Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2245-S2253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY BY IMPLEMENTING UNFINISHED RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

Cloture Motion

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 4 and send a
cloture motion to the desk for consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 4, a bill to implement recommendations of the
9/11 Commission.
Joe Lieberman, Russell D. Feingold, Ben Cardin, Robert P.
Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K.
Akaka, Maria Cantwell, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Ben
Nelson, Carl Levin,

[[Page S2246]]

Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer,
Dick Durbin, Mark Pryor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote occur at 2:30 p.m., with the time between now and then equally
divided, and that the live quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with
the quorum being equally charged to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of cloture on
the upcoming vote on S. 4, which is the bill relating to the 9/11
Commission implementation.
I just saw, as I came into the Senate Chamber, outside in the
reception room a handful of people whom I would call American heroes.
These are women who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001, when
terrorists brutally attacked innocent Americans here on our shores, in
our homeland. They have taken their grief and worked very hard with
many of us here, first to get the Congress and the administration to
agree on the 9/11 Commission and then, when that Commission came in
with its extraordinary findings and report, worked with us to see that
legislation was passed which would implement so many of its
recommendations. That was a remarkable bipartisan achievement which I
believe has made our Nation safer from terrorist attack but not as safe
as we need to be.
In the time that followed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves asked us
to come back and implement the unimplemented parts of their original
report or to go back and take another look at the parts they believed
and we believed were not adequately implemented or funded, such as
homeland security grants or money for interoperable communication
systems that in a time of emergency, after a terrorist attack or a
natural disaster, enable our first responders to speak to each other in
order to adequately and promptly protect us.
These women who are outside the Chamber, whom I saw as I came in, are
here today to persuade the Senate to begin debate on legislation to
fulfill the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. The
legislation, S. 4, came out of our committee, and it was an honor and a
pleasure, as always, to work with Senator Collins. The bill passed our
committee with 16 votes in the affirmative and one abstention. It is a
very significant, solid piece of work and will make America and the
American people even safer.
Is it a perfect piece of work? No. We expect that many of our
colleagues will look at different parts of the bill and will want to
offer amendments. That is the nature of this process, and we look
forward to a good, healthy debate. There is a sense of urgency,
however. We are talking about homeland security. We are talking about
continuing to raise our guard against the terrorists who attacked us on
September 11th, 2001 and who we know are planning and intending to
attack us again in this most unconventional and deadly warfare on
behalf of a totalitarian ideology, radical Islam, which threatens us as
much as the totalitarian ideologies we defeated in the last century.
Together, both here at home and throughout the world, we will defeat
this threat.
I wish to indicate that most of the bill before us, S. 4, came out of
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. There are
other parts that came out of the Commerce and Banking Committees, and
they, in the ongoing process, will be blended with our bill.
I hope all of the Members of the Senate will vote for cloture so we
can proceed to the debate, consider the amendments, get the bill
passed, meet with the House in conference, and get a good bill to the
President to sign that will build on the security enhancements we have
achieved since that dark day of
9/11.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of invoking cloture on
the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of
2007. This legislation will strengthen our homeland security and will
do so in the spirit that shaped the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
I have worked very closely with the committee's chairman, Senator
Lieberman, as well as with the Presiding Officer, a valued member of
the committee, and with all of our committee members to shape this
important legislation. Indeed, the committee voted unanimously on
February 15 to report this bill. The bill before the Senate now is the
product of careful collaboration among the members of our committee,
State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response providers, the
private sector, the administration, and other stakeholders. It has
produced legislation that builds on the earlier work of the Committee
on Homeland Security over the last 3 years.
During that time, the committee has produced numerous pieces of
legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and
otherwise strengthening our homeland security. In the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress enacted many
significant measures to achieve the goals of the 9/11 Commission. In
fact, that bill implemented the most sweeping changes in our
intelligence community in more than 50 years.
More recently, in the last Congress, we passed measures that greatly
strengthened protections for America's cargo ports and chemical
facilities--again addressing vulnerabilities highlighted in the
Commission report. We also approved an overhaul and reform of FEMA that
will help improve our emergency response and prepared negotiation,
whether it is through terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
As reported by the Homeland Security Committee, S. 4 builds upon
these past successes. It would authorize a comprehensive homeland
security grant program that includes four vital programs to assist
State, local, and tribal governments in safeguarding our lives and
property. Our approach to this bill reflects our belief that homeland
security is a partnership and that our State and local partners are
vital to accomplishing this goal.
I will have much more to say about this bill as the debate proceeds.
I will reserve the remainder of my time, if any does remain, and I urge
my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to
this important bill.
As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with the committee
chairman and others, including the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield back all the remaining time,
and I ask for a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. I yield back the remaining time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Without objection, the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S.
184 is vitiated.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the motion to invoke cloture,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to

[[Page S2247]]

proceed to S. 4, a bill improving America's security by implementing
unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Biden
Dodd
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 0.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if no one is seeking the floor, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

trip to iraq

Mr. KYL. Madam President, a colleague of mine asked a little earlier
if I would give a brief report of a trip to Iraq, from which I just
returned, and I thought I would take this time to do that. Several of
my colleagues, both from the House of Representatives and the Senate,
Democrat and Republican, were able to make this trip, and I want to
report primarily on what we found when we went to Iraq.
I will start by saying we were in Israel the same day Secretary Rice
met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas, and so we had an opportunity to speak with a lot of leaders in
Israel as well about the status of the negotiations that had been
thought to proceed there, but with Hamas now likely being a part of the
Palestinian Government they are likely going to come to a halt. This is
most unfortunate.
Obviously, neither Israel nor the United States can have direct
dealings with a government which is dominated by a faction that refuses
to recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce terrorism or agree to
previous Palestinian agreements. This will complicate the process of
reaching a permanent accord that the people in the Palestinian areas
particularly want to have and the people of Israel also want to have in
order to bring violence to a close against them.
So, unfortunately, the news out of Israel is pretty much the same as
it has been year after year after year after year: Israel simply does
not have a partner for peace at this time. Obviously, Secretary of
State Rice is continuing to pursue the situation as best she can to try
to help the Israelis achieve that situation.
With regard to the Iraq situation, I took away three primary points
from our visit, and I want to discuss them briefly. The first is that
after having talked to our commanders on the ground, General Petraeus
and General Odierno, and a variety of other general officers as well as
troops of other rank, and Iraqi leaders, there is a sense of cautious
optimism about the new plan that has been announced and, in fact, is
already being implemented. Our troops have begun to arrive, Iraqi
troops arriving in greater numbers than before, primarily in the city
of Baghdad, and a new military strategy and a political, economic, and
diplomatic strategy has begun to play out.
Early signs are encouraging, though everyone cautioned that there
will be signs of progress, because they think it is a plan that can
succeed, but there will also be bad days.
Nobody should declare victory simply because things seem to be going
well for a while. An illustration of this is for about 3 days prior to
our arrival there had been no major incidences of violence in the city
of Baghdad, yet they were not willing to applaud that too loudly. Good
thing, because as we were leaving the country, a couple of car bombs
exploded. Clearly, it will be a matter of progress that is not
necessarily obvious and certainly will take a while to achieve.
Nonetheless, progress is possible this time because things are now
different. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq told us that in
his visits with people on the streets of Baghdad he was seeing
something new, and he said it was an attitude that this time things are
different; that there is an opportunity here for success, for a plan to
succeed, where it didn't exist before. It is not simply because of
greater American presence, it is also because the Iraqis are beginning
to do things differently than they had done in the past.
Whereas some people call this a troop surge, I think it is important
to note there are many other factors involved in addition to the
addition of Iraqi and American troops. For example, the Iraqis are now
going to be much more involved in maintaining control of an area after
it has been secured. Sometimes in the past the Iraqi or American troops
would take an area, would clear it of terrorists or militias, only to
have those people infiltrate back when we left. Clearly, an Iraqi
presence must be maintained in order for stability to be preserved, and
that is what we are now beginning to see.
The Iraqi Shiite death squads and militia activity have gone way
down. Again, this is, we believe, partially because of some things the
Iraqi Government has done, rounding up about 600 of the Shiite
troublemakers and working with the people in places such as Sadr City
to persuade them it is better to not resist control by the Iraqi Army
than it would be to fight. These are positive signs, but they are
certainly not an end of the problems.
There are little things that are being done, for example, to prevent
car bombs from going into marketplaces and blowing up a lot of people.
They are beginning now to create what are in effect pedestrian malls
such as we have in the United States, where vehicles are not permitted.
It might still be possible for a single suicide bomber to go into a
market and cause destruction but certainly not as much as a car bomb.
The point is, from a military tactical standpoint, the rules of
engagement, the activities of the Iraqis, as well as what the United
States is doing, all are working together to consolidate the gains that
have been made there and to preserve them.

There is also a diplomatic, economic, and political aspect. The newly
announced legislation to distribute the oil revenues of the nation to
the people of the country is a very important political step that will
give the people of Iraq more confidence in their Government. This was
mentioned by our Ambassador Khalilzad when we were there. So from the
military standpoint there are some signs this is already beginning to
work, and I certainly hope our colleagues here in the Congress will do
their best to allow this plan to work.
That brings me to the second point. Our commanders, both in Kuwait
and Iraq, were very clear that it was important the Congress pass the
supplemental appropriations bill to provide

[[Page S2248]]

the necessary equipment and reinforcements and not to tie down the
tactics of the people on the ground. They are very concerned that we
will somehow put limits on the kind of equipment that goes into theater
or the number of troops or where the troops go or how they are
deployed. Clearly, Congress should not be trying to micromanage a war,
and I hope my colleagues who have discussed that in some preliminary
way will see the detriment to such an action and will not offer
resolutions that would change the way these commanders are able to do
their job. This is something specifically that General Petraeus asked
of us.
The third and final point is the Iranian influence in Iraq cannot be
denied. It is true, I cannot read Farsi, the language of Iran. On the
other hand, when General Odierno holds up an item, one of those
explosive devices, and says, in Farsi this says ``made in Iran,'' I
can't verify that, but I believe General Odierno. He pointed to batch
and serial numbers on a variety of other weaponry and said, this can
all be traced back to Iran.
We are clearly in a situation where we must make it crystal clear to
the Iranian leaders this will not be tolerated. We have a right to
protect our troops in Iraq and their interference will be intolerable.
We have to find a way to get the Iranians to back off of that.
Those were three of the key impressions we took from our trip to
Iraq, and I think it boils down to this: Some of our colleagues like to
point to the Baker-Hamilton report and say that is what we should be
doing instead of what we are doing. Remember what Lee Hamilton said in
testimony before the Senate not too long ago. He said, the President's
announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. He specifically
said, give it a chance to succeed.
I think there was some discussion of elements of the study
commission's recommendations, such as a temporary troop surge, which is
not inconsistent with what we are now doing. That is what I think we
should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater,
our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early
signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and
they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be
unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here,
to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our
troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.
I deliberately did not raise the question of the debate back here in
Washington with the troops I met, but they raised it with me. They can
see what is going on. They watch television. They are very well aware
of what is being debated here. They are proud of what they are
accomplishing. Their morale is high. Yet I submit to my colleagues that
were we to pass legislation that would undercut their ability to
perform their mission as they see it, clearly that situation could
change, and this bothers our troops. It certainly, I think, would have
the effect of causing our enemies to ask whether we have the will to
see this through. As General Petraeus said, this is all about a test of
will. Secretary Gates, I believe, and General Petraeus said it as
well--in this war, it is a test of wills, and the United States has to
make it clear we have the will to see it through.
From our perspective as legislators, we can take the example of the
young men and women whom we put in harm's way to achieve a message. The
example I take from them is they have the will. They understand what is
at stake. They are proud of what they are doing, and they want us to
help them achieve the mission. I think that is the least we can do
under these circumstances. I hope my colleagues, as we debate in the
ensuing days, will keep in mind what these folks in Iraq who are on the
ground looking at this every day have to say about the situation and
that we won't do anything to undercut them but that we will do
everything in our power to support their mission.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 4, but I
thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his
report. It was very interesting for me to hear, and he will probably
not be surprised to hear I was both encouraged and in agreement with a
lot of what he had to say. I particularly heard that Senator Kyl found
in the field the first reactions to the implementation of the new plan
for Iraq have been encouraging. We all understand it is early, but it
conforms with what I have heard from people I have spoken to from Iraq,
in that particularly in the neighborhoods in which the joint United
States-Iraqi security forces have established dominance in Baghdad,
there has been a remarkable and significant drop in the sectarian
violence via death squads. Obviously, it is still possible, if someone
is crazy enough to be prepared to blow themselves up in a car in a
crowd, that the bombings will occur, but I appreciate that
encouragement.
I also agree with Senator Kyl that both Houses of Congress spoke on
these nonbinding resolutions. My colleague and I were both against
them. So I suppose what it shows is at this point there is a majority
in both Chambers, although not 60 votes here, that is prepared to say
in a nonbinding resolution they don't support the new plan, which
Senator Kyl and I would say is a new plan to achieve success in Iraq,
but that there clearly, in my opinion, are not the votes, not a
majority in either Chamber, to do anything else, and certainly not to
cut off funding for the new plan, which is the specific authority
Congress is given in the Constitution.
So I want to echo what I heard Senator Kyl say, which is that I think
this is the moment for a pause over on this side for what I have called
a truce in the political war here about the war in Iraq.
Let's give General Petraeus and his troops an opportunity to make
this work. If, God forbid, they don't, then there will be plenty of
time for amendments and resolutions and all the rest because between
now and then--General Petraeus said to us, when he was here before the
Armed Services Committee, that by the summer he would have an idea,
based on some evidence, of whether the new plan was working, and he
would report to us. He will begin to report quite soon, I think, on
what he is seeing.
Since I don't see that there is anything that will pass both Houses,
certainly nothing that will pass both Houses and be signed by the
President to try to block the carrying out of this new strategy, then I
think everybody would gain if we just did something that doesn't come
naturally to us, which is to remain silent for a while--particularly if
the sound and the fury will ultimately accomplish nothing between now
and then.
I thank my friend from Arizona.
Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 4. I thank my colleagues
for voting overwhelmingly to invoke cloture on S. 4. The bill, if I
understand the state of parliamentary play now, actually will not be
formally before the Senate for debate and amendments until tomorrow
morning. But I thought I might expedite the matter--because this is a
big bill, it is an important bill, there will be many amendments; I
think we will be on it several days--if I came over and offered my
opening statement on the bill today. I believe Senator Collins, the
ranking Republican member on the committee, may intend, as her schedule
allows, to do the same.
Incidentally, Senator Collins and I have--what was for me an honor--
worked very closely together on this bill to bring it out of committee.
I am very pleased the final vote was across party lines: 16 in favor, 1
abstention. So we bring the bill to the floor with a real sense of
bipartisanship.
The bill represents the hard work of the membership of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and includes provisions
that are in the jurisdictions of other key committees as well,
particularly Commerce and Banking, during which occasions Senator
Inouye and Senator Dodd may exercise their right, with my
encouragement, to manage those parts of the debate.
I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for working with all of
the committees that have contributed to this effort in bringing before
the Senate this comprehensive legislation that I am convinced will make
our country safer. I look forward to working in the days ahead with my
colleagues on both

[[Page S2249]]

sides of the aisle to move the legislation through the Senate, into
conference committee, and then ultimately to the President's desk for
signature.
September 11, 2001, shocked us. It was a tragedy of unspeakable
proportions and human loss. It showed us, in that loss, how we had
suffered from what the 9/11 Commission itself called a failure of
imagination. By that they meant an inability to imagine that there were
people in the world who would do something this outrageously inhuman,
striking buildings, symbols of America, but without regard to the
diversity of human beings in those buildings and the lives that they
were leading.
Someone said that on 9/11 the terrorists showed that they hate us
more than they love their own lives. That awakened us to our
vulnerability and brought us into a new age.
I spoke, when I spoke on behalf of cloture, of the families of those
we lost on 9/11 who have been persistent and honorable and inspiring
advocates for closing the vulnerabilities that compromised and ended
the lives of so many of their loved ones. They fought with us on behalf
of the bill that Senator McCain and I introduced to create the 9/11
Commission. They then worked very hard to advocate for the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They deserve a lot of credit,
as do a lot of other people in Congress and in the administration, for
the passage of the 2004 intelligence reform legislation that adopted so
many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
In that bill we created a strong Director of National Intelligence to
forge greater unity of effort among our intelligence agencies as they
moved forward to inform us about the plans and activities and
intentions of our enemies, to stop them before they strike us again.
There are many reasons on this day we can be grateful that America
has not been the victim of terrorist acts again. Some of it is just
plain good fortune. Some of it, however, I think is the work of the
agencies created by the 9/11 legislation in 2004. Some of it is,
without doubt, a result of the grace of God. We created in that bill
also a National Counterterrorism Center to improve interagency planning
to achieve goals in the war against terrorism.
One of the most exciting moments I have had as a Senator was to go
out to the National Counterterrorism Center. I urge my colleagues to
take the time. Established by the 9/11 legislation in 2004 to make
sure, to use a very simplistic metaphor for a very complicated
situation, that never again would our Government fail to connect the
dots that would have presented the warning that a terrorist attack was
coming.
This National Counterterrorism Center is out there. It has all the
relevant agencies, they are constantly streaming information, receiving
information from around the country, around the world, and cooperating
with one another to protect our security. We mandated in the 2004
legislation the development of an information sharing environment to
facilitate the sharing of national-security-related information among
the different branches and agencies of the Federal Government and also
to make sure that the Federal, State, and local governments were
cooperating. When you think about it, State and local first responders
are not just first responders, they have the ability, with the hundreds
of thousands of eyes and ears that they bring to law enforcement, to be
also first preventers. That was a goal of the information sharing
environment we established.
In the 2004 legislation we made significant improvements to border
and transportation security, focusing on aviation security, of course;
building on legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11,
because of our obvious anger that the existing systems of our aviation
structure were used to attack the American people directly.
This is only a partial list of some of the significant achievements
that resulted from that legislation that I am convinced improved our
Nation's intelligence capability and the security of the American
people at home. But we know from ongoing congressional oversight, from
the work of the members of the 9/11 Commission who continued to be
focused on our homeland security, and from common sense, that there is
more to be done. Senator Reid made adoption of this 9/11 implementation
legislation a priority for this Congress.

At a hearing in January that I was privileged to call as the new
chairman of our committee, Homeland Security, 9/11 Commissioners and
family members of 9/11 victims urged us to go forward and finish the
job that we started with the 2004 legislation: to implement parts of
the report that were unimplemented by that legislation and to go back
and look at some things that were not quite working right or were not
fully implemented and see if we could do a better job to close some of
the gaps that we left after 2004.
Some of the important Commission recommendations we included in the
Senate legislation in 2004 were taken out or diluted in conference.
Other provisions that Congress did enact have unfortunately been
implemented poorly.
How important is it that we go ahead with this legislation to finish
the job we started after the 9/11 Commission report? Let me quote from
the 9/11 Report:

The men and women of the World War II generation rose to
the challenges of the 1940s and 1950s. They restructured the
government so it could protect the country.
That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/
11. Those attacks showed emphatically, that ways of doing
business rooted in a different era are just not good enough.
Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc,
adjustments to a system designed generations ago for a world
that no longer exists.

This bill that we will begin considering in the Senate tomorrow
continues the process of securing our Nation in this new era where our
enemies don't wear the uniforms of soldiers or follow any traditional
laws of combat but, rather, move silently among us, probing for
weaknesses while plotting attacks on innocent civilians.
This bill will strengthen our ability to respond to not just
terrorist attacks but also preparing our Federal, State, and local
governments to better respond to natural disasters. We are trying to
create an attitude in this bill, an ``all hazards'' attitude that
increases our homeland security against the threat of terrorist attack,
but also, in doing so, prepares our Government to respond better to
natural disasters--of course, thinking now of the extent to which our
Government at all levels showed that it was incapable of responding
adequately during Hurricane Katrina.
Let me now discuss some of the important provisions in the bill. The
first I want to talk about is information sharing. The 9/11 Report
showed us that the different agencies had different pieces of
information that should have aroused suspicion about the attack that
came on 9/11, but because those pieces were never pulled together,
there was no way to assemble that monstrous mosaic and to see the full
picture it created so as to be able to stop it. One of the most
important innovations since 9/11 is the establishment of fusion centers
to share information within and between States. This legislation would
improve the crucial sharing of intelligence and information both within
the Federal Government and with State, local, and tribal governments,
as well as creating standards for those State, local, and regional
fusion centers that will be tied to the allocation of homeland security
grants.
While preserving the authority of State and local governments over
fusion centers, this legislation, S. 4, requires DHS, the Department of
Homeland Security, to provide essential elements of support and
coordination to the centers. It authorizes the assignment of homeland
security intelligence analysts to the centers to lend their expertise
and to serve as a channel for information to and from the Federal
Government. It also creates a program for State, local, and tribal
officials to spend time at the Department of Homeland Security's Office
of Intelligence and Analysis to learn about its intelligence
information sharing functions and to serve as a link to the State and
local governments.
This legislation also will strengthen the information sharing
environment which we created in the 2004 legislation. It will enhance
the authority of the Program Manager for that environment by allowing
the issuance of Government-wide standards whereby all

[[Page S2250]]

agencies of the Federal Government would be required to operate under
the same rules and guidelines and would not be permitted to conceal
information.
The legislation, S. 4, would encourage the elimination of principles
such as ``need to know'' which allow the holder of information in a
given Federal agency to control its dissemination to other governmental
agencies and, thus, act as a bureaucratic barrier to effective
information sharing. We, instead, aim to encourage, through this
legislation, the development of a ``need to share information'' culture
in which information is made available--with appropriate safeguards, of
course--to all who could make use of it in the war against terror.
Let me go now to homeland security grants. This legislation will
enhance homeland security grants to State and local governments and
first responders. We simply have underfunded this critical element of
homeland security. The first responders, first preventers, need more
help to better protect their constituents, those who live in the areas
they serve, from potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Our proposal, S. 4, would authorize over $3.5 billion for each of the
next 3 years for key grant programs. It turns around a precipitous
decline in funding for homeland security. It provides for a
comprehensive system of both terrorism-oriented and all-hazards grants.
It will ensure that grants primarily intended to bolster prevention of
and preparedness for terrorist attacks will be distributed
overwhelmingly based on the risk to an area from a terrorist attack.
Our committee believes we have achieved a balanced proposal that
gives most of the money out based on risk but still recognizes there is
risk in this new post-9/11 age everywhere and that in an all-hazards
approach, first responders everywhere need to be assisted to protect
their citizens not just from a potential terrorist attack but from the
consequences of a natural disaster.
Interoperable communications: We have known for decades we needed to
improve communications operability and interoperability at the
different levels of Government. Yet tragically the inability of fire
and police to communicate with one another at the World Trade Center
after the attacks of 9/11 cost lives. That is a painful fact. Hurricane
Katrina showed us once again how important it is to have communications
that can both survive the initial disaster and have the capabilities to
allow different first responding agencies to talk to each other by
sharing voice as well as data communications.
Under this grant program, States would be required to demonstrate
that the grants they are applying for and receive would be used in a
way that is consistent with their statewide communications
interoperability plans and the National Emergency Communications Plan.
In other words, this is not going to be just ad hoc proposals from
every first responder for some money to use as he or she desires for
their vision of interoperability. It has to be part of a statewide plan
connected to the national plan.
The States receiving the money would be required to pass at least 80
percent of the total amount of the grants they receive on to local and
tribal governments. The legislation authorizes $400 million for
interoperability improvements--lifesaving, in my opinion--in 2008; $500
million in 2009; $600 million in 2010; $800 million in 2011; and $1
billion in 2012.
Let me go on to terrorist travel. The legislation contains provisions
to improve our ability to disrupt terrorists' travel and infiltration
of the United States, which the 9/11 Commission said was just as
important as crippling their financial networks. That certainly makes
sense.
It requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
State to implement security enhancements to the so-called visa waiver
program. It also is increasingly clear that serious vulnerabilities
exist within the visa waiver program. There are enhancements to the
program that, if adopted in this bill, will close many of those
vulnerabilities, including mandating improved reporting by foreign
countries on the visa waiver program of lost or stolen passports,
requiring countries to share information about prospective visitors who
may pose a threat to the U.S., and authorizing an electronic travel
authorization system which would require travelers to apply in advance
for authorization to visit America, thus allowing their names to be
checked against terrorist watch lists well before they board airplanes.
I note Senator Collins is on the floor of the Senate, our ranking
member. I am going to yield to her in a few minutes. But she has
considerably strengthened this section of the bill to protect America
from people with the intent to harm us through acts of terrorism using
this visa waiver program.
Next, privacy and civil liberties: This legislation also makes
important steps forward to ensure that as we fight terrorism, we do not
trample on the rights of Americans we are pledged to defend. The
legislation includes provisions very similar to those included in the
Senate-passed version of the Terrorism Prevention Act with regard to
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board.
I now move on to biosurveillance. The legislation enhances sharing of
critical information by authorizing and improving upon an existing
effort within the Department of Homeland Security to establish a
National Biosurveillance Integration Center.
Next, private sector preparedness: The 9/11 Commission found that the
private sector remains largely unprepared and that ignoring private
sector preparedness could come at a huge cost because so much
infrastructure, so many targets of terrorists are in private hands. To
address this critical problem, S. 4 will promote private sector
preparedness, without a mandate, by creating a voluntary certification
program that will allow private sector entities to become certified as
being in compliance with recommended national preparedness standards.
This is an important step forward and will quite sensibly promote, for
instance, evacuation plans and steps beyond that.
The legislation also strengthens private sector preparedness by
requiring that the Department of Homeland Security establish and report
on a list of critical infrastructure across the Nation that would cause
catastrophic damage if disrupted, or destroyed. This will strengthen
and clarify what is a murky process right now and will focus our
attention on protecting those parts of critical infrastructure.
Our legislation also improves upon the existing National Strategy for
Transportation Security by ensuring that risk-based priorities
identified by the Department are based on the risk assessments
conducted by the Department.

The legislation also requires the President and Congress to publicly
disclose the total amounts of appropriations requested, authorized, and
ultimately appropriated for the American intelligence community. This
responds directly to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and will
improve Congress's ability to oversee the conduct and progress of our
intelligence agencies creating standards of accountability.
I stress, this is the bottom line of the budget: to give Members of
Congress and the American people an idea of how much we are investing
in intelligence to protect their security and give us some sense of the
accountability that we should apply to the intelligence community in
delivering that funding.
TSA screeners: This will be debated at some length, I am sure. The
legislation includes a provision which I was pleased to cosponsor with
the occupant of the Chair, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, which will
ensure that screeners at the Transportation Security Administration--
with whom we have become very familiar as we come and go from
airports--have the same employment rights as others in TSA and the
Department of Homeland Security. There is no good reason to deny these
rights to these people. We are only applying to them the same rights as
other people within TSA and others in law enforcement in the Department
of Homeland Security have, with no negative effect on their performance
of those responsibilities.
Madam President, as you can see, this is a very comprehensive bill. I
have not touched on many parts of it in this statement. I have tried to
focus on the most important. What I am convinced of is that if this
bill passes and

[[Page S2251]]

becomes law, the American people will be safer from both terrorism and
the consequences of natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, than
they are today.
All of the hard work of the committee members, including particularly
my ranking member, Senator Collins, gives me some sense of confidence,
along with the work done by our staffs on both sides of the aisle, that
this bill really will achieve the goals the 9/11 Commission stated in
their report and the hopes that the families of those who were lost on
9/11 have that we act in a way on their behalf and on behalf of all the
American people to be able to say we have done everything possible to
make sure no other Americans suffer the tragic pain and continuing loss
that these American heroes suffered when their loved ones' lives were
ended in the brutal terrorist attacks of 9/11.
I have a sense of urgency about this bill. I believe every day we do
not do some of the things this bill would enable and establish and
support financially is another day in which we are not as secure at
home as we should be. This is the carrying out of the first
constitutional responsibility we have to ensure domestic tranquility
and provide for the common defense, to do so in a way that those who
wrote the Constitution could never have dreamed we would have to do.
But that is the world we live in today. That is the reality we must
face. This is the action we must summon and carry out together to
dispatch our responsibility.
Madam President, in the preface to the 9/11 Report, Chairman Kean and
Vice Chairman Hamilton wrote:

We hope our report will encourage our fellow citizens to
study, reflect--and act.

Well, we have studied and we have reflected. Now is the time, once
again, to act to build a safer and more secure America for the
generations to come.
I look forward to a good, spirited debate. I hope when we are done,
the bill will be even stronger than it is today. We will start
tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor, even this
afternoon, to file amendments because Senator Collins and I would like,
when we move to this bill tomorrow morning--having carried out our
managers' responsibility to make opening statements--to move right to
the amendments.
I thank the Chair.
I think Senator Collins was called from the Senate floor momentarily,
but I know she will be back before I yield.
Madam President, the consent request I am about to propound has been
cleared on both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that following morning business on Wednesday,
February 28, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No.
57, S. 4, the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I am happy
to announce there will be no further rollcall votes today. I know
Senator Collins will return soon and make her opening statement on the
bill.
I thank the Chair very much, and 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. 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, I rise to support S. 4, the Improving
America's Security Act of 2007. This legislation would strengthen our
homeland security and would do so in the spirit that shaped the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
As my colleague and friend Senator Lieberman has already indicated,
the Committee on Homeland Security voted unanimously on February 15 to
report this bill. The bill before us is the product of careful
collaboration among members of our committee; State, local, and tribal
governments; emergency response providers; the private sector; the
Administration, particularly the Department of Homeland Security; and
other stakeholders. This collaboration has produced legislation that
builds on the work of the Homeland Security Committee over the last 3
years. During that time, the committee has produced numerous bills
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and otherwise
strengthening our homeland security. This bill helps to complete the
picture.
The vast majority of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were
enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act. There were, however, some recommendations that did not
make it through the process or were not incorporated into that bill,
and those are reflected in the legislation before us.
The Intelligence Reform Act was a bipartisan effort by the Homeland
Security Committee, and it made possible the most significant reforms
in the structure and operations of our intelligence community in more
than 50 years--in fact, since the CIA was created after World War II.
Indeed, approximately 39 of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations
have been acted on in one form or another. More recently, Congress
passed measures that greatly strengthen the protections for America's
cargo ports and its chemical facilities--again addressing
vulnerabilities highlighted in the Commission's report and by other
experts on terrorism. So during the past 3 years, in fact, a great deal
has been done to help make our Nation more secure and to improve our
defenses and capacity to respond to terrorism attacks.
The Homeland Security Committee also conducted a comprehensive,
bipartisan investigation of the Federal, State, and local preparation
for and response to Hurricane Katrina, our country's first real test of
its homeland security apparatus since the attacks on September 11 of
2001. Our investigation found significant failures in emergency
planning, preparation, and response at all levels of government. As a
result, we issued a comprehensive report that summarized our
investigation. Our investigation included 24 public hearings,
interviews of more than 400 people, and the review of literally
hundreds of thousands of investigations. It also included the issuance
of subpoenas because we wanted to make sure we had access to all the
information we needed. As a result of this investigation, the committee
issued a detailed report and drafted legislation based on those
recommendations. That legislation was incorporated into the Homeland
Security appropriations bill which the President signed into law last
year.
The FEMA Reform Act built upon the 9/11 Commission recommendations
already enacted by reforming the structure of FEMA, enhancing its
regional role throughout the country, and giving FEMA a primary place
within the Federal Government for planning, training, and exercising
with State and local officials.
As reported by the Homeland Security Committee then, S. 4 builds upon
our past successes. The legislation before the Senate would authorize a
comprehensive homeland security grant program. It includes four vital
grant programs to assist State, local, and tribal governments in
safeguarding our lives and properties in all catastrophes, whether
natural or manmade. Taken together, these four grant programs--the
Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, and the
Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grant Program--will
ensure significant and predictable Federal funding for our State and
local partners.
The program will support error-prevention activities such as fusion
centers, all-hazards planning, training exercises, and the installation
of reliable interoperable emergency communications systems. The bill
will help to strengthen emergency preparedness and response. It also
strikes the right balance between targeting funding to jurisdictions
the Department determines to be at the highest risk and ensuring a
baseline of adequate funding for prevention and preparedness across the
country because we know that our Nation's homeland security is only as
strong as its weakest link.
Let me comment in more detail on these programs. With respect to the
Urban Area Security Initiative, also known as UASI, the bill retains
the current practice directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to
award

[[Page S2252]]

grants based solely on risk of terrorist attacks. Clearly, our largest
urban areas present attractive, high-value targets to terrorists. Our
legislation, the Lieberman-Collins legislation, recognizes that fact,
but it makes one sensible change. The Department's eligibility criteria
for UASI grant applications has been, to say the least, arbitrary and
controversial. For that reason, our bill would expand the potential
pool of applicants beyond the current limit of 45. Instead of requiring
the Department to select which cities are eligible to apply, S. 4 would
expressly permit the largest 100 metropolitan areas to make their case
for funding.
Unfortunately, terrorist attacks do not respect city limits. A major
attack could affect--or at least require--responses from many
neighboring or regional jurisdictions. We also know that when we take a
more regional approach, we have a more effective response. Our bill
raises funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to $913
million from the $525 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007. This
funding increase would also correct a serious deficiency in the
proposed budget for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, the administration
is calling for only $250 million for this important program. As with
the UASI grants, each State would receive funding on the basis of risk
but with a minimum award of 0.45 percent of the program funds. This
will, once again, ensure a baseline level of preparedness and response
activities across the country.

Hurricane Katrina illustrated that many of the actions required to
respond to terrorist attacks are identical to those required for
natural disasters. That is precisely why S. 4 would expand the
emergency management performance grants. The EMPG has been a vital part
of our national preparedness for years. Our bill seeks to increase its
stature and importance by providing more funding and by authorizing
States to use EMPG funds to construct and enhance emergency operation
centers. The EMPG emphasizes all-hazards preparation, and the .75
percent minimum allocation and the population-based distribution of the
remainder ensures that every State will receive assistance with
planning, training, and exercises for vital functions such as
evacuation, logistics, continuity of operations of government, and
recovery. Those are skills which all States need to develop. Those are
minimal levels of preparedness and response essential for every State.
Every State has the potential for either a natural disaster or a
terrorist attack or some other catastrophe or emergency. That is why it
is important we develop that capacity in every State.
It is important for me to emphasize that S. 4 does not change EMPG's
allocation formula; it merely codifies existing practice. The EMPG is
basic insurance. As the DHS manual for the program observes:

An all hazards approach to preparedness, including the
development of a comprehensive program of planning, training,
and exercises, encourages an effective and consistent
response to any threatened or actual disaster or emergency
regardless of the cause.

This view is consistent with the expert testimony before the Homeland
Security Committee during our investigation of the failed response to
Hurricane Katrina.
Now, some people have suggested that guaranteeing minimum funding for
State and local preparedness is just another example of pork barrel
politics. These people could not be more mistaken. As the Rand
Corporation noted in a 2004 report on the preparedness of State and
local law enforcement after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001:

Homeland security experts and first responders have
cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the
preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller
communities or rural areas.

Again, I make the point that we need to bring up all areas to a
certain baseline level of preparedness. That doesn't mean we don't
factor in risk; we do. Indeed, the majority of the funds in this bill
would be allocated based on risk, and we provide more risk-based
funding than is the case in current law.
The RAND report went on to recognize that much of our Nation's
infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural
areas. We also cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal
building in Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist
bombing. Yet, we know a tragic attack occurred in that city. Rural
flight schools were not obvious training grounds for hijackers, nor was
the Portland, ME, jetport an obvious departure point for terrorist
pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on
September 11.
My point is that terrorists can shelter, train, recruit, prepare, or
attack in unlikely places. In view of this cold reality, our bill
requires that at least 25 percent of the funding from the UASI and
State homeland security grant programs--that is at least $548 million--
be used for terrorism prevention activities by law enforcement
agencies.
Sometimes I think we forget the basic truth that if we can prevent a
terrorist attack from happening in the first place, that is the best
possible approach. We do need to be prepared to respond effectively,
but how much better if we can detect and interdict the attack before it
occurs. We know from experience here, as well as in other countries,
that terrorists can be spotted and attacks intercepted by well-trained
local police. The prevention of attacks through better policing must be
a focus of our grant programs. The last grant program our bill creates
is an emergency communications and interoperability grants program.
These grants will help to close the alarming and persistent gaps in our
first responders' ability to simply communicate with one another. As
the tragic events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, this is
often not the case.
Before the second tower of the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11,
the police received a radio message to evacuate, but, tragically, the
firefighters never received that message because they used different
radios and an incompatible frequency. The result was even more loss of
lives. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the first
responders resorted to the use of runners to carry messages by hand
from one command center to another because the communications
infrastructure was so badly damaged. Well, the events of the magnitude
of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, fortunately, do not occur every day.
There are daily incidents, such as fires, rescues, and hazardous
material spills that require different agencies and different
jurisdictions to communicate with one another in real time and on
demand. This is precisely why the emergency communications grants
program is so important.
I will tell you it was very disturbing to hear, during our
investigation of Hurricane Katrina, the same kinds of interoperability
problems that occurred during 9/11. This is a problem we simply must
solve.
Let me comment on some other important features of the bill. It
improves protection against terrorists traveling to our country under
the visa waiver program by requiring more timely notice from
participating countries of lost or stolen passports. It also requires
those countries to share more information about travelers who could
pose a threat to our security. The bill improves information sharing,
establishes multijurisdiction fusion centers in order to encourage
information to be shared, and allows the assignment of DHS intelligence
analysts to those centers. The bill expands upon a requirement in the
Homeland Security Act by requiring DHS to create a prioritized list of
critical infrastructure and highest risks for terrorist attacks and
other disasters. This list will help protect these critical assets from
attacks and enable more effective response when disaster strikes.
The bill also requires that risk assessments be completed for each
sector of the economy. Recognizing the need to exercise good
stewardship of our taxpayers' money, our bill also includes strong
protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. By now, we have all heard
the disturbing stories of misspent homeland security grants. In fact,
when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, we held
hearings looking at how homeland security grants have been spent in
some States. Along with Senator Lieberman, I asked the GAO to do an
investigation into this area, and GAO testified before our committee.
At a time when the needs are so great for equipment, for training, and
for more preparedness to strengthen our homeland security, it was very
disturbing to

[[Page S2253]]

hear the GAO testify that money had been wasted.
Let me give you a couple of examples. In the District of Columbia--
yes, right here in Washington, DC, surely a high-risk area, an area
attacked on
9/11--we found that leather jackets were purchased for the local police
using homeland security grant money. In Newark, NJ, homeland security
funds were used to purchase air-conditioned garbage trucks. This is
totally inexcusable, when we have such great needs for new
communications equipment, for training and exercises, and for help for
our first responders. We simply cannot afford to have money frittered
away. It is outrageous.
Our bill would help to eliminate those abuses. It would strictly
prohibit the use of grant funds on items that don't relate to securing
our homeland. It requires States to have an approved plan and for funds
to be allocated, distributed, and spent according to that plan, and to
achieve certain baseline preparedness goals. It requires DHS to set
minimum performance standards for agency grants, and it provides for
audits to ensure accountability.
I know that last safeguard is near and dear to the Presiding
Officer's heart and that she understands, perhaps better than anyone in
this body, the importance of regular, thorough, and timely audits.
Madam President, I acknowledge the work of Senator Coburn, and many
other members of our committee, to strengthen the provisions of our
bill. I offered an amendment to make sure that homeland security funds
were not used for social or recreational purposes. In short, I think we
have tightened up the safeguards and put new measures in to ensure
accountability.
I mentioned earlier that our bill proceeds in the spirit of the 9/11
Commission; its provisions for increased and more effective information
sharing, for strengthening the privacy and civil liberties oversight
board, and for disclosing the total sums requested, authorized, and
appropriated for intelligence programs all testified to that amendment.
There are many provisions of the bill reported by the Homeland
Security Committee that will improve our security in other ways. I want
to note once again, however, that this bill is not a sudden, new, or
unusual manifestation of congressional determination to strengthen our
security. The bill before us today continues the work of Congress in
taking proper notice of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I am
proud to be part of the bipartisan deliberations that shaped this bill,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
I want to also acknowledge the tireless efforts of the families of
the victims of 9/11. They have worked with Senator Lieberman and me
every step of the way when we were drafting the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorist Prevention Act in 2004. They were our inspiration and they
kept us going. They ensured that the bill got through to the
President's desk and signed into law. They have continued to work with
us on the bill before us today. I want to publicly thank them for their
effort. They inspired our work.
Our legislation's broad-front attack on the threats we face will
ensure good value for every dollar our Nation spends to improve our
defenses at the Federal and State and local levels. It will provide
appropriate transparency and accountability into the Government's
security decisions, and it will strike an appropriate balance between
increased security and our cherished civil liberties. The passage of
this bill will benefit every American.
Let me close by saying I am certain this bill will be improved even
further as we proceed with the deliberations this week. I do not
support every single provision in this bill. But on balance, it is yet
another step forward as we seek to protect the American people.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________