remember, then let's 
not lose sight of its lessons. Let's finally heed the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission by fully implementing them. Let's do everything 
we can to make our bridges, tunnels, transit systems, rail lines, our 
entire infrastructure as safe as possible; otherwise, we are going to 
have a lot of autopsy reports like we had for James Zadroga. We are 
going to read about the deaths and disability of thousands of our 
bravest, most courageous men and women. We are going to see 
construction workers who, before 9/11, could lift three times their 
body weight in steel and do whatever was necessary to construct those 
skyscrapers but are now bent over in pain, unable to breathe and sleep. 
I don't think that is what we want as our legacy as a Nation coming out 
of 9/11.
  This country has been supportive of New York, and I am extremely 
grateful. But we were on the end of the spear when it came to absorbing 
the attack and reacting. Now we have to continue to keep faith with 
those who did our country proud in the hours, days, weeks, and months 
following that horrific attack on our Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask for the consideration of this amendment to honor 
those who honored us and to create a system to make sure that they do 
not go without care, that they get the treatment they need, that their 
life can be saved and prolonged, that we don't lose any more like that 
34-year-old detective. In his autopsy report, the pathologist said:

       It is felt with a reasonable degree of medical certainty 
     that the cause of death in this case was directly related to 
     the 9/11 incident.

  Let's not have any more victims of the terrorists. Let's not let bin 
Laden and al-Qaida claim any more Americans who die as a result of 
their evil attack on us. Let's band together and support those who need 
us in their hour. I hope we can make such a statement with this 
amendment today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the reports recently released by the 
Mount Sinai Center did reveal disturbing news about the long-term 
health effects suffered by those working in recovery efforts after 
September 11. It is very disturbing because, clearly, we should make 
every effort to respond to and monitor the health problems of those who 
were at or near Ground Zero on that day--the heroes who risked their 
own lives and, apparently, their long-term health by rushing in to 
rescue others.
  This amendment would direct the Secretary of HHS, acting through the 
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to award 
grants to entities to provide medical and mental health monitoring, 
tracking, and treatment to individuals whose health has been directly 
affected as a result of the attacks on New York City on September 11.
  I do have some questions about the amendment, however. For one--and I 
see the sponsors otherwise engaged, but I am going to pose the question 
anyway. Again, I am very sympathetic. I think we have an obligation to 
those rescue workers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, police 
officers, and others who risked their own lives and health to respond 
to the needs of others.
  I am concerned that the amendment only applies to those first 
responders in New York City. There may well be health impacts that were 
suffered by the rescue workers, firefighters, police officers, and 
others who responded to the Pentagon. I am concerned that the Senator 
limits the nearly $2 billion in funding to only New York, and that 
doesn't seem fair to me. It seems to me that it should apply to both 
jurisdictions. I don't know whether there were similar problems in 
Pennsylvania, as well, but it seems to me it should be broader.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may I respond to the Senator?
  Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York to 
respond to the question.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I greatly appreciate the Senator's awareness and 
commitment to doing something to help those who were affected. 
Certainly, from her position as chair of the Homeland Security 
Committee, she knows as much or more about these issues than any one of 
us. I appreciate greatly the suggestion that we include everyone. I 
make the following two additional points: Apparently, the rescue 
workers at the Pentagon were given respiratory equipment, given 
appropriate garb to wear, and were put into decontamination showers. 
They had the kind of worksite I wish we had had after a couple of days 
when the emergency immediately passed. So I wish we had that at Ground 
Zero. If there are those suffering from ill effects, I completely agree 
with the Senator. That is one of the reasons Senator Voinovich and I 
have joined together to try to expand the ability to treat first 
responders who come from anywhere. He had a rescue unit that went back 
to Ohio and they are sick.
  The final point in response to the Senator's question is, our issue 
in New York is somewhat complicated by the fact that the EPA, under 
then-Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, consistently stated that the 
air was safe, told the city, the State, and the workers that, and that 
there was no effort made to try to even obtain the respiratory 
equipment and other protective coverings the workers might have needed. 
I agree that we should not leave any of our responders behind, no 
matter where they came from or who they are.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from New York. The conditions in New York, as far as respiratory 
equipment, may have been different. But I have worked closely with 
Senator Voinovich on his broader bill. We reported it from the Homeland 
Security Committee. He offered it today as an amendment. I hope, 
perhaps, we can have a meeting of the minds on what is a real problem. 
We do not want those who were so brave that horrible day to not receive 
assistance, care, and monitoring for health problems associated with 
their bravery, regardless of which environment they were in.
  The second issue I have to raise is the extent of the resources that 
will be needed to deal with this issue. I don't know the basis for the 
nearly $2 billion authorization that the Senator has come up with, so I 
cannot comment on it.
  That leads me to my third point, which is the way the Senator has 
drafted this amendment, directing the Secretary of HHS, through the 
Director of the CDC, to allocate the funds. That means it is not in the 
jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee, or

[[Page S9480]]

even the Commerce Committee or Finance Committee. It is in the 
jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. So I have asked staff to notify the 
HELP Committee of this amendment so that they have an opportunity to 
review it.
  With that, let me again repeat that I think the Senator from New York 
has identified a real problem. It is not germane to the underlying port 
security bill, but it is an urgent and real problem. It is in another 
committee's jurisdiction. We have a different approach that the 
Homeland Security Committee has taken in working with Senator Voinovich 
because this even goes beyond 9/11.
  I know the Senator from New York has also worked with Senator 
Voinovich on his amendment, which is under the Homeland Security 
Committee's jurisdiction. So I suggest that we get some input from 
Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy, since they are the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong favor of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York. I have listened 
carefully to the reasons the other side is objecting. At this stage, it 
sounds as if they are objecting. I hope they will accept this 
amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Ms. COLLINS. There is not necessarily an objection. I don't know 
because it is not under the jurisdiction of the committee that I am 
privileged to chair. So I don't want to prejudge whether there is an 
objection from the HELP Committee or not because I don't know. I have 
saluted the Senator from New York for bringing a very real problem to 
our attention, although I wish it were on a different bill. I wish we 
would move the Voinovich bill separately, which has been on the 
calendar for a long time. I don't know that there is an objection on 
this side.
  Mrs. CLINTON. A point of clarification, Mr. President. I believe the 
amendment builds on the World Trade Center monitoring program which did 
go through Homeland Security. That may not be the best way to proceed 
in the future, but that is an existing structure.
  I absolutely agree with the Senator from Maine that the Voinovich 
bill will give us an opportunity to avoid these problems in the future, 
which has to be one of our primary goals.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad that I said what I did because 
maybe we have a chance to see this amendment get a favorable response 
in the Senate. It is true that this is broader than a port security 
bill, but so was Senator McCain's amendment and Senator Shelby's 
amendment. We are broadening this bill because I believe this is our 
last opportunity to address the issue of homeland defense.
  This is a great opportunity to look back at what we have done right 
and what we have done wrong. And one of the things that was wrong was 
when Christie Todd Whitman, then head of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, came before my committee, the Environment Committee, and said 
the air was safe. She said the air was safe. People were down there at 
that site. The Senators from New York, Senator Clinton and Senator 
Schumer, know best how people are suffering, but I can tell you, in 
California, when we had fierce fires and we had horrible problems that 
befell our first responders, I wrote a bill. At that time, we could not 
get a bill through that said that these first responders, these bravest 
of the brave, deserve to have health care. Many of them were working 
part time and didn't have health benefits. Many of them lost their jobs 
and lost their health benefits. That is what is happening to those who 
worked at the World Trade Center site.
  Senator Collins makes some good points about jurisdiction, but I 
don't think the families who are seeing their loved ones wheeze and 
cough--and one I just read about died literally holding the hand of his 
4-year-old--care that this bill before us is about the Department of 
Homeland Security but the amendment deals with the first responders 
through another agency. That is why politicians get such bad names 
sometimes, because we come up with the craziest reasons for saying we 
can't support something. I am encouraged that Senator Collins said not 
necessarily, that she may, in fact, support this bill.
  Words are cheap. We can say anything we want; it is free. But if you 
mean what you say, that the first responders are heroes, if you mean 
what you say when you say they should be lauded, remembered, their 
families protected, and all the rest, then do something about it.
  I am so pleased that the Senator from New York has given this Senate 
a chance to say thank you and to say we are sorry because some of the 
people were told the air was fine when it wasn't.
  I hope we will stand up and be counted. As I said earlier today, I am 
so glad we have the subject of homeland defense before this Senate. It 
comes in the form of a port security bill that Senators Collins and 
Murray worked on and on which many members of the Commerce Committee 
and other committees have also worked.
  This is a good bill, but we can't leave here thinking that because we 
did a port security bill, we have addressed the issue of homeland 
security and all the ramifications that followed from 9/11. We are 
making this bill better. We are making it more like the Reid amendment. 
We are going after rail security. We are going after transit security. 
And now with the Clinton amendment, we have a chance to help those who 
deserve to be helped--the heroes of 9/11.
  We were just reminded--we saw the scenes, we saw their selflessness, 
and this is a chance for everyone who spoke about them to cast a 
``yea'' vote for them. That is an opportunity we should not miss today.
  Again, my thanks go to the Senator from New York and my colleagues 
for allowing debate on this very important amendment.
  I yield the floor, and 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clinton amendment is the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order for as long as I may consume, not to exceed 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for not to exceed 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, September 11 has come and gone, and as we 
remember those who were lost, those lives that were lost on that awful 
day, that fateful day, and contemplate events since the horrific 
attack, one truth stands out: The war in Iraq has backfired, producing 
more recruits for terrorism and deep divisions within even our own 
country. It is a war we should never have begun.
  The detour from our attack on bin Laden and his minions hiding in the 
cracks and crevices of the rough terrain of Afghanistan, to the unwise 
and unprovoked attack on Iraq, has been a disastrous one.
  Mr. Bush's war has damaged the country because he drove our blessed 
land into an unnecessary conflict, utterly misreading the consequences, 
with the result now being a daily display of America's vulnerabilities 
to those who wish us ill. The United States is a weaker power now, 
especially in the Middle East but also in the court of world opinion. 
Where, where, where is the America of restraint? Where is the America 
of peace and of inspiration to millions? Where is the America respected 
not only for her military might but also for her powerful--her 
powerful--ideas and her reasonable diplomacy?

  Our country may have deviated occasionally from its positive global 
image in the past, but Abu Ghraib, the body snatching for torture, 
euphemistically called rendition, Presidential directives which 
unilaterally altered conditions of the Geneva Conventions--these

[[Page S9481]]

are not the stuff of mere slight deviations from the America of 
peacefulness, the America of fairness, and the America of goodwill. 
These are major policy and attitudinal changes of tsunami-sized 
proportions--tsunami-sized proportions. Our friends shake their heads 
in disbelief. Our enemies nod wisely and claim they knew all the while. 
I cannot remember a time in our history when our elected leaders have 
failed the people so completely, and yet, so far, are not held 
accountable for costly misjudgments and outright deceptions.
  Take our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for example. He 
misread the Iraqi situation completely and entirely. He adamantly 
dismisses suggestions for a larger force in Iraq. He failed to object 
when the White House's Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the 
Iraqi Army, only to have them go underground and provide fodder for the 
insurgency. Yes, he insisted that the Iraqi people would view our 
soldiers as liberators, not occupiers, and even failed to properly 
anticipate the equipment needs of our men and women in harm's way. Who 
am I talking about? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
  He continues to insist that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq, 
despite convincing evidence to the contrary. Yet he sits comfortably in 
his office as the echo of his errors in judgment and strategy continue 
to cost thousands of lives--thousands of lives.
  Then there is President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. These 
men continue to try to make the American public swallow whole the line 
that the war in Iraq is the frontline of a global war on terror which 
must be continued at all costs. Stay the course, they say, stay the 
course despite 3 years of discouragingly little progress in Iraq. The 
body count is approaching 2,700 for our side, tens of thousands for the 
beleaguered Iraqi people. We ought to think of them, too. Tens of 
thousands of men, women, and children, the Iraqi people, and billions--
billions, I say--billions of American tax dollars of which an 
embarrassingly large chunk has been wasted by irresponsible contractors 
and Government officials who lack the proper respect for the public 
purse. Many of our allies have left the field, recognizing the truth 
that the administration fails to see; namely, we had the weapons to win 
the war but not the wisdom to secure the peace.
  Yet too many in the public are utterly complacent about the numerous 
violations of the public trust and the continuing loss of human life in 
Iraq. Some of our citizens have apparently been convinced that it is 
unpatriotic to criticize one's country when that country is engaged in 
an armed conflict. In fact, in our land today, there is a troubling 
tolerance for Government overreaching on fronts at home as well as 
abroad. This administration has repeatedly used fear and flag-waving to 
blunt the traditional American insistence on the Bill of Rights: 
personal freedom of thought and action, privacy, and one's right to 
speak and write as one pleases. Such a cynical exercise on the part of 
high officials of our Government is unconscionable. It is shameful 
behavior for which there is no excuse--no excuse, none.
  The Congress, under the control of the President's party, has been 
submissive--submissive, a lap dog wagging its tail in appreciation of 
White House secrecy and deception. Yes, a lap dog Congress. Yes, we. 
Even the vast majority of the opposition party has been too quiet for 
too long, unable to find its voice, stunted by the demand to support 
the troops. We forget too often that there is a very real difference 
between support for the troops and support for an unnecessary war. The 
men and women of our military did not ask to go--no, they didn't ask to 
go to those faraway places, but they were willing. They went. They 
answered their country's call. We have an obligation to support them, 
but we do not need to follow blindly the unthinking policies that keep 
them mired in a country that is in the middle of a civil war.
  The American public is our last best hope now. You out there who are 
watching through those lenses, you are our last great hope, the 
American people. Our people must demand more from their 
representatives--from me, for one--their representatives in Congress, 
and from their leaders in the White House. Donald Rumsfeld should be 
replaced by the President because he has made so many grievous errors 
in judgment on Iraq and because a new voice--hear me now--a new voice 
at the helm at the Department of Defense could be a breath of fresh 
air--fresh air--yes, fresh air for our policies in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld's 
replacement would be good--good--for our country. Yet even a sense-of-
the-Senate vote of no confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership has been 
blocked by the President's party in the Senate. Personal accountability 
has been long absent from this administration, and I would like to see 
it returned.
  One would hope that men and women who rise to positions of awesome 
responsibility would have the grace, the dignity, and the honor to know 
in their own hearts when a well-timed resignation would advance 
patriotic goals. But too often, the selfish love of power or some 
misguided show of toughness wins the day to the detriment of our 
country's fortunes. Donald Rumsfeld ought to step down or his 
President, Mr. Bush, ought to ask him to step down. There is too much 
at stake for any other course.
  Personally, I believe the President is being derelict in his duties 
if he does not ask for Mr. Rumsfeld's latchkey. The bungling and the 
loss of life attendant to this tragic--this tragic--3-year-long debacle 
in Iraq have hurt this country, hurt its public image, and hurt its 
ability to achieve numerous other national and international goals. 
That kind of dangerous ineptitude should not be excused. It should not 
be excused. But like so many things, when it comes to Iraq and the 
Middle East in general, the United States of America is stuck in 
neutral, with the only thing showing vigorous movement--the ever-
spiraling price of gasoline. We have destabilized the Middle East and 
handed the Mullahs a way to affect the daily lives and livelihood of 
every American, and the efficacy of our military might: the oil supply 
lines upon which our own economy and our own military depend.
  Now that oil supply is the favorite target for terrorists who have 
learned the joys of bombing pipelines and listening to America bite its 
nails about the high cost of gasoline while it laments its lack of 
foresight in developing alternative fuels.
  Now we have passed yet another anniversary of the bloody attacks 
which precipitated the disastrous situation in which our country finds 
itself today. Yet while we mourn, there are hard truths to confront. 
Our attention has been shifted by design and deception too quickly from 
the war in Afghanistan, a war that we needed to fight, a war that we 
needed to win. Now the Taliban is on the rise in that country. Al-Qaida 
continues to find sanctuary in the mountains, violence is on the rise, 
and peace and stability are in jeopardy.
  North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption--a very 
unconstitutional-on-its-face doctrine--North Korea, probably reacting 
to our doctrine of preemption and our newfound bellicosity, has 
increased its nuclear capability. Iran has been emboldened by our 
inability to stop the violence in Iraq and by the lukewarm support that 
we have garnered from traditional allies. Even the people of Turkey--
even the people of Turkey, one of the United States's staunchest 
allies, Turkey, a member of NATO, and a model, yes, a model of secular 
Muslim democracy--have turned against us.
  A survey, conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, 
indicates that Iran has become one of the most popular countries in 
Turkey and that there is a growing willingness to identify with radical 
Islam. A display of ineptitude and spectacular miscalculation in Iraq 
has cost us dearly. Disenchantment at home with the dismal results in 
Iraq will have reverberations for years, much like the failure in 
Vietnam did in the 1960s.
  President Bush insists that his war must go on. He defends 
warrantless wiretapping of our own citizens as essential to his cause, 
despite a Court decision that the President has no such authority under 
our Constitution--our Constitution, this Constitution. He defends 
torture and rendition and says that they have produced valuable 
evidence which has subverted several terror attacks on our country. But 
his

[[Page S9482]]

credibility is so damaged that it is difficult to believe him. He 
demands the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely and then to 
try them using military tribunals which deny basic rights, also in 
defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. He seems convinced that he can win 
a global war on terror despite the demonstrated failure of his policies 
of unilateralism, militarism, overheated rhetoric, and a pathological 
dislike of diplomacy.
  So it is up to the Congress--up to us, the Congress, the people's 
branch--to change course and to stop the heinous raiding of 
constitutionally protected liberties by a White House which does not 
fully appreciate the true meaning of the word liberty, the true meaning 
of the word freedom.
  My fellow Senators, I hope that we may find the courage.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4975

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Under the previous order, there 
will now be 4 minutes of debate equally divided on the motion to table 
the Biden amendment.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take 1 minute and reserve 
1 minute. I make this motion to table because I believe this amendment 
is so comprehensive, it really doesn't belong on this bill. The concept 
of the funding for the activities recommended by the Biden amendment is 
the amendment mandates the committee to bring out a bill to provide the 
funding. It would be an increase of $32.8 billion for the Homeland 
Security Department; that is a 19-percent increase over the amount that 
has already been allocated. We do not need that. This is not the place 
to consider that, anyway. This deals with restoring the cuts that have 
taken place in law enforcement areas. It is looking at liquid 
explosives and hazardous materials concepts. It has a whole series of 
things in here that deal with funding--money for more FBI agents, more 
money for Justice Assistance grants, more money for Customs agents. A 
whole series of things are involved. It is two pages long.
  The money that would be authorized by the funds that the Biden 
amendment would mandate we provide under the appropriate procedures.
  Being essentially a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it is difficult 
to deal with, but that kind of resolution becomes a mandate in the next 
year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What happens if 
the Senator does not arrive and the time comes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains approximately 20 seconds in 
opposition to the motion.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me use the remainder of my other minute, then.
  I point out to the Senate that this amendment would create a new 
trust fund, and into that trust fund would go the moneys that would 
come from the mandate to the Finance Committee to reduce the scheduled 
and existing income tax reductions enacted since the taxable year 2001 
with respect to what taxpayers earn in excess of $1 million a year. 
That is a laudable thing, but this is not just a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution; it is a mandate to the Senate to do this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on the motion to table 
the Biden amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Chafee
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Senator Baucus's 10,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with this last vote, the senior Senator from 
Montana, Max Baucus, casts his 10,000th vote. He has entered into very 
good company having cast his 10,000th vote. Senator Sarbanes, Senator 
Lugar, and Senator Hatch are in the company with him.
  I applaud and congratulate my friend, Max Baucus. He has served a 
lifetime representing the people of the State of Montana. He was 
elected to the Montana State Legislature in 1973, the House of 
Representatives of the United States the next year, in 1978 elected to 
the Senate. He has a compelling background. He was raised on a ranch 
near Helena, MT.
  One of the fascinating things that speaks of Senator Baucus's 
personality, he did not know as a young man what he wanted to do. So to 
get his thoughts together and his head on straight, as he said, he 
decided he would travel the world. And he did that, by himself, 
hitchhiking and catching rides, and when he had a few dollars, he would 
catch some type of public transportation. He traveled the world over. 
He got very sick on an occasion or two drinking water that was not like 
water in Helena, MT.
  I repeat, it speaks of who Max Baucus is. He has an outstanding 
education. He was educated in one of the finest university's in the 
world, Stanford, for both his undergraduate work and for his law 
degree.
  When I was elected to the Senate, the first person to reach out to me 
socially was Max Baucus. He invited me to his home, where I met his 
lovely wife Wanda. Now, in the years since, because of our Senate 
schedules being as busy as they are, we have not done a lot of things 
socially. I speak to Wanda a lot on the telephone, trying to find 
Senator Baucus. She is, to me, a fascinating woman--whether she is 
doing her painting or writing a book, she is always doing something 
intriguing. They have a wonderful son Zeno.
  We all shared in the tragedy that occurred in Senator Baucus's life 
during the past few weeks when his nephew--who to Senator Baucus was 
like a son--United States Marine Corpsman Phillip Baucus, was killed in 
Iraq serving our country.
  I am almost embarrassed to talk about Max's athletic accomplishments 
because mine so pale in comparison. I always feel kind of good about 
the fact that I have run a lot of marathons. Marathons are nothing for 
Max Baucus. He has run 50-mile races, 100-mile races. Remember, a 
marathon is only a little over 26 miles. But in one race, he has run 
four times the marathon that I and others run.
  Senator Baucus has been chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, chairman of the Committee on Finance, ranking member now. He 
set a great example to me as I

[[Page S9483]]

was then a junior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee 
on the first highway transportation bill, working with him and Senator 
Moynihan.
  One of the things I recognize with Senator Baucus is he has been a 
great leader for our caucus and the Senate, from Social Security to the 
economy. Generally, we look to him for guidance.
  One of the things I also appreciate and admire in Senator Baucus is 
the working relationship that he has with Senator Grassley. They do not 
always agree on issues, but they have a real partnership in that 
Committee on Finance. I think they set an example for what all Senators 
should do, and certainly all chairman and ranking members. I so 
appreciate their working together. I repeat, they do not always agree, 
but they never are disagreeable in their disagreements.
  I know I speak for all Montanans, and I know I speak for all 
Democratic Senators, and I am sure Republican Senators, in expressing 
our admiration and respect for Senator Baucus in casting his 10,000th 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if I could follow on in the same vein in 
order to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished 
Democratic leader, knowing Senator Baucus, I bet he is so busy that he 
probably didn't even realize he was casting his 10,000th vote. I know 
it is a very major accomplishment; very few Members do that.
  I congratulate him. That signifies a lot of hard work in and of 
itself, but I think of the really hard work that Senator Baucus does 
working as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance--sometimes as 
chairman, sometimes as ranking member--and, more importantly, not just 
working hard but working in a cooperative way to get things done.
  I honor him. I didn't know anything about it. I am glad to hear about 
it. He should be recognized, and I thank him for the cooperation he has 
given to me over the years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I thank all 
my friends, especially Senator Reid and Senator Grassley. I had no idea 
I cast 10,000 votes until someone said it was the 10,000th about 15 
minutes ago.
  I have several thoughts. No. 1, it is such a privilege to represent 
the State of Montana. I have 900,000 of the world's best bosses. You 
could not ask for better employers than the people of the State of 
Montana. I am so grateful to have the privilege to serve my 900,000 
constituents.
  Second, I am reminded a little bit of years past. There have been 
very great Senators serving this body, a time when there was more 
agreement, more bipartisanship. It was not quite as partisan as it is 
today. I hope over the next 1,000 votes, or however many are cast, we 
move to a time of more bipartisanship; that we do work together.
  Senator Grassley and I are very lucky to work closely together. I am 
honored to work with him. There have been a lot of major votes I am 
proud of. There are a couple, as I look back, I wish I had not cast. 
But that's life. We do the very best we can, and most of us do a pretty 
good job.
  I thank my friends. I thank my colleagues. I thank everyone else who 
is part of the larger Senate for all that you do. It means a lot to me.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Before I call up an amendment, I will say a 
word about Senator Baucus. It is a measure of the man in times of 
tragedy how one will stand tall and be a healing force among the 
bereaved. In this terrible tragedy his family has had, the son of his 
brother being killed in Iraq, Senator Baucus was able to bring comfort 
to his family, and particularly to his brother, by going to the Air 
Force Base and receiving the body of his nephew and then escorting the 
coffin all the way to Montana, and returning that body, as the Good 
Book says, from dust to dust.
  I want to add my personal comments of appreciation for the life of 
Senator Baucus and especially for his public service.


                           Amendment No. 4968

  Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4968.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4968.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require the Department of Homeland Security provide 
Congress with a strategy for deploying radiation detection capabilities 
                  to all United States ports of entry)

       On page 27, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (h) Expansion to Other United States Ports of Entry.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after--
       (A) implementation of the program for the examination of 
     containers for radiation at ports of entry described in 
     subsection (a), and
       (B) submission of the strategy developed under subsection 
     (b) (and updating, if any, of that strategy under subsection 
     (c)),
     but no later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary shall 
     expand the strategy developed under subsection (b), in a 
     manner consistent with the requirements of subsection (b), to 
     provide for the deployment of radiation detection 
     capabilities at all other United States ports of entry not 
     covered by the strategy developed under subsection (b).
       (2) Risk assessment.--In expanding the strategy under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall identify and assess the 
     risks to those other ports of entry in order to determine 
     what equipment and practices will best mitigate the risks.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission Report 
said:

       [O]pportunities for terrorists to do us harm are as great--
     or greater--in our shipping ports as they are in commercial 
     aviation.

  We have done a pretty good job in tightening up the security of our 
airports but not so in our seaports. That is the purpose of this whole 
bill on port security.
  A respected policy center that studies terrorism looked at what would 
happen if a 10-kiloton bomb was detonated in a seaport--in this 
particular simulation, the Port of Long Beach, CA. They pointed out 
that 60,000 people would die instantly, and another 150,000 would 
suffer radiation poisoning, and some 2 to 3 million people would have 
to be relocated as a result of the contaminated land. Of course, the 
cost to our Nation's economy would be enormous--about $1 trillion under 
that scenario.
  Most experts agree that our ports are not only vulnerable but also 
the damage resulting from an attack could be catastrophic. Where are 
most of the ports located? Mostly, they are snuggled up to, close to, a 
downtown, a highly dense urban community.
  The State I represent, Florida, is home to 14 deepwater ports, so we 
have the task we are trying to address in this bill of protecting these 
ports and protecting the peace and security of our people.
  The outcome of this fight has very broad implications for our 
country. All of our Nation's 88 ports that handle cargo containers 
still remain vulnerable. Only--we are estimating--6 percent of all the 
cargo coming into these ports is fully inspected.
  Our own Department of Homeland Security says three out of four 
American ports do not have the equipment to screen for nuclear weapons 
or for a dirty bomb, which is a conventional weapon designed to spread 
radioactive material. And the Congressional Budget Office says the 
President's proposed plan falls about $130 million short of what is 
needed to protect these ports.
  I recall my former colleague from Florida, the former chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, former Senator Bob Graham, recently warned that 
the increase in Federal spending was not enough to adequately protect 
ports. This former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said 
that if he were a terrorist, he would know exactly how to go about 
wreaking havoc--he would head for a port with lax security and then do 
his dirty work.
  In the legislation before us, we have taken a giant step in the right 
direction. We are proposing to secure 22 of our Nation's busiest 
container ports. But what about the other 66 domestic container ports? 
Shouldn't they receive the scrutiny? And shouldn't we protect the 
additional 273 secondary sea and river ports in the United States?

[[Page S9484]]

  Certainly, we should. That is why I offer this amendment today, which 
will direct the Homeland Security Secretary to develop a strategy for 
the deployment of radiation detection capabilities at every U.S. port. 
I believe it is going to make all of us a little bit safer. There has 
been enough delay. Now it is time to do this. And we should do it 
right. So this legislation is the implementation of a program for the 
examination of containers for radiation at ports of entry described in 
the bill, not just the 22 major ports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the port security legislation we are 
considering requires that radiation detection equipment be installed in 
the busiest 22 ports of entry by the end of next year. That would 
result in 98 percent of all cargo coming into this country being 
screened for radiation or radiological devices.
  The Senator's amendment raises the question of, What about those 
smaller ports? Doesn't this invite, for example, terrorists, knowing 
they will be screened at the 22 largest ports, to instead divert 
dangerous cargo to a small port?
  The Department of Homeland Security wants to make sure it has 
flexibility to do, perhaps, handheld devices for screening rather than 
the expensive, large radiation portal monitors that are at big ports, 
such as Seattle.
  I would pose a question, through the Chair, to the Senator from 
Florida, whether there is anything in his amendment that speaks to the 
type of equipment that must be installed, because obviously, if you 
have a very small port that only gets a couple of cargo ships per year, 
it may not make sense to invest in radiation portal monitors, but it 
may make sense to, instead, assume that the Customs and Border Patrol 
agents are equipped with handheld screening devices, which still 
screen.
  So I would ask, through the Chair, my colleague from Florida whether 
his amendment, as I read it, gives flexibility to the Department as to 
the types of equipment, in keeping with the fact there are different 
needs and different volumes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Florida 
will be given the opportunity to reply.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Well, indeed, thank you, Mr. President.
  The Senator from Maine is exactly correct. There is the flexibility 
in the amendment for the Department to make that determination because 
it is specifying the implementation of a program for examination of 
containers for radiation at ports of entry.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his 
clarification.
  With that understanding, I am pleased to recommend that the Senate 
adopt his amendment.
  I yield to the Democratic manager of the bill to see if we could 
clear this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have cleared this amendment on the 
Democratic side, and we are happy to move forward with its adoption 
right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4968) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to 
setting aside the pending amendment?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we have had a lot of amendments offered 
on the Democratic side, and there are Republican Senators who are eager 
to come to the floor--Senator Coburn, Senator DeMint, Senator 
Voinovich--to complete the action on their amendments. I thought we had 
an understanding that we were going back and forth, but instead we seem 
to be doing Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment after 
Democratic amendment. So until I get some clarification on how we are 
going to proceed, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I totally understand the concerns of the 
Senator from Maine. I just would like to request--we only have one 
Senator on our side at this time who wants to bring up an amendment, 
and there are no Republicans here at this time. He is the only one I am 
aware of right now who is here in the Chamber ready to go. If it would 
not be objectionable, if it would be all right that he could just offer 
his amendment, he just wants to call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it would be helpful if the Democratic 
manager of the bill or the sponsor of the amendment gave us some idea 
as to the subject of the amendment and whether the Senator from New 
Jersey is seeking a full debate on it or just wants to call it up 
briefly--or what his intentions are.
  The Senator from New Jersey has an amendment that we are trying to 
put in a block of amendments to deal with the issue of scanning cargo. 
There are three such amendments that are pending: the amendment of the 
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer; the amendment of the Senator from 
New Jersey; and the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. I need 
more information about the Senator's intentions, given he has filed 
more than one amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from New Jersey 
just wants to call up his amendment and speak for a few minutes, if I 
am not incorrect.
  I say to the Senator from New Jersey, if you could just tell us--I 
believe it has been shared on both sides.
  I say to the Senator from Maine, I know your staff has a copy of it.
  But if the Senator could just explain his intentions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, my amendment is amendment No. 4999. It 
is to ultimately have a plan to move toward the scanning of cargo. I 
intend to speak for about 10 minutes on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, then I am going to have to object to the 
Senator proceeding at this time because we have proposed that all three 
amendments that deal with the scanning or screening of cargo be 
considered together, including the amendment of the Senator from New 
Jersey. If we can get an agreement where we could consider and debate 
all three amendments and then have three consecutive votes on those 
amendments, then I would not object. But if we cannot get that 
agreement, then I do object.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Coleman 
amendment No. 4982, to be followed by a vote in relation to the 
Menendez amendment No. 4999, with no amendment in order to either 
amendment prior to the vote; finally, that the time until the vote be 
equally divided between the two managers or their designees, and that 
there will be 2 minutes equally divided of debate prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have no objection to this agreement. I 
thank the manager for working through this with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.

[[Page S9485]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4999

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4999 be 
called up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4999.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the security of cargo containers destined for the 
                             United States)

       On page 30, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 126. PLAN FOR 100 PERCENT SCANNING OF CARGO CONTAINERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop an 
     initial plan to scan--
       (1) 100 percent of the cargo containers destined for the 
     United States before such containers arrive in the United 
     States; and
       (2) cargo containers before such containers leave ports in 
     the United States.
       (b) Plan Contents.--The plan developed under this section 
     shall include--
       (1) specific annual benchmarks for--
       (A) the percentage of cargo containers destined for the 
     United States that are scanned at a foreign port; and
       (B) the percentage of cargo containers originating in the 
     United States and destined for a foreign port that are 
     scanned in a port in the United States before leaving the 
     United States;
       (2) annual increases in the benchmarks described in 
     paragraph (1) until 100 percent of the cargo containers 
     destined for the United States are scanned before arriving in 
     the United States;
       (3) a description of the consequences to be imposed on 
     foreign ports or United States ports that do not meet the 
     benchmarks described in paragraphs (1) and (2), which may 
     include the loss of access to United States ports and fines;
       (4) the use of existing programs, including CSI and C-TPAT, 
     to reach annual benchmarks;
       (5) the use of scanning equipment, personnel, and 
     technology to reach the goal of 100 percent scanning of cargo 
     containers.
       On page 61, line 6, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       On page 62, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (5) an update of the initial 100 percent scanning plan 
     based on lessons learned from the pilot program.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Inouye, 
Senator Murray, and Senator Collins, for their work and attention to 
this critical subject. I am pleased to stand with them in trying to 
work to ensure that a concrete port security measure takes place that 
makes our Nation's ports safer than they are presently.
  We have just commemorated the fifth anniversary of the September 11 
attacks. I cannot think of a way in which we can learn from those 
lessons more than to finally come to an agreement on a strong, well-
funded port security bill. For those of us who represent States such as 
mine, New Jersey, with the largest ports in the country, it is not a 
moment too soon. In fact, some would argue that it comes rather late in 
the game. I have to agree.
  Five years after that tragic September day, nearly 4 years after 
Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and 2 years 
after the September 11 Commission issued its report and its 41 
recommendations, our Nation's busiest ports remain underfunded, 
understaffed, and overwhelmed. A myriad of new stories over the last 
week in the runup of the fifth anniversary of September 11 have 
consistently pointed to one irrefutable fact: our ports remain 
vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This is not news for some of us.
  In December of 2001, I introduced a port security measure in the 
House of Representatives which sought to fully understand the 
vulnerabilities we face at all of our ports. I certainly hope this will 
move us along in that way. I urge, certainly, that we come to that 
conclusion.
  Let's remember that an attack at our ports would not just hurt trade 
and commerce. Such an attack at a port would devastate surrounding 
communities. In August, the Rand Corporation released a report 
concluding that ``a nuclear explosion at the port of Long Beach could 
kill 60,000 people immediately, expose 150,000 more to radiation, and 
cause 10 times the economic loss of the September 11 attacks.''
  In my State of New Jersey, the Elizabeth-Newark Port, the largest 
container seaport on the east coast, handled more than $132 billion in 
goods in 2005 and creates over 200,000 jobs. Imagine what would happen 
to the Nation--not just New York or New Jersey--if commerce were shut 
down in this port. Imagine the number of lives in that immediate 
region, one of the greatest concentrations of population in the Nation.
  According to retired Coast Guard CDR Stephen Flynn, the cargo 
containers ``are a potential Trojan horse in the age of terrorism.'' He 
is right. Mr. Flynn pointed out that we are not keeping pace with the 
terrorists' capabilities. The threat continues to evolve. When we 
patched up one security hole, they found another gap, another 
vulnerability.
  In December 2005, small undercover teams of investigators from the 
Government Accountability Office were able to carry small amounts of 
Cesium 137, a radioactive material used for medical and industrial 
purposes, in the trunks of rental cars in the States of Washington and 
Texas. The Washington Post reported that the radioactive materials did 
set off alarms, but GAO agents were able to use phony documents to 
persuade U.S. border guards and Customs officers to let them pass into 
the country.
  As long as cargo containers remain a mainstay of international 
commerce, and as long as we cannot verify what is inside each and every 
one of them, we are vulnerable.
  Right now, only 5 percent of containers entering this country are 
inspected. That is a number which I believe would shock most Americans. 
Let me be clear. It would be unacceptable to screen only 5 percent of 
White House visitors every day, so why is it acceptable to scan only 5 
percent of cargo entering our country every day? Scanning anything less 
than 100 percent of cargo that enters our ports is irresponsible and 
downright negligent. Only scanning 5 percent of cargo containers that 
enter our ports is the equivalent of locking the car doors but leaving 
the windows down and the keys in the ignition. It is unacceptable.
  Even the system we now use to determine which of the 5 percent of 
containers to inspect is riddled with flaws. Customs inspectors rely on 
manifests and intelligence data--both of which can be unintentionally 
incorrect or even manipulated--to develop algorithms that tell them 
which container to open. We cannot take the risk that complex 
mathematical equations relying on faulty inputs will catch a chemical, 
nuclear, or biological weapon shipped into our ports. We need to 
develop a system that will eventually ensure that 100 percent of 
containers bound for this country are inspected, either physically or 
through effective nonintrusive scanning that will find and detect 
weapons no matter how they are disguised.
  We need to take advantage of existing technologies that can scan the 
inside of a container, even before it leaves a foreign port, and create 
a downloadable image of what is inside. That image can be reviewed in 
real time by security officials in the United States so we know exactly 
what the container holds before it even sets sail for our shores. By 
combining this technology with scans for radioactive material, we can 
find dangerous materials before they ever arrive in our ports.
  Port security is a serious matter that should be addressed with a 
comprehensive and consistent plan, not a game of ``Eeny Meeny Miney 
Mo'' to figure out which cargo container to scan. Five years after 
September 11, we must have a plan, a clear roadmap that describes how 
we will move our Nation to 100 percent scanning at our ports. To 
accomplish this, this amendment would require just that: to produce an 
initial plan, a tangible document that clearly outlines how to increase 
scanning to 100 percent at our ports. The plan must include yearly 
benchmarks and consequences for supply chain entities that fail to 
comply, and this could include loss of access to U.S. ports and levying 
of fines.
  My amendment also includes a requirement for an update of the initial 
100-percent scanning plan that would include lessons learned from the 
pilot system.
  The definition of 100 percent scanning is very important here, and I 
hope

[[Page S9486]]

our colleagues will focus on this issue. The American public should not 
be misled by anyone stating that screening is sufficient or that 
offering amendments for 100-percent screening is a step in the right 
direction.
  Let me be very clear: 100 percent screening means just looking at 
manifests, manifests that are often incomplete and incorrect. Relying 
on manifests is simply not the way to ensure cargo containers do not 
contain items they should not, items that could endanger the security 
of our ports, the surrounding communities, and the people in our 
country.
  I want to emphasize that I am not calling for all containers entering 
the United States to be opened up and examined. What I am calling for, 
and something that is well within our technical capabilities, is to 
ensure that all containers entering the United States have been scanned 
using nonintrusive technology.
  But to get to 100 percent container inspection and to have true 
container security, we also need to take immediate steps to put 
scanners in place here and abroad to track containers as they move 
across the ocean and to start protecting against not only nuclear but 
chemical and biological agents.
  In conclusion, we have been debating the details of this cargo 
inspection regime for far too long. It is not a new issue. But the time 
has come to act decisively and with one voice to make our ports safer 
than they are now.
  Five years after September 11, we still do not know what is entering 
our ports. Recently, a commercial airplane was diverted because someone 
forgot their BlackBerry on board. Yet thousands of cargo containers 
stream into our Nation every day without us knowing exactly what they 
contain.
  Just this past Monday, we commemorated the fifth anniversary of the 
attacks that shocked the Nation and took the lives of 3,000 Americans, 
including 700 New Jerseyans. We must remember the terrorists used 
methods beyond our wildest imaginations and spurred the Congress into 
some action to better protect our Nation. Here we stand 5 years later 
and we are still not scanning 100 percent of the cargo that enters our 
country. We are tempting fate in a most reckless way. We have 
identified a clear vulnerability and we must do everything we can to 
decrease the threat before it is too late.
  If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion 
dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a 
category 5 hurricane, we would have saved hundreds of lives, as well as 
the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild that city. I don't want 
this country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the 
realization that if we had taken action today, we could have prevented 
a major terrorist attack. Who among us would be satisfied in the 
aftermath of an attack that we did not take the steps that could have 
prevented it because we were unwilling to dedicate the necessary 
resources? That is the choice the Congress faces and the Senate faces 
today. And for the security of our country, it is essential that we 
make the right one.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can do so 
and move toward a plan that will give us 100 percent scanning.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of 
the Senator from New Jersey in which he advocates for 100 percent 
scanning. He says, for example, that is the only way we can be safe, 
that we would never scan just 5 percent of the people coming to the 
White House. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how the 
current system works, so let me start with an explanation of the 
layered system of security we have at our ports right now.
  First, all cargo manifests are submitted to authorities 24 hours 
before ships pull into ports. The automated targeting system is a 
sophisticated analysis that looks at where did the cargo come from, 
what is its destination, what is the cargo, who are the shippers 
involved, who is the retailer or other recipient of the cargo. Through 
a classified system, those and other factors are considered, and the 
cargo is assigned scores depending on this analysis.
  Let me first be very clear. Every single container goes through that 
step, and that is called screening. There is a lot of confusion among 
the terms ``screening,'' ``scanning,'' ``integrated scanning,'' and 
``inspection.'' So what I have described is the screening process that 
uses this automatic targeting system to identify at-risk containers.
  After the at-risk containers are identified, they are supposed to be 
scanned or even physically searched by Customs and Border Protection. 
However, an investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee, which Senator 
Coleman led, indicated that this system didn't always result in an 
inspection of the high-risk container, despite it being identified. 
Senator Coleman is going to be offering an amendment shortly that will 
ensure 100 percent scanning of those high-risk or at-risk containers. 
So that is one aspect of the system we have now.
  Another layer is the Container Security Initiative. Under this 
program, our American Customs and Border Patrol officers are stationed 
at foreign ports. The CSI program is currently operational in 44 ports 
which cover approximately 75 percent of containerized cargo heading for 
the United States by sea. What we do is we work with the host 
government, and again, the process is to push hazards away from our 
shores, identify the high-risk cargo, and make sure it is never loaded 
onto our ships in the first place.
  In addition, there is another system, which is that many containers 
are also scanned for radiological material at U.S. ports. When I 
visited, with the Senator from Washington State, the Seattle Port, we 
saw the radiation portal monitors that do this kind of scanning. Our 
bill requires that by the end of 2007, the largest U.S. ports must have 
radiation scanners which will ensure that 98 percent of inbound 
containers are scanned.
  There is also a Department of Energy program called the Megaports 
Initiative that is currently scanning containers in foreign ports for 
radiological material.
  Yet another layer of security is the Customs Trade Partnership 
Against Terrorism Program, the so-called C-TPAT Program. This is a 
program whereby manufacturers, retailers, and shippers secure the 
supply chain so that security is assured from the factory door to when 
the container arrives at our shores. Every step of the supply chain is 
secured. Senator Murray has improved upon that concept with her 
GreenLane concept which will give additional benefits to shippers who 
undertake even stronger security measures. This involves making sure, 
for example, that containers are sealed with electronic seals that can 
reveal whether they have been tampered with or opened en route. In 
other words, this is a risk-based approach to enhancing the security of 
our containers.
  At the same time--and this is the approach our bill builds upon--the 
layered approach to security allows the maritime cargo industry in the 
United States, which moves more than 11 million containers per year, to 
function efficiently. That is important. I have seen the giant VACIS 
machines that do these x-ray screenings. It is not that quick a 
process. It takes a while. It takes probably 4 minutes or so for them 
to go around the container, and then the analysis of those images can 
take up to 15 minutes.
  With 11 million containers entering the U.S. seaports every year, the 
delay caused by screening all containers would cause a massive backlog 
of cargo at the ports. That doesn't mean that someday--someday soon, I 
believe--we are not going to have the technology that will allow us to 
do an integrated scan, both in x ray and a scan for radiological 
material, in a far more efficient way and have a method of triggering 
an additional review if something is found.
  The Washington Post said it very well in an editorial yesterday when 
they said:

       The ``inspect all containers'' mantra is a red herring that 
     exploits America's fears about what might slip through in 
     order to score political points, ignoring the fact that there 
     are much more cost and time effective ways of keeping 
     dangerous cargo out of the country.

  Our bill we have brought before the Senate would do just that by 
strengthening and improving upon the existing

[[Page S9487]]

programs. I believe with Senator Coleman's amendment, which I am proud 
to cosponsor along with the Senator from Alaska, we can even improve it 
further and set the stage when someday--soon, I hope--we do have the 
technology that allows us to do 100 percent integrated scanning.
  The Senator from New Jersey just calls for scanning, so I don't know 
whether he doesn't want an integrated system which includes the 
radiological scan. But in any event, it has an integrated scanning 
system that will work and allow us to move cargo quickly. That is where 
we should be headed. We can't ignore the reality that we don't have the 
technology yet to do that effectively and efficiently now but that we 
can put in place a layered system that gives us greater protections 
than we have today.

  We have to realize also that we have limited resources. I remember an 
expert in port security once telling me that if you inspect everything, 
you inspect nothing. You have to focus on risk and you have to come up 
with systems that build a layered approach, starting with securing the 
supply chain, working with the governments of foreign ports, having 
radiological scanning, making sure we put into place a layered security 
system.
  I would note two other issues that I see in the amendment offered by 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  First, much to my surprise, the language on page 2 of his bill 
suggests that all outbound cargo from the United States would have to 
be scanned. I can't imagine what the impact on trade would be. They 
would be using the same equipment as the inbound containers, so it 
would cause a tremendous backlog in scanning containers.
  Second, he has some troubling language where he calls for a 
description of the consequences to be imposed on foreign ports or U.S. 
ports that don't meet the benchmarks described in his language, which 
may include the loss of access to U.S. ports and fines. What are we 
saying--that we are going to threaten ports with fines rather than 
working with them? That kind of language just invites retaliation by 
foreign governments, and I think it is misguided in the extreme.
  So I think the bill is a very good bill that we have brought before 
our colleagues and a balanced bill to deal with this issue, but I think 
we can strengthen it further, improve it further by adopting the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, which I am proud to support 
and cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4982

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and ask for the immediate consideration of 
amendment No. 4982.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Coleman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4982.

  Mr. COLEMAN. 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. 4982

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that 
 all cargo containers are screened before arriving at a United States 
  seaport, that all high-risk containers are scanned before leaving a 
 United States seaport, and that integrated scanning systems are fully 
deployed to scan all cargo containers entering the United States before 
                   they arrive in the United States)

       On page 66, before line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 233. SCREENING AND SCANNING OF CARGO CONTAINERS.

       (a) 100 Percent Screening of Cargo Containers and 100 
     Percent Scanning of High-Risk Containers.--
       (1) Screening of cargo containers.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that 100 percent of the cargo containers entering the 
     United States through a seaport undergo a screening to 
     identify high-risk containers.
       (2) Scanning of high-risk containers.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that 100 percent of the containers that have been 
     identified as high-risk are scanned before such containers 
     leave a United States seaport facility.
       (b) Full-Scale Implementation.--The Secretary, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Energy and foreign 
     partners, shall fully deploy integrated scanning systems to 
     scan all containers entering the United States before such 
     containers arrive in the United States as soon as the 
     Secretary determines that the integrated scanning system--
       (1) meets the requirements set forth in section 231(c);
       (2) has a sufficiently low false alarm rate for use in the 
     supply chain;
       (3) is capable of being deployed and operated at ports 
     overseas;
       (4) is capable of integrating, as necessary, with existing 
     systems;
       (5) does not significantly impact trade capacity and flow 
     of cargo at foreign or United States ports; and
       (6) provides an automated notification of questionable or 
     high-risk cargo as a trigger for further inspection by 
     appropriately trained personnel.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the submission 
     of a report under section 231(d), and every 6 months 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees describing the status of 
     full-scale deployment under subsection (b) and the cost of 
     deploying the system at each foreign port.

  Mr. COLEMAN. First, before I begin talking about my amendment, I wish 
to thank the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins, 
and her cosponsor for the work they have done on port security. The 
Senator from Washington has been a champion. Although she is not on our 
committee, she has spent as much time sitting in on these hearings as 
many committee members. It has been a magnificent display of 
bipartisanship and a magnificent display of the best in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Looking at the issues today, we have serious challenges, and I 
believe the bill before us does a magnificent job of addressing some of 
the greatest vulnerabilities our Nation faces. We have vulnerabilities, 
and our subcommittee did its own work in looking at some of these 
areas.
  For about 3 years, we have looked at these issues of trying to 
bolster America's port security and supply chain security. During the 
course of that, we identified numerous weaknesses. The subcommittee 
found at one point in time that only a de minimis number of high-risk 
containers were actually inspected. It was a very serious problem.
  The subcommittee found that an overwhelming proportion of C-TPAT 
companies that Chairman Collins talked about enjoy the benefits without 
having been inspected, without having the certifications you need to 
make sure that if you are going to give people the benefit of operating 
this program, they do it the right way. We found a flawed system that 
Homeland Security uses in identifying high-risk containers entering the 
United States. We raised concerns about the percentage of cargo 
containers entering U.S. ports that are actually screened with 
radiological devices. So these are just a handful of the significant 
problems we discovered.
  The bottom line is that the underlying legislation tackles these 
concerns and many other weaknesses head-on--head-on. So as someone who 
has spent 3 years looking at this issue, I look at the underlying bill 
and say the concerns that the subcommittee raised in terms of 
inadequate nuclear and radiological screening will be taken care of in 
a set period of time. There are deadlines in here. When Secretary 
Chertoff testified before our committee this week, he indicated that by 
the end of next year, 2007, we will have 100 percent screening of 
radiological material in this country. So the bill addresses it. The 
actions of the committee have moved the agency forward, and I think 
that is a good thing, although there is more to be done.
  One of the things I have been a champion of is the idea of screening 
and scanning all containers coming to our country. That is a goal. 
There are 11 million--11 million--that enter into our country, and the 
goal is it would be ideal to be able to scan every one. It is 
important, by the way, that we screen every one.
  One of the things we worry about here as we get closer to election 
season is that some language is generating some fears on the part of 
the American public about our vulnerability. People in this country 
should know that every container is screened. There is a system in 
place. Our chairman did a tremendous job of describing the layered 
security that is employed. There are layers of security that highlight 
high risks and allow us then to do a targeted job of dealing with the 
issue of security.

[[Page S9488]]

  We never have a 100-percent guarantee. We live in a world where there 
are few 100-percent guarantees. But we have a system that allows us to 
have this layered security, improved substantially by this bill, that 
allows the flow of commerce to go through.
  If my colleagues recall, Osama bin Laden said he wanted to destroy us 
economically. He wanted to cripple this country. He understood that if 
you destroy the economy, you destroy the country. So as we deal with 
this issue of supply chain security, we have to do everything we can to 
make sure we are secure. We also have to make sure we don't put things 
in place that achieve the goal of the terrorists, which is to destroy 
the flow of commerce and destroy the economy. That is the balance, and 
it is difficult. We are always erring on the side of safety.
  One of the things we saw during the course of our investigation--I 
had a chance to go to Hong Kong as well as the Port of Los Angeles and 
other ports throughout this country. But we saw in Hong Kong a system 
where they actually scanned every container. It was a very good system, 
by the way, in terms of getting a picture--I would call it kind of a 
moving CAT scan.
  The Senator from Maine talked about the systems we have here--a very 
slow process. Literally, the container is in one place and the system 
goes over it. In Hong Kong, they have a system that scans on kind of--I 
would call it a moving CAT scan. The trucks come through, they never 
stop, they are rolling right through, and on each and every one of them 
there is a picture taken and you get a scan, and then there is a 
radiological detection device that is over that and it goes through and 
it is magnificent. I think some of my colleagues saw that and said: We 
have to have that right here, right now. That sounds wonderful.
  It is important to note that, in fact, there are 40 lanes of traffic 
in Hong Kong, and only 2, only 2 have this system. So what we have in 
the underlying bill is an amendment that says we are going to set up a 
pilot project, and in that pilot project what we are going to do is we 
are going to test this system.

  By the way, it is also important to note that of all the images we 
get, they are not processed. We have a library of images where, God 
forbid there was an attack, we could go back and pinpoint where it came 
from and not shut down every port. But there is no use of those images 
today. They are not being fed into Langley, they are not being fed into 
our intelligence system, they are not being fed into anything. So in 
the end, when the Senator from Maine talks about an integrated system, 
integration means not just integration of a standing image with a 
radiological detection device but integration of the information that 
is being gathered, which is substantial, to be used then in terms of 
our own analysis of what is in that cargo--does it represent high-risk, 
et cetera.
  There is a great opportunity here, a great opportunity. But we are 
only at a point now where we have in one place in the world--we have 
two lanes of traffic that are using a system, and we now have the 
opportunity in this bill to get a pilot project, and I think it is 
magnificent. But there are also weaknesses we have which we then can 
address with this amendment, amendment No. 4982. What it says is--we 
kind of walked through and looked at what was in the bill, and we 
realized that, in operation, 100 percent of high-risk containers 
weren't being screened. This amendment says they will be. So every 
citizen out there should know that 100 percent of those containers 
which are identified as high risk will be screened, and that is 
important.
  Then we go to the next step, and we do it in a responsible way. I 
have always believed that good policy is good politics. We do this in a 
good-policy way. We say that the Secretary shall ensure that 100 
percent of the containers that have been identified as high risk are 
scanned before such containers leave a seaport facility. And then we 
say: The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and 
foreign partners, shall fully deploy integrated scanning systems to 
scan all containers entering the United States before such containers 
arrive in the United States as soon as the Secretary determines that--
and this is the key--the integrated scanning system has a sufficiently 
low false alarm rate, is capable of being deployed and operated in 
ports overseas, meets certain requirements set forth in the statute--
very basic requirements--does not significantly impact trade capacity 
and flow of cargo at foreign and U.S. ports.
  So we have a system that says: OK, Mr. Secretary, this is what you 
have to do, because we want this system in place, but we want it to be 
done in a way that doesn't cripple the supply chain and that 
practically can be done. It is nice to be able to say we want 100 
percent. I think we have about 704 operational seaports in 147 
countries today, and we have a scanning system that is used in 2 lanes 
and one that is not even integrated into our entire system. We are not 
there yet. We want to get there. This amendment puts us on a course to 
get there.
  Then, to make sure we are not simply leaving it to the discretion of 
the Secretary to say when he decides it should be done, we tell him to 
come back to us, to come back to our colleagues in Congress, and we 
want to know where you are. So it says that not later than 6 months--
and the underlying pilot project requires the Secretary to come back--
it is a 1-year pilot project--come back within 120 days with a report 
and tell us how the pilot project worked. And then this amendment says 
that not later than 6 months after the submission of this report and 
every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
appropriate congressional committees describing the status of full-
scale deployment under subsection B and the cost of deploying the 
system at each foreign port.
  So what we have in place here is what I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle would say is the right way to go. We set in place a 
pilot project. We ask that the pilot project be evaluated. The 
Secretary is required to give us a report on how that pilot project is 
working, and then we tell the Secretary: Every 6 months, come back, 
because we want to know how close we are to getting to 100 percent 
scanning, how close we are and what else has to be done. It gives us 
the opportunity in a responsible way--a responsible way--to come back 
to see if we can put in place a system where we scan 100 percent. But 
scanning 100 percent on arbitrary deadlines, scanning 100 percent on 
impossible deadlines doesn't make any sense, and I am glad we are not 
at that point right now. We are at the point right now where we have in 
place the ability to significantly improve the level of safety and 
security in those 11 million cargo containers which are entering the 
United States.
  We have an underlying bill that does a magnificent job of addressing 
weaknesses that have been identified, and now we will take care of 
them. We have an amendment in place that builds on a pilot project, and 
building on that pilot project puts certain obligations on the 
Department of Homeland Security to come back to us in Congress and tell 
us how you are doing, and if you are not moving quick enough, we will 
be on your case. We will be on your case. We know what the goal is, and 
we share a common vision, and we have now a responsible way of doing 
it. That will allow the free flow of commerce, will allow jobs to grow, 
giving people economic security at the same time that we protect 
national security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from the 
New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
6 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time.
  After listening to this debate, I think my distinguished colleagues 
are talking about another pending amendment, not my amendment. My 
amendment is very clear and forthright. It asks for a plan to achieve 
100 percent scanning--a plan.
  Now, after listening to the debate, the reality is that after all of 
the items that were discussed, that still is only 1 percent scanning of 
5 percent of the cargo. Let's not get confused. Words matter. There is 
a difference between screening and scanning.

  Who in our country will be satisfied with a mathematical equation 
being used as the way in which we determine what 5 percent ultimately 
gets taken care of? What it still says, notwithstanding all those 
layers of security

[[Page S9489]]

that the distinguished Senator from Maine spoke about, is that still 
only has us reviewing 5 percent of the cargo. That is what it does. So 
who among us is willing to allow mathematical equations that are based 
upon information that can be either intentionally or unintentionally 
faulty to ultimately protect the ports of this country, the people who 
work there, the communities that surround them, and the commerce of the 
Nation? I wouldn't.
  If Hong Kong can do this, the United States of America can do it. All 
we say is let's have the Department of Homeland Security develop a plan 
to achieve it. We do not insist on specific ways in which we do that. 
We allow them to develop the plan. But let's get to a plan for 100 
percent of the cargo.
  As for domestic, we say it will include benchmarks that they will 
determine in the plan for what type of cargo inspectors are inspecting 
here in the United States before they leave. It doesn't say 
specifically the amount, and as it relates to the loss of access to 
U.S. ports and fines, it says it may include such loss of access if we 
believe that is the way in which we should seek enforcement. It doesn't 
say ``it shall.'' It says ``it may.''
  At the end of the day, if we adopt the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota, we are still saying: OK, 5 percent is something we are 
willing to live with. At the end of the day, we do not move to a plan 
of 100 percent scanning of the Nation's cargo. Doesn't the Nation 
deserve a plan to get there, a plan that largely can be devised to 
ensure that both technological accomplishments, as well as security 
concerns, are brought together to achieve the goal? I think the Nation 
deserves a plan. So it is very important to understand that when we 
keep saying screen--screen means looking at a cargo manifest.
  I had the Port of Elizabeth in Newark in what was my former 
congressional district for 13 years and dealt with them for quite a bit 
on a number of issues. Screening just means let's look at what is in 
that container. Let's see the list. Where is it coming from? What port 
is it coming from? Let's ultimately take all of that and put it in a 
mathematical equation and look at what is inside the cargo. But that is 
not scanning 100 percent of what comes into the Nation. Let America not 
be confused by that.
  Also, this is about scanning it abroad. When we wait until it comes 
into a port of the United States, if it has a nuclear device in it, it 
is a little late. We need to be doing that scanning abroad.
  I urge my colleagues to understand the difference between these 
amendments. Ours produces a plan to get us to 100 percent of scanning, 
and it gives flexibility for the Department to do so, but it does move 
us toward that ultimate goal.
  With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Washington, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields the floor?
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 8\1/2\ minutes, the majority 
has 2\1/2\.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment 
brought by my colleague, Senator Menendez, because I think it covers 
the bases we are concerned about. This amendment, very simply, demands 
accountability from the Bush administration on port security. The bill 
before us contains an amendment as well, that I authored in committee, 
to require 100 percent screening of containers coming into the United 
States. These containers would have to be screened before they are 
loaded on ships at a foreign port. I think that is the time to do it.
  We have already seen attempts by the majority to downplay or even 
duck this requirement. I am not suggesting, in the interests of safety 
and security, that the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from Maine 
is less concerned about the security or the safety of our people. But I 
am supporting the Menendez amendment because he gets specifically to 
the point, and I think the approach that we take is the strongest one 
and in the best interests of the American people.
  We need the administration to tell the American people exactly how 
long it will take them to provide the security necessary to reach the 
level of a 100-percent screening requirement. Right now, as we all 
know, we only inspect around 5 percent of shipping containers coming 
into our country. Terrorists could smuggle weapons, nuclear or chemical 
weapons, into a harbor and potentially launch an attack even more 
devastating than the 9/11 attack we experienced.
  I listened very carefully to Senator Menendez review his amendment, 
and that is to get us to the 100 percent opportunity. The Senator from 
Minnesota says he believes there would be 100 percent screening. But 
that would come only after there have been paper documents saying what 
was being shipped was OK.
  I ask you, would we take the most honest presentation of a clergyman, 
a doctor, a lawyer, a judge, or an individual and say: OK, that 
individual can bypass security at the airport? Not on your life. And we 
should not do it here.
  Why do we want to put trust in a paper-laden system where the GAO 
says that many of the manifests and the documents for shipping cargo 
are unreliable, that they are not trustworthy. I think if we are really 
going to do the job people expect of us, we are going to have to try to 
get as quickly as we can to 100 percent screening. The amendment of 
Senator Menendez does absolutely that, so we ought not to tinker any 
further.
  Are we really serious about getting to the end of the game, 
protecting our citizens as much as we can? Then we have to do it by a 
100-percent screening. What we are not saying is do it overnight or do 
it by next week or next month. But we are saying: Give us the plan, Mr. 
President and this administration, on how you expect to do this.
  We have to remember one thing: Senator Menendez has, in his former 
territory, in his former constituency, the second largest port in the 
country; the New York-New Jersey Harbor is just that. He has worked 
with people who run the cargo operations. He knows the people who are 
terminal operators. He is very conscious of what it takes to protect 
ourselves to the last detail that we can.
  I believe we have to be in support of the Menendez amendment that 
says: OK, come on, tell us what it is that you plan to do to protect 
the people of America in a way that gives us comfort--not 1 out of 20 
cargo containers that arrive that might be supported by a paper 
manifest that doesn't mean an awful lot because there is plenty of 
opportunity to tinker with that cargo container before it leaves the 
shore unless we have scanned it at the last moment possible.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez amendment. Let's not 
waste any more of the time that the people of America need to feel 
secure about those ships that enter our harbors bringing goods into 
this country.
  I yield whatever time there is back to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the 
majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, 
and I retain a minute for myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues listening, the 
difference between the Menendez amendment and mine is America doesn't 
need another plan. There are some technical infirmities. There are some 
questions about what it may do in terms of our relations with other 
countries. Put all that aside. We don't need another plan. We need 
action. Maybe it is the ex-mayor in me. The underlying bill and the 
pilot project and the Coleman amendment will provide action. They put 
in place a pilot project to test how 100 percent scanning can work, and 
then it directs the Secretary to fully deploy, with a series of steps 
put in front of him, and then requires him to come back to Congress. It 
is not about planning, it is about action.
  The American public wants action. We are giving the action. We are 
strengthening our port security. We

[[Page S9490]]

are putting in place a pilot project. We are directing the Secretary to 
ensure there is 100 percent screening of every high-risk container, and 
then requiring him to fully deploy an integrated scanning system 100 
percent, lays out the conditions, and has him report back to us.
  I am not sure we can do any better today based on the technology we 
now have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if you think about it, those who are 
advocating that we go to 100 percent scanning prior to having the 
technology in place to do it efficiently without slowing down trade 
are, in fact, rejecting the whole notion of the C-TPAT Program. Why 
should a shipper, retailer or manufacturer, secure its supply chain 
from end to end if they are going to be subjected to the same kinds of 
inspection as a shipper who has high-risk cargo in an unsecured supply 
chain? That doesn't make any sense at all. It completely undermines the 
C-TPAT Program, the container security initiative, because it embraces 
the concept that all cargo is alike. It is not all alike. There are 
low-risk containers.
  I think we should think very carefully about the implications of this 
amendment. I think Senator Coleman has come up with an excellent 
amendment. He has done a great deal of work, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the Coleman-Collins-Stevens amendment and to vote against 
the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired. The 
Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe there is 3 minutes left on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey however much time 
he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Washington.
  I listened very carefully to what our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have said. I wonder about why it is we are defending a 
voluntary system, of sorts, that raises the question about why a 
shipper would waste any time tracing the source of the product if they 
are going to be inspected again. What are we doing? Are we saying the 
question is whether we trust the shipper? That is not the position we 
take at all.
  The position we take, that the amendment of Senator Menendez takes, 
is tell us when you are going to have 100 percent security. That is the 
right objective. We know that it works. We know in Hong Kong they can 
process a scan of a cargo container in something around 2 minutes at an 
average cost of about $8. Is it not worth it? We pass the cost along to 
the shipper. That is their cost, not the American taxpayer's cost.
  As regards relying on paperwork to give us a head's up as to whether 
that cargo should be inspected, GAO has found that shipping documents 
are one of the least reliable sources of information that Customs 
collects.
  One audit pre-9/11 showed that over 60 percent of these documents had 
major discrepancies. So who are we trying to defend? Are we trying to 
defend the well-being of the American people, of the economy that 
relies so much on harbor activity, on imported goods, or are we trying 
to satisfy an industrial perspective that says don't take the time, 
don't do that, let's trust, right now, 95 percent of the cargo that 
comes in here as being safe to reach our shores.
  I do not think that is a very good way for us to be reacting when 
everyone is so concerned about another terrorist attack, something that 
everybody is concerned about, a repetition of something that resembles 
9/11, or even worse.
  The best thing to do is stick to our guns and say that we want to see 
100 percent of those cargo containers scanned so we know what is in 
there. After it has been closed up, after everything else has been 
done, the paper manifest is still there, and whether they are exactly 
precise would not matter. We will know what is in that cargo container, 
and we will be able to protect the American people as we should.
  I, once again, hope Members will reject the amendment and support 
Senator Menendez's amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Coleman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Menendez amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Coleman amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     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
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Lautenberg
     Menendez
     Schumer

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Chafee
       
  The amendment (No. 4982) was agreed to.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Menendez amendment.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we just agreed to an amendment that will 
require 100 percent scanning of high-risk containers and put us on the 
path to having 100 percent scanning of containers, once it is feasible, 
once the technology is there.
  I am concerned about the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. I 
don't think it has the kind of thought in it that was in the Coleman 
amendment. There are two provisions, in particular, that concern me.
  One, it requires a plan for scanning containers that are going out of 
U.S. ports. That is going to slow down trade incredibly and will be a 
real problem for our farmers who are exporting their crops.
  Second, it has a provision requiring consequences to be imposed on 
foreign ports or U.S. ports that do not meet the benchmarks described 
in the plan, which may include a loss of access to U.S. ports and 
fines. This will lead to retaliation by foreign ports.
  I urge our colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Lautenberg as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with reference to the concerns the 
Senator from Maine raised, let me just say the amendment we just 
adopted says we are going to scan 100 percent of the

[[Page S9491]]

containers that have been identified as high risk before they leave the 
United States. So that is the very essence of what we seek to do as 
well.
  Secondly, the only amendment before the Senate that will move us to a 
plan to get to 100 percent scanning of all cargo in this country is the 
amendment presently before the Senate.
  If you want to continue to allow a mathematical equation to determine 
how we inspect only 5 percent of the cargo in this country, then that 
is what you just accomplished. If you want to move toward a plan to get 
100 percent scanning of all the cargo that comes into this country, 
giving the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to develop 
such a plan, then this amendment is the one you want to vote for.
  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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Chafee
       
  The amendment (No. 4999) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.


                           Amendment No. 4958

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up pending amendment No. 4958, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending. Is there a 
sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4096

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to read a letter I just received 
today from a representative of an American company that employs 
millions of workers, including hundreds in my home State of Montana.
  He writes:

       As one of the Nation's largest employers of people coming 
     off welfare, we have kept our end of the bargain and 
     continued hiring throughout this year with the understanding 
     that the Work Opportunity and Welfare to Work tax credits 
     would be extended.

  He continues:

       We now face a significant increase in our tax liability and 
     will have to book corresponding losses to our profitability 
     unless you act now. The ongoing frustration is taking its 
     toll on us.

  Indeed, the frustration over the 2005 expired tax incentives is 
taking its toll on millions of Americans.
  This letter is from the parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, 
HomeGoods, A.J. Wright, and Bob's Stores. That company likely has 
stores in each State in the Union and each congressional district. 
These are real people, real jobs, and real money on the line. Yet some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken these 
popular tax credits hostage. In fact, some have openly referred to 
these credits as ``hostages.'' Some have said that sometimes you have 
to kill hostages to be taken seriously. It is time that we end these 
threats and get back to the business of legislating.
  Let me remind everyone how many times these popular tax cuts have 
been set aside. We first passed them as part of the tax reconciliation 
bill last November. They passed this body, but they were set aside in 
order to accommodate provisions in that tax bill that were expiring, 
not in 2005 but expiring 4 years later in 2009. Then we were promised 
they would surely be included in the pension conference, the next tax 
vehicle. Once again, they were pulled out at the last moment after 
weeks of negotiations and haggling.
  The package we are discussing is a compromise package. It passed the 
House. It does not include everything I would want, but it is what we 
agreed to months ago, and it is what we should have enacted months ago.
  This package includes the research and development tax credit. I 
remind my colleagues that companies are now beginning to restate their 
financials. Why? Because Congress has not extended the R&D tax credit 
that expired at the end of last year. We have letters from companies 
saying they have to restate, but they had the R&D credit in the past. 
They have to start restating their financials. It is not in the law 
now. If we were going to extend it, we should have extended it a long 
time ago.
  The package includes the deduction for schoolteachers who buy 
supplies for their students. Of all things to give our teachers. Think 
of them, who buy supplies for their students. They are supposed to get 
a deduction. It expired last year. My Lord, here we are already at the 
beginning of the school year and the deduction is not there for them.
  The package includes the tuition deduction for college students 
trying to go back to school. It includes the deduction for State and 
local sales taxes. Just think. And it includes other widely supported 
tax cuts.
  If we do not enact these provisions, then millions of Americans will 
have their taxes increased. This Congress has been zealous in 
preventing tax increases several years into the future. We ought to 
prevent these tax increases which are happening today.
  I urge my colleagues to pass a clean, retroactive extension, back to 
the end of 2005, of these popular credits for businesses, 
schoolteachers, employers who hire welfare workers, and all the people 
who are depending on us to do the right thing. Let us end the 
frustration today.
  Mr. President, this amendment has more than 30 cosponsors. I imagine 
there would be many more if we asked them. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Bingaman, Feinstein, and Kennedy be added as cosponsors. I 
also ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama, Senator Reed from Rhode 
Island, Senator Akaka, and Senator Inouye be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096; that the Senate adopt my 
amendment that is at the desk, the substance of which is the agreed-
upon tax extender package; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the 
Senate return to the port security bill; and that all this occur 
without intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the issue before us is an issue we have 
addressed on the floor of the Senate. Republicans felt very strongly 
that these tax extenders need to be extended and brought them to the 
floor prior to our recess. Yes, they were coupled with two other 
issues, one of which was a permanent solution to the death tax, which 
is a fair thing to do, overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the 
people, and an increase in the minimum wage by 40 percent, something 
that I feel strongly that we are in a position to do.
  We took those issues to the floor. The bill was defeated by the other 
side

[[Page S9492]]

of the aisle. Again, it was very unfortunate. It was referred to as the 
so-called trifecta bill. I did switch my vote at that time, and it may 
well be that over the next couple of weeks, if we can continue to build 
support for these issues, we can bring that bill back to the floor.
  Thus, at this juncture, instead of breaking those bills up, we are 
going to keep those bills together, and thus I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before the Senator objects, may I make one 
comment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection has been heard on the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the views of the majority 
leader. I must remind all of our colleagues that we have been down that 
road a couple of times and that, in my judgment, they are not going to 
fly.
  I support the provisions that are in that package. This Senate has 
voted a couple of times, and it is my strongly held view in talking 
with Senators that it just is not going to get passed. In the meantime, 
it is important to get something passed that is so important to so many 
people.
  I hear what the majority leader is saying, but it is my judgment that 
sometimes it is better to go on and do legislation that can get enacted 
and not stick around and try to delude ourselves into passing bills 
that cannot get passed. That is why I am bringing this up today, 
because we can get this passed today, I am quite confident. 
Regrettably, the provisions the majority leader mentioned cannot be 
passed, and therefore we should not delay the passage of something that 
is so important to so many people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished colleague. Time is very short, I understand. That is why 
my colleague brings it to the floor now, because it is very important 
that we extend these tax provisions--sales tax, college tuition, and 
the R&D tax credit. It is very important. That is really the reason I 
took a bill I know my colleague supports, and that is a permanent 
solution to the death tax--maybe not exactly the way it is now, but he 
is somebody who supported that cause. Indeed, it has the majority 
support of the United States of America. It is the right thing to do. 
The minimum wage, again, I think is something that is broadly supported 
by the American people. And then the tax extenders. All three are 
broadly supported.
  The benefit is, if we can build that support and have it reflected on 
this floor--that is really on the Senator's side of the aisle--that 
would be the law of the land because it has already passed the House of 
Representatives. If we were to vote on these today, it would be signed 
by the President 3 days from now. That means people's minimum wage 
would go up 40 percent, the tax extenders would be done because it 
wouldn't have to go back to the House and it would be done 3 days from 
now, and we would have a permanent solution to the death tax, which is 
a fair and right thing to do.
  I am going to preserve that option for now. I appreciate my 
colleague's support because I think he probably does individually 
support each of those three issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I want 
to explain how we are going to proceed. Obviously, Senator Baucus made 
his unanimous consent request. I didn't anticipate that when we were 
ordering the speakers earlier. We are going to go to Senator Santorum 
for the purpose of an amendment, but he will only take 3 minutes, and 
then we are going to go to Senator Obama for his amendment, and then I 
am going to propose on behalf of Senator Voinovich an amendment he has 
worked out with the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 4990

       (Purpose: To provide for comprehensive border security, and 
     for other purposes.)
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4990 and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the pending amendment 
being set aside? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4990.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that I 
believe offers us an opportunity to secure our borders now. My bill 
takes a first-things-first approach and recognizes that it is 
imperative that we secure our borders now. This first step cannot--and 
should not have to--wait for a ``comprehensive'' solution. Once we 
secure our borders, we can look at all of the other illegal immigration 
related issues that remain. There is a bipartisan consensus on what 
needs to be done on border security and the provisions that make up 
this consensus. We should not hold our border security hostage to a 
broader initiative.
  My amendment will significantly increase the assets available for 
controlling our borders. It provides more inspectors, more marshals, 
and more border patrol agents on both the northern and southern 
borders. It provides new aerial vehicles and virtual fencing--camera, 
sensors, satellite and radar coverage, etc. It increases our 
surveillance assets and their deployment and provides for new 
checkpoints and ports of entry. It includes Senator Sessions' amendment 
for greater fencing along our southern border, including 370 miles of 
triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. It also 
provides for the acquisition of more helicopters, powerboats, motor 
vehicles, portable computers, radio communications, hand-held global 
positioning devices, night vision equipment, body armor, weapons, and 
detention space.
  While we know these resources will be critical improvements, it does 
not just throw resources at the problem. My amendment requires a 
comprehensive national strategy for border security, surveillance, 
ports of entry, information exchange between agencies, increasing the 
capacity to train border patrol agents and combating human smuggling. 
It enhances initiatives on biometric data, secure communications for 
border patrol agents, and document fraud detection. It includes Senator 
Ensign's language to temporarily deploy the National Guard to support 
the border patrol in securing our southern land border. Additionally, 
it increases punishment for the construction, of border tunnels or 
passages.
  When our borders are not secure, it is our cities and counties that 
are on the front lines, particularly those closest to the borders. 
Unfortunately, the negative impacts of illegal immigration are not 
limited to our border towns. Recently I worked with communities in 
southeastern Pennsylvania--Allentown, Easton, Bethlehem, Reading and 
Lancaster--as well as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan, to get one of the six recent Anti-Gang 
Initiative grants given by the Department of Justice. This area, called 
the Route 222 Corridor, was the only nonmetropolitan area to receive 
one of the $2.5 million grants to combat growing criminal activity in 
part because of illegal immigrants. However, I raise this issue here 
because U.S. Attorney Meehan's letter explains this issue very 
succinctly. He stated ``[e]ach city is seeing extensive Latino 
relocation to its poorer neighborhoods and housing projects. Once 
largely Puerto Rican, the minority populations are increasingly from 
Central America. Simultaneously, Mexican workers migrate to the 
agricultural areas around Lancaster, creating a southern link to 
criminal networks. The urban core is therefore transient, poor, non-
English speaking and often undocumented . . . In this fertile 
environment, the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA, and lately, MS-13, are 
recruiting or fighting with local gangs for control of the drug 
markets. Violence is a daily by-product.''
  My amendment provides relief for cities, counties, and States dealing

[[Page S9493]]

with increased costs because of illegal immigration--specifically those 
caused by the criminal acts of illegal immigrants. There are four 
programs included in my amendment to address these issues. First, there 
are grants to law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the Canadian 
or Mexican borders or such agencies where there is a lack of security 
and a rise in criminal activity because of the lack of border security, 
including a preference for communities with less than 50,000 people. 
Second, local governments can be reimbursed for costs associated with 
processing criminal illegal aliens such as indigent defense, criminal 
prosecution, translators, and court costs. Third, State and local law 
enforcement agencies can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the 
detention and transportation of an illegal alien to Federal custody. 
Finally, reimbursements are available for costs incurred in prosecuting 
criminal cases that were federally initiated but where the Federal 
entity declined to prosecute. In addition, my bill requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to provide sufficient transportation and 
officers to take illegal aliens apprehended by State and local law 
enforcement officers into custody for processing at a detention 
facility operated by the Department, and that the Secretary designate 
at least one Federal, State, or local facility in each State as the 
central facility to transfer custody to the Department of Homeland 
Security.

  This amendment also expedites the removal of criminal aliens from 
correctional facilities and expands border security programs through 
the Department of Commerce such as the Carrier Initiative, the Americas 
Counter Smuggling Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and 
the Free and Secure Trade Initiative.
  Throughout this debate, I have consistently stated that the first 
thing we must do is secure our Nation's borders. While the House and 
Senate are working to come to an agreement on the broader issues in an 
immigration bill, I am here to offer the Senate an opportunity to 
secure our borders now by adopting my Border Security First Amendment. 
Our borders must be secured now--not later. In the post 9/11 world we 
live in, our national security depends on our border security. We need 
to know who is coming into our country, where they are from, and what 
they are doing here. We must put first things first--we must secure our 
Nation's borders. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me in 
recognizing the urgency of this amendment.
  Again, I offer this amendment because I wish to make a point. The 
point is, we are talking about port security, and that is very 
important. But what I hear when I go home is not about port security, I 
hear about border security over and over again. If there is one issue 
people come up to me and talk to me about without fail, no matter what 
part of the State I am in, it is: What are you folks going to do about 
securing our borders?
  We passed a bill in the Senate that is not going anywhere in the 
House of Representatives. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere in 
conference right now. What we should do and what the people in America 
would like us to do is to secure the borders first.
  This amendment does just that. It is all the provisions in the 
Senate-passed bill that deal just with border security. If you want to 
talk about securing this country--and that is what this bill is about--
border security is a national security issue, it is an economic 
security issue, and it also has to do with who we are as a country and 
our ability to sustain our culture.
  This is an important amendment. I know this is not going to be 
germane postcloture, and we are going to have a cloture vote tomorrow 
morning. So I will not pursue it further because I am told I cannot get 
a vote on it. I bring this up because this is what we need to do 
between now and the end of this month before we recess. We need to pass 
a bill that secures our borders and tells the American people that we 
get it in Washington as to what the priorities are. There are other 
things we need to do, I understand that, but this is what we need to do 
and do first.


                     Amendment No. 4990, Withdrawn

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clinton amendment.
  Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4972, as Modified

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4972, as modified, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4972, as modified.

  Mr. OBAMA. 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 ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in 
                          times of emergency)

       On page 87, after line 18, add the following:

     SEC. 407. EVACUATION IN EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure the 
     preparation of communities for future natural, accidental, or 
     deliberate disasters by ensuring that the States prepare for 
     the evacuation of individuals with special needs.
       (b) Evacuation Plans for Individuals With Special Needs.--
     The Secretary, acting through the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall take appropriate actions to ensure 
     that each State, as that term is defined in section 2(14) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(14)), 
     requires appropriate State and local government officials to 
     develop detailed and comprehensive pre-disaster and post-
     disaster plans for the evacuation of individuals with special 
     needs, including the elderly, disabled individuals, low-
     income individuals and families, the homeless, and 
     individuals who do not speak English, in emergencies that 
     would warrant their evacuation, including plans for the 
     provision of food, water, and shelter for evacuees.
       (c) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report setting forth, for each State, the status and key 
     elements of the plans to evacuate individuals with special 
     needs in emergencies that would warrant their evacuation.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include a discussion of--
       (A) whether the States have the resources necessary to 
     implement fully their evacuation plans; and
       (B) the manner in which the plans of the States are 
     integrated with the response plans of the Federal Government 
     for emergencies that would require the evacuation of 
     individuals with special needs.

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would supplement the steps we are taking through this port security 
bill and increase our preparedness for a potential terrorist attack. My 
amendment is fairly modest. It requires FEMA to mandate that each State 
have a plan for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during 
times of emergency. Such plans would include an explanation of how 
these people--particularly low-income individuals and families, the 
elderly, the disabled, and those who cannot speak English--will be 
evacuated out of the emergency area and how the States will provide 
shelter, food, and water to these people once evacuated.
  This amendment was included in S. 1725 and passed out of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September of 2005.
  This amendment obviously grows out of the tragedy of Hurricane 
Katrina, which devastated the gulf coast a little more than a year ago. 
One of the most striking aspects of the devastation caused by Katrina 
is the majority of stranded victims who were our society's most 
vulnerable members. As I indicated, after the tragedy, I think the 
government officials who called for the evacuation of the gulf coast--
and this is true not just for Federal folks but also State and local 
officials--seemed to assume that all residents could pack up their 
families into an SUV, fill up the gas tank, drive out of town, and find 
a hotel in which to ride out the storm. As we learned, that was not the 
case. Many people were forced to find shelter in the Superdome or 
convention center because they did not own cars. They didn't have the 
money for a tank of gas or a hotel room. They

[[Page S9494]]

might not have wanted to leave their jobs or their belongings. Maybe 
they were in nursing homes or maybe they misunderstood the warnings 
because they didn't speak English. Whatever the reasons, thousands of 
people were not evacuated, and we saw the horrific results of that 
mistake.
  This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens in 
the gulf coast could easily happen again if we are faced with another 
natural disaster such as Katrina or a terrorist attack that struck one 
of our cities. That is why I have come to the floor to offer this 
amendment. Our charge as public servants is to worry about all people. 
I was troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were 
inadequate for large segments of the gulf coast. I have serious doubts 
at this point whether the plans in other regions are adequate as well. 
Perfect evacuation planning is obviously not possible, but greater 
advanced preparation can ensure the most vulnerable are not simply 
forgotten or ignored.
  Even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes the urgent need 
for action, and the Department's nationwide plan review published this 
June found:

       Significant weaknesses in evacuation planning are an area 
     of profound concern.

  Congress can and should act to address this concern by passing this 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment which, as I 
said, passed the Homeland Security Committee on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Maine is 
going to proceed with an amendment, but I ask unanimous consent that at 
the conclusion of her proceedings for the amendment, I be recognized to 
speak on the pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first I would inquire through the Chair 
of the Senator from Illinois whether he has modified his amendment. I 
didn't hear a request that it be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment was called up as modified.
  Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the clarification.
  Mr. President, this proposal of the Senator from Illinois is very 
similar to a provision of the post-Katrina Stafford Act reforms that 
were reported by the Homeland Security Committee. The Senator from 
Illinois is absolutely right that we need to do a far better job in 
this country of developing comprehensive plans for the evacuation of 
individuals with special needs before, during, and after a disaster.
  When we look at the experience with Hurricane Katrina, what we find 
is those who were left behind were predominantly elderly and disabled. 
Those were the characteristics that caused people to not be able to 
evacuate. Another factor was they tended to be lower income 
individuals, too. But the disabled individuals of the area, in 
Louisiana in particular, also actually had the experience of going to 
Red Cross shelters and being turned away, which is something I have 
discussed with the Red Cross.
  So I think it is a good idea to require State and local governments 
to develop these kinds of plans, and I am happy to accept the 
amendment. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Collins for supporting 
this amendment. I very much appreciate her remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4972), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to reconsider the vote on the Menendez amendment No. 4999 at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 4962, as Modified

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modified amendment 
of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the 
pending amendments are set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Voinovich, 
     for himself and Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4962, as modified.

  Ms. COLLINS. 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, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY DURING DISASTERS.

       (a) Protection of Health and Safety of Individuals in a 
     Disaster Area.--Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 408 the following:

     ``SEC. 409. PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY OF INDIVIDUALS IN 
                   A DISASTER AREA.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Certified monitoring program.--The term `certified 
     monitoring program' means a medical monitoring program--
       ``(A) in which a participating responder is a participant 
     as a condition of the employment of such participating 
     responder; and
       ``(B) that the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     certifies includes an adequate baseline medical screening.
       ``(2) High exposure level.--The term `high exposure level' 
     means a level of exposure to a substance of concern that is 
     for such a duration, or of such a magnitude, that adverse 
     effects on human health can be reasonably expected to occur, 
     as determined by the President in accordance with human 
     monitoring or environmental or other appropriate indicators.
       ``(3) Individual.--The term `individual' includes--
       ``(A) a worker or volunteer who responds to a disaster, 
     either natural or manmade, involving any mode of 
     transportation in the United States or disrupting the 
     transportation system of the United States, including--
       ``(i) a police officer;
       ``(ii) a firefighter;
       ``(iii) an emergency medical technician;
       ``(iv) any participating member of an urban search and 
     rescue team; and
       ``(v) any other relief or rescue worker or volunteer that 
     the President determines to be appropriate;
       ``(B) a worker who responds to a disaster, either natural 
     or manmade, involving any mode of transportation in the 
     United States or disrupting the transportation system of the 
     United States, by assisting in the cleanup or restoration of 
     critical infrastructure in and around a disaster area;
       ``(C) a person whose place of residence is in a disaster 
     area, caused by either a natural or manmade disaster 
     involving any mode of transportation in the United States or 
     disrupting the transportation system of the United States;
       ``(D) a person who is employed in or attends school, child 
     care, or adult day care in a building located in a disaster 
     area, caused by either a natural or manmade disaster 
     involving any mode of transportation in the United States or 
     disrupting the transportation system of the United States, of 
     the United States; and
       ``(E) any other person that the President determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(4) Participating responder.--The term `participating 
     responder' means an individual described in paragraph (3)(A).
       ``(5) Program.--The term `program' means a program 
     described in subsection (b) that is carried out for a 
     disaster area.
       ``(6) Substance of concern.--The term `substance of 
     concern' means a chemical or other substance that is 
     associated with potential acute or chronic human health 
     effects, the risk of exposure to which could potentially be 
     increased as the result of a disaster, as determined by the 
     President, in coordination with ATSDR and EPA, CDC, NIH, 
     FEMA, OSHA, and other agencies.
       ``(b) Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the President determines that 1 or 
     more substances of concern are being, or have been, released 
     in an area declared to be a disaster area under this Act and 
     disrupts the transportation system of the United States, the 
     President may carry out a program for the coordination and 
     protection, assessment, monitoring, and study of the health 
     and safety of individuals with high exposure levels to ensure 
     that--
       ``(A) the individuals are adequately informed about and 
     protected against potential health impacts of any substance 
     of concern and potential mental health impacts in a timely 
     manner;

[[Page S9495]]

       ``(B) the individuals are monitored and studied over time, 
     including through baseline and followup clinical health 
     examinations, for--
       ``(i) any short- and long-term health impacts of any 
     substance of concern; and
       ``(ii) any mental health impacts;
       ``(C) the individuals receive health care referrals as 
     needed and appropriate; and
       ``(D) information from any such monitoring and studies is 
     used to prevent or protect against similar health impacts 
     from future disasters.
       ``(2) Activities.--A program under paragraph (1) may 
     include such activities as--
       ``(A) collecting and analyzing environmental exposure data;
       ``(B) developing and disseminating information and 
     educational materials;
       ``(C) performing baseline and followup clinical health and 
     mental health examinations and taking biological samples;
       ``(D) establishing and maintaining an exposure registry;
       ``(E) studying the short- and long-term human health 
     impacts of any exposures through epidemiological and other 
     health studies; and
       ``(F) providing assistance to individuals in determining 
     eligibility for health coverage and identifying appropriate 
     health services.
       ``(3) Timing.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     activities under any program carried out under paragraph (1) 
     (including baseline health examinations) shall be commenced 
     in a timely manner that will ensure the highest level of 
     public health protection and effective monitoring.
       ``(4) Participation in registries and studies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Participation in any registry or study 
     that is part of a program carried out under paragraph (1) 
     shall be voluntary.
       ``(B) Protection of privacy.--The President shall take 
     appropriate measures to protect the privacy of any 
     participant in a registry or study described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(C) Priority.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     President shall give priority in any registry or study 
     described in subparagraph (A) to the protection, monitoring 
     and study of the health and safety of individuals with the 
     highest level of exposure to a substance of concern.
       ``(ii) Modifications.--Notwithstanding clause (i), the 
     President may modify the priority of a registry or study 
     described in subparagraph (A), if the President determines 
     such modification to be appropriate.
       ``(5) Cooperative agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President may carry out a program 
     under paragraph (1) through a cooperative agreement with a 
     medical institution, including a local health department, or 
     a consortium of medical institutions.
       ``(B) Selection criteria.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the President shall select, to carry out a 
     program under paragraph (1), a medical institution or a 
     consortium of medical institutions that--
       ``(i) is located near--

       ``(I) the disaster area with respect to which the program 
     is carried out; and
       ``(II) any other area in which there reside groups of 
     individuals that worked or volunteered in response to the 
     disaster; and

       ``(ii) has appropriate experience in the areas of 
     environmental or occupational health, toxicology, and safety, 
     including experience in--

       ``(I) developing clinical protocols and conducting clinical 
     health examinations, including mental health assessments;
       ``(II) conducting long-term health monitoring and 
     epidemiological studies;
       ``(III) conducting long-term mental health studies; and
       ``(IV) establishing and maintaining medical surveillance 
     programs and environmental exposure or disease registries.

       ``(6) Involvement.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out a program under 
     paragraph (1), the President shall involve interested and 
     affected parties, as appropriate, including representatives 
     of--
       ``(i) Federal, State, and local government agencies;
       ``(ii) groups of individuals that worked or volunteered in 
     response to the disaster in the disaster area;
       ``(iii) local residents, businesses, and schools (including 
     parents and teachers);
       ``(iv) health care providers; and
       ``(v) other organizations and persons.
       ``(B) Committees.--Involvement under subparagraph (A) may 
     be provided through the establishment of an advisory or 
     oversight committee or board.
       ``(7) Privacy.--The President shall carry out each program 
     under paragraph (1) in accordance with regulations relating 
     to privacy promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 
     U.S.C. 1320d-2 note; Public Law 104-191).
       ``(8) Existing programs.--In carrying out a program under 
     paragraph (1), the President may--
       ``(A) include the baseline clinical health examination of a 
     participating responder under a certified monitoring 
     programs; and
       ``(B) substitute the baseline clinical health examination 
     of a participating responder under a certified monitoring 
     program for a baseline clinical health examination under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     establishment of a program under subsection (b)(1), and every 
     5 years thereafter, the President, or the medical institution 
     or consortium of such institutions having entered into a 
     cooperative agreement under subsection (b)(5), may submit a 
     report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
     appropriate committees of Congress describing the programs 
     and studies carried out under the program.''.
       (b) National Academy of Sciences Report on Disaster Area 
     Health and Environmental Protection and Monitoring.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall jointly enter into a contract with 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and 
     prepare a report on disaster area health and environmental 
     protection and monitoring.
       (2) Participation of experts.--The report under paragraph 
     (1) shall be prepared with the participation of individuals 
     who have expertise in--
       (A) environmental health, safety, and medicine;
       (B) occupational health, safety, and medicine;
       (C) clinical medicine, including pediatrics;
       (D) environmental toxicology;
       (E) epidemiology;
       (F) mental health;
       (G) medical monitoring and surveillance;
       (H) environmental monitoring and surveillance;
       (I) environmental and industrial hygiene;
       (J) emergency planning and preparedness;
       (K) public outreach and education;
       (L) State and local health departments;
       (M) State and local environmental protection departments;
       (N) functions of workers that respond to disasters, 
     including first responders;
       (O) public health and family services.
       (3) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall provide 
     advice and recommendations regarding protecting and 
     monitoring the health and safety of individuals potentially 
     exposed to any chemical or other substance associated with 
     potential acute or chronic human health effects as the result 
     of a disaster, including advice and recommendations 
     regarding--
       (A) the establishment of protocols for monitoring and 
     responding to chemical or substance releases in a disaster 
     area to protect public health and safety, including--
       (i) chemicals or other substances for which samples should 
     be collected in the event of a disaster, including a 
     terrorist attack;
       (ii) chemical- or substance-specific methods of sample 
     collection, including sampling methodologies and locations;
       (iii) chemical- or substance-specific methods of sample 
     analysis;
       (iv) health-based threshold levels to be used and response 
     actions to be taken in the event that thresholds are exceeded 
     for individual chemicals or other substances;
       (v) procedures for providing monitoring results to--

       (I) appropriate Federal, State, and local government 
     agencies;
       (II) appropriate response personnel; and
       (III) the public;

       (vi) responsibilities of Federal, State, and local agencies 
     for--

       (I) collecting and analyzing samples;
       (II) reporting results; and
       (III) taking appropriate response actions; and

       (vii) capabilities and capacity within the Federal 
     Government to conduct appropriate environmental monitoring 
     and response in the event of a disaster, including a 
     terrorist attack; and
       (B) other issues specified by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, 
this reflects an agreement between the Senator from Oklahoma and the 
Senator from Ohio. It is my understanding that it has been cleared on 
both sides, and I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 4962), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Senator from 
Maine, the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Iowa, and the ranking 
members of those committees--Finance, Commerce, and Homeland Security--
for bringing forward this extremely important piece of legislation 
relative to port security. It has a lot of the initiatives in it that 
are necessary to be sure we move forward with a legal framework which 
will allow us to secure our ports.
  But I did want to make these points about what we have already done 
and

[[Page S9496]]

what we are doing, even though we may not have had the actual 
authorization language in place, because I think people listening to 
this debate may presume: Well, because they are actually debating this 
language, maybe nothing has been done on this point or on that point 
which has been raised, such as monitoring, such as Coast Guard 
enhancement, such as expanding the number of Customs officers.
  Nothing could be further from what is actually occurring on the 
ground. We have moved forward. Granted, we haven't done it under the 
context of authorization language; we have done it through the 
appropriations process. But we have moved forward very aggressively 
with the funding of port security as a Congress and as an 
administration.
  The Senate specifically has taken the leadership in this area. When 
the Homeland Security appropriations bill was on the floor under the 
authorship of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, we increased port 
security funding, which is already fairly significant within the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill; we increased it by over $600 
million specifically for port security initiatives. As a result, that 
additional funding, coupled with the funding which was already in place 
and which has been growing over the last few years, represented a very 
strong commitment to trying to upgrade our ports because we all 
recognize--there is no subtlety to this--the ports are a significant 
point of vulnerability for our Nation.
  Just to put this in context, if we are able to pass the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill as it passed the Senate--and I suspect we 
will be fairly close to those numbers as a result of the support we 
have received from Senator Cochran and from the leadership of both the 
House and the Senate in giving us the allocation plus some additional 
funds for emergencies to accomplish the type of funding initiatives we 
need--we will add 460 new Customs and Border Patrol agents purely for 
the purpose of port security. That is on top of the agents we already 
have, which number in the hundreds. We will add over $211 million for 
nonintrusive inspection equipment. We will add $139 million for 
container security initiatives, $60 million for Customs Trade 
Partnership Against Terrorism, and $27 million for the automatic 
targeting system.
  We have also committed massive amounts of dollars to the Coast Guard 
and to enhancing the Coast Guard's capability because they truly are 
the front line of port security. Our goal in the area of port security 
is not to wait for the ship to arrive in an American port before we 
actually know what is on it and before we have a chance to inspect it 
but to inspect that cargo before it even leaves the docks of the 
foreign nation that may be shipping it to us and to be sure we have the 
capability under any scenario to intercept a ship should we deem it to 
have suspicious cargo while it is at sea. In order to accomplish that, 
we have committed over $7.5 billion to the Coast Guard for border 
security. Of that, approximately $4 billion was specifically for port 
security, and about $2.1 billion of that was for an improvement of what 
is called their deepwater assets, which is really a misnomer. In my 
opinion, it should be called the inland water assets because 
essentially these new facilities, these new boats and aircraft are 
going to allow us to make sure our ports are more secure.
  The Coast Guard inspection effort was increased by $23 million for 
security assessment of foreign and domestic ports. That will allow the 
Coast Guard to pursue very aggressive unscheduled inspections of both 
foreign and domestic ports to see what their standards are.
  We have committed $10 million to set up two new interagency operation 
centers on top of the three operation centers we have already, which 
are port-oriented operation centers, which are very important to make 
sure we have a coordinated effort around especially our major ports in 
this country.
  We have $10 million of Coast Guard funding to do port security 
exercises. This is critical. We can't really plan effectively in a 
vacuum. We have to actually send out an exercise where we create an 
event which is artificial but which is treated as if it is real and 
have the Coast Guard and the various agencies engaged in the process of 
making sure they can respond to that event.
  We have added $786 million for the purposes of upgrading the cutter 
program and $50 million for the fast-response cutter program. Over 12 
of the medium-endurance cutters are going to be dramatically upgraded, 
and we are purchasing 5 patrol boats and 16 medium-response patrol 
boats. This is a lot of new hardware which will be put in the hands of 
the Coast Guard.
  On top of that, in the aircraft area, we are adding two major new 
patrol aircraft. We will have had 71 helicopters, as a result of this 
bill, armed, which is a major step forward. We only have I think two or 
three--maybe five helicopters armed today.
  Interestingly enough--and this is a little aside, a little vignette--
the Coast Guard has determined that they have 100 percent interdiction 
when they try to stop a boat with an armed helicopter versus a much 
lower interdiction rate when they try to stop a boat with an unarmed 
helicopter.
  We have extended the life of 18 of the helicopters--I am sorry--18 of 
the HC-130 planes, we have reengined the entire helicopter fleet, and 
we have dramatically expanded the mission capability of the HC-130J 
airplanes.
  So the Coast Guard has been given a robust infusion of funds for on-
the-ground capability in port security and out-in-the-port capability 
for port security.
  In addition, in the appropriations bill which passed the Senate 100 
to nothing, there was a $210 million commitment to support security 
grants, which was a significant increase. There was a $178 million 
commitment for the purchase of radiation portal monitors, which are 
obviously key to determining the major threat, which is the threat of a 
potential dirty weapon being brought into the United States through a 
port or a cargo vessel.
  So if you look at the authorization language in this bill relative to 
funds which this bill calls for in order to meet what are the needs of 
the ports, we have actually passed as an appropriation in the 
appropriations process essentially almost all the money. It is nice to 
have it authorized, but essentially what we have already done is 
appropriated. The only major difference would be in the port security 
grants, and even there we have made a very significant downpayment as a 
percentage of what this bill calls for. So there has been a strong 
commitment made already in the area of appropriating funds in order to 
make sure our ports are more secure. I did want to make that clear so 
that people watching this debate, as important as the debate is, would 
realize we haven't been waiting for the language to be brought 
forward. It is important language. It is critical language to do the 
job right. But we as a Congress, and the administration, have been 
moving forward to make sure that Homeland Security and especially the 
Coast Guard and those people who are responsible for making the 
decisions as to how we inspect, and the Customs and Border Patrol 
departments, have the resources they need in order to effectively begin 
to secure our ports.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 4945

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which 
is at the desk, amendment No. 4945. There are modifications at the 
desk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burns and Senator Cantwell 
be added as original cosponsors as well as make the following 
modifications to the amendment which is there at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified. The cosponsors will be added.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 27, on line 24 after ``emergency measures'', insert 
     the following:
       ``including wildfire recovery efforts in Montana and other 
     States''
       On page 28, after line 12, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 133. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall use an additional $200,000,000 of funds 
     of the Commodity Credit

[[Page S9497]]

     Corporation to carry out emergency measures identified by the 
     Secretary through the environmental quality incentives 
     program established under chapter 4 of subtitle D of title 
     XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et 
     seq.), of which not less than $50,000,000 shall be used to 
     carry out wildfire recovery efforts (including in Montana and 
     other States).''

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity 
to be here today. I thank Senators Collins and, of course, Patty Murray 
for the opportunity to speak.
  What I want to say is that I have been hearing rumors that the 
leadership staff says this drought disaster amendment is not germane. 
As far as I know, cloture has not been invoked. Until and unless 
cloture is invoked, it is germane. It cannot be ruled as not germane.
  The amendment I offered this morning now has 19 bipartisan 
cosponsors. I have already pointed to the chart to show what the extent 
of the drought is and the devastation that the drought is wreaking all 
across the middle part of the country and down into the southeastern 
part of the country as well.
  The drought conditions range from severe to less than moderate in 
most of the instances, and the darker, the more it is affecting. What 
isn't shown on this chart is the number of years that the drought has 
endured in some parts of the country.
  In Nebraska, for example, the drought in some cases is 7 continuous 
years in duration, planting with higher input costs and no crop for 
many farmers. Many have not been able to sustain themselves. They have 
had to leave their farms.
  Ranchers are being adversely affected by the drought, obviously, 
because their pastures are crisp where the grass should be green. The 
grass is brittle because of the continuing drought conditions.
  As a matter of fact, trying to get some recognition of what a drought 
consists of as opposed to a hurricane, which has a name in each and 
every case--I named this drought David just a few years ago. 
Unfortunately, in some caces Drought David is celebrating its seventh 
birthday, in other cases its fifth birthday, and in some other cases 2 
or 3 years. This is a continuing condition.
  That is why our farmers and ranchers deserve an up-or-down vote on 
this amendment. There is no ruling that it isn't germane. We could have 
an up-or-down vote on it tonight. I hope we would be able to do that.
  The severity continues, and denying an up-or-down vote doesn't mean 
the drought goes away. It just means the ranchers and farmers are not 
going to get what they deserve.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, No. 4945.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objectin, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I have put a public hold on 
the telecommunications legislation that has cleared the Senate Commerce 
Committee, and I have decided to come to the floor, from time to time, 
to try to outline why I have committed to block that legislation until 
the legislation ensures that the Internet will be free of 
discrimination.
  That is what the debate known as Net neutrality is all about. It is 
something I feel very strongly about. I think as colleagues and the 
country come to understand more about what this issue is all about, 
there will be increasing concern about the absence in this legislation 
of tough, enforceable provisions to ensure that the Internet is free of 
discrimination.
  Now, the lobbyists for the big communications concerns would like 
Americans to believe this is a very complicated issue. Certainly, there 
are technical aspects to it. But the bottom line proposition, Mr. 
President and colleagues, is, today, when you log on, you get to take 
your browser where you want to go, when you want to go there, and 
everybody is treated the same. That is what would change under this 
legislation because it would be possible, under the way the bill is 
written now, for major phone companies and cable companies to 
essentially set up what they have described--described in the business 
press--as a pay-to-play arrangement. It would change the fundamental 
nature of the way the Internet works today. I happen to think that is a 
great mistake.
  Now, in prior speeches, I have come to the floor to give examples of 
what the world would look like without Net neutrality for consumers and 
small business and innovators.
  Over the recess, a small business came to me and shared a story that 
I thought was particularly interesting. It is the story of a company 
known as New Mexico Chili. The two individuals, a married couple, who 
established this firm, NMChili.com, set it up as an alternative to the 
high-priced on-line Southwestern Chili stores that most people were 
forced to patronize on line. This couple started with a simple idea and 
a motto, ``Even our prices taste good.''
  From the small town of Hatch, NM, home of the world famous Labor Day 
Chile Festival, people from around the world can now access the 
wonderful chili that has made Hatch famous. Somebody from my hometown 
in Portland can go on line and within 48 hours have delivered to their 
doorstep Hatch's finest mild red chili or hot green chili.
  They have been able to achieve all of this because of the open nature 
of the Internet. They pay their fee to get on the Net and for the 
bandwidth they use, and the business can flourish. This is because the 
Net remains neutral and free of discrimination.
  Under the Senate Commerce Committee telecommunications bill, this 
would no longer be the case. This particular couple, in the small town 
of Hatch, NM, would be forced to pay fees to Internet access providers 
around the United States in order to have access to subscribers of 
these providers, or else they could get stuck in the ``slow lane.'' 
They would be left with two bad choices: If they pay the fees to the 
providers, they would no longer be able to say ``even our prices taste 
good,'' as they will be forced to charge customers more in order to 
continue to make profits. If they do not pay the fees to providers, 
their Web site would get stuck in what will become the Internet ``slow 
lane,'' angering customers and causing them to lose business to larger 
competitors who can afford to pay the fee. Either way, New Mexico 
Chili, a small business that came to us, would lose, and its customers 
would lose.
  In this example, the large businesses that own the Internet pipes 
extend their reach to the detriment of small business. According to the 
business plans of the major phone and cable companies, what they have 
been telling Wall Street, what is printed in the business press, this 
is the direction in which they are headed.
  Without Net neutrality, without strong, enforceable provisions to 
ensure that the Internet is free of discrimination, this small firm in 
New Mexico would not be able to use the Net the way they can today, and 
there would be thousands and thousands of other small businesses like 
it.
  Now, Mr. President and colleagues, we are going to hear a lot about 
this legislation in the days ahead. I have been hearing reports, for 
example, that if you have Net neutrality we are going to have problems 
for consumers in terms of blocking spam. That is not going to happen. 
And in the days ahead, I will outline how that is the case, as well.
  The newest attack is that Net neutrality would prevent parents from 
keeping pornographic content away from their children's eyes and ears. 
That also is not going to happen. That is why organizations with great 
interest and expertise in the area, groups such as the Parents 
Television Council, are strongly supporting an Internet that is free of 
discrimination, an Internet that has strong provisions to protect Net 
neutrality.

[[Page S9498]]

  The fact is, an Internet free of discrimination, an Internet that 
ensures there is Net neutrality is going to allow parents to do the 
same things they now do in terms of keeping pornography out of their 
home. And the fact is, I think it is going to give parents new tools in 
the days ahead to have additional new and exciting options in video 
programming that is free of the violence and foul language and sexual 
content that many of them are forced to buy today in order to receive 
the best educational programming on television. That is because the 
promise of a competitive Internet television market is going to grow 
fastest with an Internet that is free of discrimination and an Internet 
that ensures there is true Net neutrality.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senators who have been active 
on the legislation, the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the 
distinguished Senator from Washington, on the Senate floor. It is not 
my intent to get in the way of their moving this important legislation. 
So I intend to come to the floor on additional occasions in the days 
ahead to discuss this issue. I wanted to go through the example of that 
small business in New Mexico, New Mexico Chili, to outline why they 
benefit so dramatically with an Internet that is free of 
discrimination. I also wanted to outline why Net neutrality is so 
important to the cause of protecting parents and families from 
pornography and ensuring that those families have the tools to fight 
spam.
  As I have indicated to the Senate in the past, it is my intent to 
keep my public hold on the telecommunications legislation until strong 
language is included in that bill that ensures that the Internet, which 
today operates free of discrimination, treats all customers the same 
way. Until that is embedded in the legislation that comes before the 
Senate, I will continue to keep my hold on this legislation.
  I know the sponsors of tonight's bill have important work to do.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at another time I might discuss this 
subject, Net neutrality, with the Senator from Oregon. I think what I 
will do is send him a copy of all the letters I have received from his 
constituents who agree with me. But I thank him very much for his 
comments.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Clinton 
amendment. Although I understand the need to ensure that first 
responders and volunteers with definitive health effects from 9/11 
receive treatment, I remain very concerned with the current proposal 
from the Senator from New York.
  I must first say that I am sorry Senator Clinton did not speak with 
me first about this matter, as it falls within the HELP Committee 
jurisdiction, which I chair and of which Senator Clinton is a member.
  It also concerns me that the main genesis for action on this issue is 
a report released just last week from Mount Sinai, as part of the 
ongoing monitoring of health effects that we in Congress have 
authorized. Given that it has simply been a week since that report, we 
have not had a full amount of time to review that report and understand 
all of its implications.
  I am concerned with the Senator from New York's proposal to delegate 
CDC as the primary entity administering this program. Rather than rely 
on the current mechanisms for providing health care and treatment 
programs through the Health Resources and Services Administration at 
the Department of Health and Human Services, this amendment creates a 
new role for CDC, taking them away from critical public health 
activities, such as responding to bird flu and potential bioterrorist 
attacks.
  It is also important to make sure a program such as this is designed 
in such a way to meet the needs of the first responders and emergency 
workers that need it most.
  The eligibility criteria are also too vague and provide health care 
services for activities that are not related to the events of September 
11, 2001. I appreciate that Senator Clinton's staff have been clear 
with mine that this is an issue that she recognizes as flawed and she 
would like to address it. However, we do not have the time to do that 
right now. We should not as a responsible legislative body approve a 
flawed proposal.
  I do want to continue to work with the Senator from New York to 
address the health issues of the first responders who assisted in our 
response to 9/11. I know that time is limited in the remaining days of 
this Congress, and all of us would like all of our major priorities to 
be addressed. However, I have confirmed with HHS that they will soon 
send out another $75 million in addition to the $125 million which they 
have already distributed, to provide care and treatment to these 
individuals for the next few months.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a funding document from 
HHS be inserted into the Record that fully describes the funds that 
have been allocated to New York city to date.
  In closing, I want to restate my commitment to further investigating 
the health effects of 9/11 on first responders and working with HHS to 
ensure their health care needs are addressed.
  We do have time for thoughtful consideration and review of this 
issue, including giving HHS additional authorities through regular 
order.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Selected HHS Post 9/11 Funding


                                  cms

       Disaster Relief Medicaid Program: $335 million: HHS 
     provided expedited health care coverage for low-income New 
     York children and adults in the Medicaid, Child Health Plus 
     and Family Health Plus programs and temporary medical 
     coverage for those affected by the September 11th terrorist 
     attacks.


                                  hrsa

       Health Centers: $10 million in FY 2001: 33 Health Centers 
     grantees in New York City and Northern New Jersey received 
     one-time grants to support immediate costs of response as 
     well as longer-term health care services as a result of the 
     September 11th terrorist attacks.
       Grants to Health Care Providers: $35 million in FY 2001: 
     Funding was provided to St. Vincent's Hospital-Manhattan and 
     New York University Downtown Hospital, two of the hospitals 
     in Manhattan that were dramatically impacted by the September 
     11th terrorist attacks. These hospitals mobilized staff to 
     respond to hundreds of seriously injured patients.
       Grants to Health Care Providers: $135 million in FY 2002: 
     In FY 2002, a special grant to health care entities that 
     suffered financial losses directly attributable to the 
     September 11th terrorist attacks was provided under the 
     Hospital Emergency Response program.


                                 samhsa

       Emergency Assistance: $22 million in FY 2001: Funds were 
     provided to support mental health treatment for long-term 
     disorders and to expand substance abuse treatment services to 
     address the needs of individuals and families impacted by the 
     September 11th terrorist attacks.
       Other Counseling: $10 million in FY 2002: Funding was added 
     to the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative to improve 
     the quality of treatment services to children and adolescents 
     who experienced traumatic events. This funding supported 5 
     multi-year grants to address post traumatic stress disorders 
     in children.
       Other Counseling: $4 million in FY 2002: Mental health 
     grantees received funding to provide services to public 
     safety workers who are the first responders to national 
     disorders.


                                  cdc

       Contract to Mt. Sinai School of Medicine: $12 million FY 
     2002: Provided funding to Mt. Sinai School of Medicine via 
     contract for baseline safety screening of 12,000 responders, 
     rescue and recovery workers.
       World Trade Center Registry: $20 million FY 2002: CDC/ATSDR 
     established a registry of responders, residents and 
     occupants. The WTC Health Registry is operated by the NYC 
     Department of Health and Mental Hygiene with 71,000 
     registrants now enrolled.
       Federal Workers Screening: $3.7 million in FY 2002: Funds 
     were provided to the Office of Public Health Emergency 
     Preparedness to perform baseline medical screenings for 
     Federal responders.
       World Trade Center Monitoring Program: $90 million in FY 
     2002: Funds were provided to the New York City Fire 
     Department (FDNY), Mount Sinai School of Medicine, UMDNJ-
     Robert W Johnson Medical School, Research Foundation of CUNY, 
     NY University School of Medicine, and the Research Foundation 
     of the NY State University to administer baseline and follow-
     up screenings and clinical examinations and long-term health 
     monitoring and analysis for responders, rescue and recovery 
     workers. Approximately 6,000 screenings have been conducted 
     to date and 10,000 follow-up screenings. Approximately $33 
     million has not been obligated. NIOSH plans to obligate these 
     funds by FY 2008.
       World Trade Center Registry, Screening, and Treatment: $75 
     million in FY 2006: Appropriated to CDC in the FY 2006 
     Department

[[Page S9499]]

     of Defense Appropriations Act; to support existing programs 
     that administer baseline and follow-up screening, monitoring, 
     and provide treatment, support the WTC Health Registry and 
     two NYC Police Officers mental health support programs. A 
     total of $4.7 million has been awarded to the Mt. Sinai 
     Consortium and FDNY.


                                  nih

       National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: $10.5 
     million: In the aftermath of September 11th terrorist 
     attacks. NIEHS's Superfund Worker Education Training Program 
     created the primary safety training program for response and 
     cleanup workers at Ground Zero.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support today of the 
amendment offered by my colleague Senator Baucus. At the end of the 
last year, the higher education deduction, along with a number of other 
important tax credits, expired. This means that unless we act to extend 
it, nearly 4 million families and students will not be able to deduct 
their college tuition from their taxes for this year. At a time when 
college prices have more than doubled over the last 5 years, now is not 
the time for this deduction to disappear.
  In my State of New Jersey, as across the Nation, tuition is becoming 
a heavier burden on our students. New Jersey families spend an average 
of 34 percent of their income on tuition at a 4-year public university. 
The higher education deduction is a simple way that we can reduce that 
burden, by allowing taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 in tuition costs. 
Despite this, Congress has sat by while this and other crucial tax 
provisions expired.
  In addition to the higher education deduction, Senator Baucus's 
amendment would also extend the $250 deduction for out-of-pocket 
expenses that teachers spend on supplies for their classrooms. 
Purchasing supplies with their own money is only one of the many 
sacrifices our teachers make--this small deduction is the least we can 
do to help them shoulder that cost. In addition, the amendment would 
extend and expand the research and development credit for companies to 
spur innovation and continue new research, and the new markets tax 
credit, which helps bring loans and new investments to lower income 
communities.
  Today is now the fourth time this year we have considered extending 
the important tax credits contained in this amendment.
  We had our first chance in February, when a majority of this body 
voted to extend these provisions. Then in May, when we should have 
passed these extensions, instead, our Republican colleagues made a 
choice. Instead of extending the deduction for college tuition or out-
of-pocket teacher expenses, both of which have expired, our colleagues 
chose to extend tax cuts on something that does not expire for 2 more 
years--investment and capital gains income. Our colleagues chose to 
spend $50 billion to extend these tax cuts for 2 more years, when the 
cost to extend both the teacher out-of-pocket and college tuition 
deductions is less than $8 billion. The fact is, we are running out of 
time. As a hearing last week highlighted, if these extensions are not 
enacted into law by October 15, it will be too late for the IRS to 
adhere to them for this tax year. We likely have less than 10 
legislative days left in this body. If we do not act today, the 
question is, when?
  So, we have a choice once again today. Are we going to act to help 
students with the cost of their college tuition, or teachers with the 
sacrifices they make for their students, or are we going to sit by and 
pretend that these costs are not a hardship for millions of Americans?
  I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the 
need and the urgency to extend these provisions today, and not continue 
to wait, putting off tax relief that our students and families deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Baucus amendment, and to extend 
this relief today.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, on Monday, we marked the fifth anniversary 
of the September 11 attacks. The horror and sadness of the attacks on 
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon remain with us as a nation. We 
are still trying to come to grips with the security failures that 
allowed four civilian airplanes to be hijacked resulting in the death 
and injury of thousands of Americans and civilians from across the 
world.
  Fortunately, there has not been a terrorist attack on the United 
States since 9/11; but al-Qaida continues to perpetrate terrorist 
attacks throughout the world. We remain at risk.
  Today, we are considering legislation essential to keeping American 
ports and the maritime industry safe from terrorist attacks. I commend 
Senators Collins, Lieberman, Stevens, Inouye, Grassley, Baucus, and 
Murray for their work on this legislation.
  While our Nation acted quickly after 9/11 to secure our airports and 
airplanes, major vulnerabilities remain in maritime and surface 
transportation. As the 9/11 Commission concluded ``opportunities to do 
harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation'' 
as in commercial aviation. I am glad the Senate is finally turning its 
attention to these critical security challenges.
  A terrorist incident at one of our Nation's ports could have 
tremendous costs in human lives and force the shutdown of ports across 
the Nation, which would have devastating and long-term impacts on our 
economy.
  This bill is a good first step in protecting our seaports and 
maritime industry. However, there must be funds to support the homeland 
security initiatives in this bill if we are to make more than a 
symbolic effort. I am glad that the Senate accepted Senator Murray's 
amendment to provide dedicated funding for port security. This 
administration and Congress has not made port, rail, or transit 
security priorities for funding, and authorizing language while 
important is not sufficient.
  Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups continue to strike across the 
world. A recent survey by the Center for American Progress and Foreign 
Policy magazine of national security and terrorism experts found that 
86 percent believe the world is now more dangerous, and 84 percent 
believe the United States is losing the war on terror. For too long, 
the administration's focus on the war in Iraq has diverted resources 
and attention from the true war on terror. These are resources that 
could be used to fund security efforts at airports, at ports, on rail, 
and on public transit. These are resources that could be used at home 
to make us safer.
  Each year, more than 11 million containers pass through U.S. ports 
and 53,000 foreign-flagged vessels visiting them. Since 9/11, Congress 
has appropriated a total of $765 million for port security grants, 
including $173 million in fiscal year 2006, to help our ports adopt 
important security measures. The Coast Guard, however, estimated that 
needed port security improvements could cost more than $5 billion.
  Transit agencies around the country have identified in excess of $6 
billion in transit security needs--$5.2 billion in security-related 
capital investment and $800 million to support personnel and related 
operation security measures to ensure transit security and readiness.
  I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment coauthored by 
Banking Committee Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, Senator 
Allard, and me to the port security bill that will authorize a needs-
based grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to 
identify and address the vulnerabilities of our Nation's transit 
systems. I thank Senators Shelby and Sarbanes for their leadership and 
hard work on this vitally important issue.
  This amendment, consistent with the Public Transportation Security 
Act that passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, provides $3.5 billion 
over the next 3 years to transit agencies for projects designed to 
resist and deter terrorist attacks, including surveillance 
technologies, tunnel protection, chemical, biological, radiological, 
and explosive detection systems, perimeter protection, training, the 
establishment of redundant critical operations control systems, and 
other security improvements.
  Transit is the most common, and most vulnerable, target of terrorists 
worldwide, whether it is Madrid, London, Moscow, Tokyo, Israel, or 
Mumbai. According to a Brookings Institution study, 42 percent of all 
terrorist attacks between 1991 and 2001 were directed at mass transit 
systems.
  Transit is vital to providing mobility for millions of Americans and 
offers

[[Page S9500]]

tremendous economic benefits to our Nation. In the United States, 
people use public transportation over 32 million each week day compared 
to 2 million passengers who fly daily. Paradoxically, it is the very 
openness of the system that makes it vulnerable to terrorism. When one 
considers that roughly $9 per passenger is invested in aviation 
security, but less than one cent is invested in the security of each 
transit passenger, the need for this amendment and increased funding is 
clear.
  Transit agencies and the women and men who operate them have been 
doing a tremendous job to increase security in a post 9/11 world, but 
there is only so much they can do with the very limited resources at 
their disposal. Our Nation's 6,000 transit agencies face a difficult 
balancing act as they attempt to tighten security and continue to move 
people from home to work or school or shopping or other locations 
efficiently and affordably. This amendment authorizes necessary funding 
to provide transit agencies with the tools they need to secure our 
commuter trains, subways, ferries, and buses.
  With energy prices taking a larger chunk out of consumers' 
pocketbooks, public transit offers a solution to our national energy 
crisis and dependence on foreign oil. But, more Americans will not use 
transit unless commuters feel safe. I am glad that the Senate passed 
this bipartisan amendment which will grant transit security a similar 
standing as aviation security.
  I would also like to take a moment to touch upon some of the 
provisions in the Real Security Act amendment offered by Senator Reid 
that are relevant to efforts I have been working on in my capacity as a 
member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--HELP--
Committee. I am disappointed that this amendment failed on a budget 
point of order.
  At the end of last year, the majority inserted into the must pass 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill broad liability protections 
for drug manufacturers for countermeasure products. While we certainly 
need vaccines and other medications to protect the population from the 
array of potential biological, chemical, and nuclear agents that could 
be intentionally used against us, such sweeping immunity was not 
appropriate.
  At the same time, the bill did next to nothing to protect first 
responders, health care providers, and the general public should they 
be injured as a result of a countermeasure product utilized during the 
course of a public health emergency.
  Senator Reid's Real Security amendment provided for a sound and 
logical process for anyone who is injured or dies as a result of a 
countermeasure to receive fair and just compensation under the vaccine 
injury compensation fund. The amendment also provided appropriate 
indemnification for producers of countermeasure products.
  A key element in any effort to respond to a public health emergency 
is public trust and cooperation during the process. If our health care 
providers, first responders, and the general public do not have 
confidence in the response effort, they will choose not to participate. 
We have already been through this experience once with the President's 
failed effort to get first responders inoculated against smallpox.
  We must have thoughtful and clear procedures in place to demonstrate 
to those who may be called upon during a public health emergency that 
they will have recourse should they suffer as a result of a 
countermeasure intended to protect them. We all know that no vaccine or 
pharmaceutical is 100 percent safe. A small segment of the population 
will inevitably suffer an adverse event and to ensure they are taken 
care of in this event is the right and responsible thing to do.
  Another important area this amendment addresses is the need to 
strengthen our hospital and public health infrastructure.
  Federal efforts to shore up our hospitals and public health systems 
continue to fall short. Despite the ongoing support for bioterrorism 
preparedness activities in cities and states, grants for these 
important efforts, like many other critical domestic priorities, have 
actually declined over the past year.
  The Real Security amendment would have bolstered our hospitals and 
public health workforce in their preparedness efforts, enhances the 
ability of health care providers to respond during a public health 
emergency, and improves our domestic and international disease 
surveillance capabilities.
  When it comes to protecting our homeland against a terrorist attack, 
we can and must do more to fortify our ports, our transit systems, and 
our health care infrastructure. We must also reorient our priorities to 
ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our most important 
asset--our citizens.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to herald two amendments to this 
important homeland security legislation that, I hope, will go a long 
way toward improving the security of our nation's rail and mass transit 
systems.
  Yesterday, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
held a hearing at which Secretary Chertoff, representatives from the 
New York and Los Angeles County police departments, and two security 
experts testified about the future direction of homeland security. The 
witnesses expressed an eclectic array of views. But on at least one 
point, they were all in agreement: radical Islamic terrorists have 
targeted railroads and mass transit systems in Europe, and the United 
States could very well be next.
  Terrorists have hit the subways, trains, and buses of London, Madrid, 
Mumbai, Tokyo, Moscow, and Israel. It is inconceivable that they have 
forgotten about us in the United States.
  In fact, ``Jane's Intelligence Review'' posted a story on its Web 
site at the end of last month, stating that ``Terrorist attacks on 
trains and metro rail systems in cities such as Mumbai, London, Madrid, 
and Moscow suggest a sustained interest by terrorists in exploiting the 
often open aspect of commuter rail infrastructure to execute mass 
casualty attacks.''
  This is an enormous concern to nearly all of us in this body. 
Fourteen million people use rail and mass transit every day in this 
country. In my home State of Connecticut, for example, the Metro North 
New Haven line is one of the busiest rail lines in the United States, 
carrying about 110,000 riders each day. And the Stamford, CT, train 
station on that line is among the busiest city rail stations in the 
United States.
  Mass transit is a way of life for so many Americans. Our subways, 
trolleys, buses, and ferries carry millions of us to work each day, to 
shop, to sporting events, and to see friends and family. The speed, 
reliability, and convenience of mass transit has become a part of the 
cultural fabric of this Nation and helps to make us as mobile a Nation 
as we are.
  Unfortunately, transit systems pose one of the greatest challenges to 
security experts--a challenge that calls for the attention of our 
Nation's best and brightest minds and should be a much bigger priority 
for the Federal Government than it is has been.
  After the London bombings last July, our committee led a bipartisan 
investigation of the state of mass transit systems in the United 
States, culminating in a hearing on September 21, 2005. Chairman 
Collins and I examined the vulnerability of those systems, the threats 
to them, and the level and types of attention that our governments 
should devote to them.
  Unlike airports, which are closed systems, rail and transit systems 
are open and carry seven times as many people in a year. With so many 
stops, stations, and lines, we cannot install airport security type 
checks at every subway station, bus stop, and rail terminal. Traffic 
would come to a dead halt.
  But we can and must apply the ``can do, will do'' attitude we have 
adopted toward aviation security to mass transit and rail security. The 
amendments that we have added to this bill are an important step in 
that direction.
  The first of these amendments is Senators Shelby's and Sarbanes' 
proposal to beef up the security of our public transportation systems. 
I proudly cosponsored this amendment because of my strong belief and 
conviction that we need to do all we can to secure our mass transit 
systems.
  This week, the Commerce and Homeland Security Committees have put the 
interests of the country ahead of jurisdictional and party differences 
to work to improve the security of America's ports. That is real 
leadership.
  The Shelby-Sarbanes amendment was adopted by the Senate in the same 
vein. The Banking and Homeland Security Committees also have put aside

[[Page S9501]]

their jurisdictional differences to promote the interests of the 
country first. If the Senate produced more legislation in this manner, 
perhaps the American public could suspend its cynicism about our 
overwhelming absorption with scoring political points.
  The Shelby-Sarbanes amendment will authorize $3.5 billion in grants 
for mass transit security, including capital improvements, research and 
development, and operations.
  This amendment is an authorization but it sets a marker for the 
Congress to fund these grant programs in the subsequent appropriations 
cycles.
  The amendment also restores funding for the Public Transportation 
Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is the vehicle for mass 
transit systems all over the country to share and analyze intelligence 
about threats to their sector, and defenses against them.
  The second amendment I want to address is Senator McCain's rail 
security amendment, which I also cosponsored. In fact, when my friend 
from Arizona introduced this amendment as a bill in the 108th Congress, 
I cosponsored it then. It will make marked improvements in the security 
of our passenger rail systems with an authorization of $1.2 billion. 
The amendment directs the Department of Homeland Security to complete 
and prioritize recommendations regarding vulnerability assessments for 
freight and passenger rail transportation systems. Notably, the 
amendment would benefit Amtrak and its thousands of daily riders in 
three direct ways.
  The amendment also creates a pilot program to conduct random security 
screens of passengers and baggage at a specified number of Amtrak 
stations. It calls for certain fire and life-safety improvements and 
infrastructure upgrades to Amtrak tunnels on the Northeast Corridor. 
And it directs Amtrak to submit to the National Transportation Safety 
Board and the Secretary of Transportation a plan to address the needs 
of families of passengers involved in rail passenger accidents.
  Combined, the authorizations contained within these two amendments 
are in line with the American Public Transportation Association's 
estimate that $7.2 billion is needed to secure the country's rail and 
transit systems.
  Over the last few years, we have seen the decentralization of al-
Qaida and with it the growth of homegrown terrorist activities directed 
toward the open, densely populated, and vulnerable mass transit and 
rail systems. I am pleased the Senate has accepted these amendments 
which will help cities and States defend against these deadly threats.
  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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________