[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2662-S2678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued


                      Amendment No. 352 Withdrawn

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Menendez, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 352, which he had 
introduced earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 354 to Amendment No. 275

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. On his behalf, I send another amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for Mr. 
     Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 354 to amendment No. 
     275.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 improve the security of cargo containers destined for the 
                             United States)

       On page 219, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 804. PLAN FOR 100 PERCENT SCANNING OF CARGO CONTAINERS.

       Section 232(c) of the Security and Accountability For Every 
     Port Act (6 U.S.C. 982(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Not later'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Not later''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Plan for 100 percent scanning of cargo containers.--

[[Page S2663]]

       ``(A) In general.--The first report under paragraph (1) 
     shall include an initial plan to scan 100 percent of the 
     cargo containers destined for the United States before such 
     containers arrive in the United States.
       ``(B) Plan contents.--The plan under paragraph (A) shall 
     include--
       ``(i) specific annual benchmarks for the percentage of 
     cargo containers destined for the United States that are 
     scanned at a foreign port;
       ``(ii) annual increases in the benchmarks described in 
     clause (i) until 100 percent of the cargo containers destined 
     for the United States are scanned before arriving in the 
     United States;
       ``(iii) the use of existing programs, including the 
     Container Security Initiative established by section 205 and 
     the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism established 
     by subtitle B, to reach the benchmarks described in clause 
     (i); and
       ``(iv) the use of scanning equipment, personnel, and 
     technology to reach the goal of 100 percent scanning of cargo 
     containers.
       ``(C) Subsequent reports.--Each report under paragraph (1) 
     after the intial report shall include an assessment of the 
     progress toward implementing the plan under subparagraph 
     (A).''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania 
is here. I will yield to him in a moment.
  I am pleased to note the presence of the Senator from Illinois, who 
has come to the floor to propose an amendment with regard to the 
funding formula in the bill. This would make the third such amendment. 
I hope we will have a good, hearty debate on those three and then go to 
votes either later today or tomorrow morning on them which, of course, 
I hope will reject all three and sustain the wisdom of the committee, 
but that will be determined by the body.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.


                 Amendment No. 286 to Amendment No. 275

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, Senator Dodd, 
and myself, I call up amendment No. 286. This is an amendment which 
would repeal the provisions of the Military Commission Act, striking 
Federal court jurisdiction for habeas corpus except for the Circuit 
Court for the District of Columbia.
  I have previously talked to Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Jon 
Kyl to give them notice that we would be calling up this amendment. I 
discussed the issue with Senator Lieberman, the manager of the bill, as 
to procedures which we may follow, but I wanted to call it up and have 
it pending and proceed to debate it at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 286 
     to amendment No. 275.

  The amendment follows:

  (Purpose: To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United 
                                States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (b) Title 10.--Section 950j of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and 
     Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in 
     section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus 
     provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or 
     consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including 
     any action pending on or filed after the date of the 
     enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating 
     to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military 
     commission under this chapter, including challenges to the 
     lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this 
     chapter.''.
       (c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made 
     by this section shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Specter amendment 
which was just called up.
  Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the 
amendment just introduced by Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 338 to Amendment No. 275

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set aside so I may call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 338 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], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Coburn, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Menendez, 
     Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 
     338 to amendment No. 275.

  The amendment follows:

(Purpose: To require consideration of high-risk qualifying criteria in 
   allocating funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program)

       On page 69, strike line 15 and all that follows through 
     page 70, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(d) Minimum Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In allocating funds under subsection 
     (c), the Administrator shall ensure that, for each fiscal 
     year--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), each State 
     (other than the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) receives an 
     amount equal to not less than 0.25 percent of the total funds 
     appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program;
       ``(B) each State (other than the Virgin Islands, American 
     Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands) that meets any of the additional high-risk 
     qualifying criteria described in paragraph (2) receives an 
     amount equal to not less than 0.45 percent of the total funds 
     appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program;
       ``(C) the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands each receives an 
     amount equal to not less than 0.08 percent of the total funds 
     appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 
     and
       ``(D) directly eligible tribes collectively receive an 
     amount equal to not less than 0.08 percent of the total funds 
     appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, 
     except that this subparagraph shall not apply if the 
     Administrator receives less than 5 applications for that 
     fiscal year from directly eligible tribes or does not approve 
     at least 1 such application for that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Additional high-risk qualifying criteria.--The 
     additional high-risk qualifying criteria described in this 
     paragraph are--
       ``(A) having an international land border; or
       ``(B) adjoining a body of water within North America 
     through which an international boundary line extends.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it was a typical fall day in New York City. 
People were headed to work, cars were stuck in traffic, the subways 
were packed, and the construction crews were busy rebuilding at Ground 
Zero. Nearby, Con Ed personnel were at work in a manhole, and they made 
a tragic discovery: ID tags and human remains not seen since that other 
fall day 5 years earlier. The city paused again. It launched another 
effort to recover and identify those taken from us on that dark 
September day.
  The recovery is continuing after all this time. The recovery 
continues 5\1/2\ years later, and just last week more victims were 
unearthed. After all this time, we are still recovering from September 
11. Our prayers remain with the family members and friends who still 
mourn and miss the fathers and mothers and children who made their 
lives complete. During the Homeland Security Committee meeting to 
discuss the underlying bill, I met with some of those loved ones.
  That is why we are here today. We are here to do the work that 
ensures no other family members have to lose a loved one to a terrorist 
who turns a plane into a missile, a terrorist who straps a bomb around 
her waist and climbs aboard a bus, a terrorist who figures out how to 
set off a dirty bomb in one of our cities. This is why we are here: to 
make our country safer and make sure the nearly 3,000 who were taken 
from us did not die in vain; that their legacy will be a more safe and 
secure Nation. That is what lies at the heart of this 9/11 bill. It is 
not just

[[Page S2664]]

about how we send the money from Washington to States and local 
governments; it is about saving lives and doing everything in our power 
to prevent another attack, to prevent another tragedy, to ensure no one 
climbs down a manhole expecting to do their work only to find the 
deceased left in darkness 5 years earlier. That is why we are here--to 
protect our people.
  Most of us had hoped these steps would have already been taken, would 
have been taken many years ago, that we would have capitalized on the 
unity and national spirit we shared after the towers fell, the Pentagon 
was hit, and the Pennsylvania field smoldered. It is never too late to 
do, however, what is right for our country.
  It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission issued 
its report. Not only did the panel of dedicated American researchers 
find out what happened that day, but they also gave a list of serious 
recommendations about how to make our country safer in the future. The 
9/11 Commission showed us how to move beyond the politics of division 
in order to achieve the solemn task of better protecting our country.
  In its report, the Commission said the following:

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

  This is one of the goals of the 9/11 Commission. My amendment that I 
just introduced moves us closer to a true system of risk-based 
allocation of State homeland security grants and ensures that funding 
goes to areas most at risk of terrorist attacks.
  This is not an issue of big States versus little States or urban 
States versus rural States. It is about good policy and about 
maximizing our use of the people's money.
  Today, the system is set up so that all States receive at least .75 
percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program dollars. After 
each State receives that minimum level of funding, the dollars are then 
allocated according to risk. As a result, the current amount of State 
minimum funding eats up approximately 40 percent of that funding.
  While the new bill does attempt to address this problem--and I 
applaud Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for trying to bring the 
.75 percent down to .45 percent--the bill does not go far enough. It is 
a good first step, but we are already 50 yards behind, sending too much 
money to areas where there are not real risks, threats, and 
vulnerabilities. That is why we must use the most dollars in those 
areas which are at the greatest risk of attack. We cannot afford to 
waste a single cent on places that do not need immediate help when 
first responders in major cities still lack the basic communications 
equipment they need to talk to one another if, Heaven forbid, tragedy 
strikes again.
  That is why the families of 9/11 recently issued a statement saying:

       Reports of air conditioned garbage trucks being purchased 
     with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity 
     that results from non risk-based methods. When the threat 
     against our Nation is so real, we cannot afford not to take 
     it seriously.

  That is why the 9/11 Commission said Congress should not use this 
money as porkbarrel. That is why in 2005 the Commission issued a report 
giving the Nation an ``F'' for risk-based funding. That is why 9/11 
Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton recently sent me a letter. He wrote:

       Since 9/11 and since the issuance of our report, the United 
     States has not allocated homeland security resources wisely. 
     Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so it is 
     thus essential that they be distributed based on a careful 
     analysis of the risk, vulnerability and potential 
     consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk-
     based approach would make the best use of our homeland 
     security resources, and would make the American people safer.

  That is why 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer wrote in support of this 
amendment, saying:

       We cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort.

  That is why the amendment I offer today, a bipartisan amendment with 
the support of Senators Warner, Coburn, Landrieu, Kennedy, Menendez, 
Clinton, and Schumer, reduces the guaranteed State minimum to .25 
percent and allows those States on our northern and southern borders to 
see an increased minimum of .45 percent. This basic framework was 
adopted by a wide bipartisan margin in the House in January.
  It is time for all of us to approach homeland security funding not as 
something we can bring home to the States we represent but funding we 
can use to better protect the United States of America. As we lower the 
guaranteed amount, we increase the funding available to protect those 
places most at risk, and 40 States will receive either the same amount 
or an increase in the funding they need to better protect our borders, 
our ports, our railways, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear 
powerplants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers, 
and EMTs.
  We have waited more than 5 years to better develop our approach to 
funding our security in a post-9/11 world. Sometimes division and 
politics have prevented us from doing what we need to do. But I believe 
those days are finally behind us. We have a real chance to not only 
learn from our mistakes but to get the job done and better protect our 
people. That is why we are here--to make our country as safe and secure 
as we can. That is the common cause we all share. The American people 
need to see that in us today. The 9/11 Commission experts that from us. 
The families and friends of the 9/11 victims are owed that from us--
that we will never forget those who died. We will never forget those 
who are suffering and sick because of their heroism that day. We will 
never forget that 60 percent of the victims were never identified. We 
will never forget that we are still recovering from 9/11--and that is 
why our work goes on.
  Mr. President, let me add one last point.
  I recognize it is difficult for some to see any shift of funding 
because it is difficult if that State potentially sees their funding 
reduced. But even within Illinois, I confront some of these same 
issues.
  The fact of the matter is I have fought at the State level and have 
said publicly we should make sure risk assessments entirely determine 
how money within Illinois is allocated. That is the same approach we 
need to take for the Nation as a whole. Keep in mind my home city of 
Chicago is actually doing quite well under the current formula. So this 
is not something that is based solely on any parochial concerns.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statements of the 9/11 families, the 
9/11 Commission chairman, Lee Hamilton, and 9/11 Commissioner Tim 
Roemer be printed in the Record, as well as a chart showing how each 
State would fare under my amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Woodrow Wilson International


                                          Center for Scholars,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2007.
     Senator Barack Obama,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Barack: Thank you for inquiring about my position with 
     regard to risk-based homeland security funding.
       In our report, the 9/11 Commission issued the following 
     recommendation:
       ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on 
     an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Now, in 2004, 
     Washington D.C. and New York City are certainly at the top of 
     any such list. We understand the contention that every state 
     and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for 
     emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance 
     should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It 
     should supplement state and local resources based on risks or 
     vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress 
     should not use this money as a pork barrel.''
       Since 9/11, and since the issuance of our report, the 
     United States has not allocated homeland security resources 
     wisely. Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so 
     it is thus essential that they be distributed based upon a 
     careful analysis of the risk, vulnerability, and potential 
     consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk-
     based approach would make the best use of our homeland 
     security resources, and would make the American people safer.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
     President and Directors.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    March 5, 2007.
     Senator Barack Obama,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The Homeland Security and Government Affairs 
     Committee has produced a strong bill and is off to a 
     productive

[[Page S2665]]

     start, yet there are areas in need of improvement.
       I am writing today to support your efforts to more fully 
     implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that State 
     homeland security grants should be based solely on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.
       Your amendment moves in the right direction. By reducing 
     the amount of funding available through the ``minimum 
     allocation,'' this amendment increases the availability of 
     funding for our most at-risk facilities and infrastructure.
       As you know, the bi-partisan National Commission on 
     Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, said:
       ``We understand the contention that every state and city 
     needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency 
     response. But Federal homeland security assistance should not 
     remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should 
     supplement state and local resources based on risks or 
     vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress 
     should not use this money as a pork barrel.''
       Two years ago, the Commission gave Congress and the 
     administration failing grades in their implementation of our 
     recommendations: five Fs, twelve Ds, and 2 Incompletes. On 
     homeland security, the government received an F because too 
     many of our vulnerabilities received too few resources. We 
     cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort.
       Obviously, there is much more to accomplish to make America 
     safer. I commend these efforts to move the Senate in a better 
     direction and believe this amendment creates the opportunity 
     for the full spirit of the 9/11 Commission's recommendation 
     to be realized in conference with the House.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                Timothy J. Roemer,
     Former 9/11 Commissioner.
                                  ____



                                     Families of September 11,

                                  New York, NY, February 26, 2007.

              Statement Regarding Homeland Security Grants

       Families of September 11 stands in strong support of 
     allocating all homeland security grants based on risk. There 
     are limited funds to protect our homeland--each and every 
     dollar should be spent effectively on protecting the areas at 
     most risk as a first priority. None should be used for 
     general revenue sharing or political purposes.
       The 9/11 Commission recommends that homeland security 
     assistance be based ``strictly on an assessment of risks and 
     vulnerabilities.'' They continue to say that ``Congress 
     should not use this money as a pork barrel.'' We stand in 
     complete agreement.
       Reports of air-conditioned garbage trucks being purchased 
     with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity 
     that results from non risk-based allocation methods. When the 
     threat against our nation is so real, we cannot afford not to 
     take it seriously.
       Congress has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely to 
     protect the homeland. Sometimes the right choices are not 
     easy--we understand that. But the stakes are too high not to 
     make them. We ask Congress to do what is right and to 
     legislate that all homeland security grants be allocated 
     strictly on appropriately-assessed risk.
                                  ____


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Obama          S. 4 as     Obama amendment
                             State                                  amendment        amended        less S. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................     $12,173,119     $11,988,972        $184,147
Alaska.........................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Arizona........................................................      13,232,207      12,961,248         270,959
Arkansas.......................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
California.....................................................     134,446,429     130,575,288       3,871,141
Colorado.......................................................      14,354,975      14,106,024         248,951
Connecticut....................................................      10,039,748       9,918,964         120,784
Delaware.......................................................       5,368,960       5,386,903         (17,943)
District of Columbia...........................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Florida........................................................      60,448,703      58,830,723       1,617,980
Georgia........................................................      29,078,462      28,392,210         686,252
Hawaii.........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Idaho..........................................................       7,753,324       7,645,093         108,231
Illinois.......................................................      49,264,671      47,978,868       1,285,803
Indiana........................................................      14,726,698      14,466,707         259,991
Iowa...........................................................      10,007,425       9,887,601         119,824
Kansas.........................................................      10,928,653      10,781,467         147,186
Kentucky.......................................................      12,981,213      12,773,065         208,148
Louisiana......................................................      22,565,218      22,072,415         492,803
Maine..........................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Maryland.......................................................      11,688,262      11,518,515         169,747
Massachusetts..................................................      24,488,484      23,938,558         549,926
Michigan.......................................................      32,771,939      31,920,631         851,308
Minnesota......................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Mississippi....................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Missouri.......................................................      27,139,035      26,510,385         628,650
Montana........................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Nebraska.......................................................       9,603,377       9,495,554         107,823
Nevada.........................................................       8,876,092       8,789,870          86,222
New Hampshire..................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
New Jersey.....................................................      16,019,650      15,721,257         298,393
New Mexico.....................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
New York.......................................................      75,487,831      73,367,819       2,120,012
North Carolina.................................................      21,886,418      21,413,777         472,641
North Dakota...................................................       6,234,105       6,170,997          63,108
Ohio...........................................................      24,319,267      23,719,012         600,255
Oklahoma.......................................................      12,690,299      12,490,791         199,508
Oregon.........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Pennsylvania...................................................      27,632,456      26,933,796         698,660
Rhode Island...................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
South Carolina.................................................      11,866,043      11,691,016         175,027
South Dakota...................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Tennessee......................................................       2,362,848       4,109,312      (1,746,464)
Texas..........................................................      71,301,900      69,306,214       1,995,686
Utah...........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Vermont........................................................       6,428,048       6,359,179          68,869
Virginia.......................................................      13,352,937      13,133,748         219,189
Washington.....................................................      24,610,182      24,001,285         608,897
West Virginia..................................................      10,152,882      10,028,738         124,144
Wisconsin......................................................      13,377,664      13,102,384         275,280
Wyoming........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Lieberman and 
Senator Collins for their hard work on this issue. I acknowledge that 
the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo. It is just 
that we can do so much better. I ask that we ensure this amendment be 
included in the final package we vote on.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for 
his thoughtful statement on his amendment. I rise to respectfully 
disagree with it.
  In our committee, we work very hard to not just balance the political 
interests, but to balance the needs of all parts of our country for a 
reasonable amount of homeland security funding, which we, consider, I 
think, consistent with the most progressive thinking on this subject 
which is to be not just terrorist-related funding but all-hazards-
related funding.
  In other words, when we send homeland security funding to a State or 
a municipality, we are trying to help them not only prepare for the 
possibility, God forbid, of a terrorist attack but also to be ready to 
respond to the much more common occurrence, which is to say a natural 
disaster. The funding formula we have presented, which was part of our 
bill that came out of our committee with strong bipartisan support, 
including the support of the

[[Page S2666]]

distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Delaware, is I 
think a balanced proposal.
  This distributes, in fact, most of the homeland security grant money 
based on risk, as the 9/11 Commission called for, but respectfully 
disagrees with the Commission that the money should all be distributed 
based on only risk because our conclusion is not based on theory but 
reality. Terrorists may strike anywhere in this country, not just in 
the big cities or the highest visibility targets, and we base that on 
what has happened around the world, what has happened here, in fact, 
with domestic terrorism, striking at the Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City, as we all remember some years ago, but around the world, 
terrorists striking at apartment buildings, discos, schools, in 
communities large and small.
  Unfortunately, in this age we are living in post-9/11, we can all 
imagine, and I use that term in the way the 9/11 Commission did, that 
part of our failure as a nation before 9/11 was a failure of 
imagination, which is to say that we could not imagine that human 
beings would do what the terrorists did to us on 9/11.
  After that, we started to imagine, and one can imagine the various 
targets in this open society of ours that terrorists who want to create 
havoc and fear can strike all around the country.
  The other point is this, that everyplace in the country, as we saw in 
the case of Katrina, most visibly and movingly, can be struck by 
natural disasters. So the funding formula in the committee bill learns 
both from the tragic lessons of 9/11 and Katrina.
  We have different grant programs. The Urban Area Security Initiative, 
the so-called UASI Grant Program, is totally and strictly, in terms of 
the 9/11 Commission, distributed based on risk. In fact, the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program which Senator Obama's amendment deals 
with, we think 95 percent of that will be given out based on risk.
  Let me give a brief explanation of what is happening. This is in the 
weeds, but under current law, .75 percent is guaranteed--of the total 
funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program--is guaranteed to 
each State. That is a minimum for each State for the reasons I have 
stated.
  The House of Representatives, in their judgment, altered that and 
went to a minimum amount of .25. They did not literally respond to the 
9/11 Commission recommendation for total risk, which is to say, 
whatever the Department of Homeland Security decided is a risk 
assessment formula for distribution, they lowered it to .25, as the 
amendment from the Senator from Illinois would do. The committee 
decided to reach for a compromise on this one and set a minimum of .45 
percent of the total funding for every State.
  We have done some runs on this. The formula says that, distribute the 
funds first based on risk, but then if States fall below the .45 
percent, then give them that minimum. By our run of the numbers, 
based on the risk assessment standards the Department has been using, 
we think 95 percent of the money will, in fact, be distributed based on 
risk.

  I wish to make this point, something that I think is sometimes 
overlooked in the discussion. Take the existing formula which has .75, 
three-quarters of 1 percent of the total, going to each State. The fact 
is, even under that formula, which only Senator Leahy, in his wisdom, 
would preserve in his amendment--even under that formula, the lion's 
share of the money, or a very large share of the money, has gone to a 
very few States.
  This graph shows that. The fact is, this is fiscal year 2006 funding. 
In fiscal year 2006, the State of California received $226 million in 
homeland security grant funding. That is more than the total received 
by the 22 States at the bottom that received the least funding, the 
minimum.
  Now, as you can see in this chart, that is California. Next is New 
York. Next is Texas. The fact is almost half of the entire distribution 
of funding went to five States: California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, 
and of course New York. So what I am saying is that we are lowering 
that. I think the big States, the high-visibility potential targets are 
receiving a lot of money. It would be unfair to cut that even more. 
Now, Senator Feinstein does not only do what Senator Obama does, she 
cuts into the minimums we have established in the new dedicated grant 
funding program for interoperability communications.
  There I think we have a very strong argument that we want people, our 
first responders, to be able to communicate with one another, not only 
in acts of terrorism--in times of terrorism--but in times of natural 
disaster. The interoperability grants are important for that reason.
  We have placed a chart on the desks of all the Senators, and it lists 
all the States. It shows that under the amendment the Senator from 
Illinois has introduced, 32 of the States will receive less guaranteed 
funding than they receive now.
  Ironically, the District of Columbia is one of the entities that 
suffers the greatest cut. Of course, most anybody would say that the 
District of Columbia is a high-visibility target, in fact, was targeted 
through the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
  Respectfully, I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Coleman and Senator Coburn be added as cosponsors to the Collins 
amendment No. 342.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois to reduce the minimum guarantee to 
States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program.
  My colleague and friend from Connecticut has done an excellent job 
explaining the problems with this amendment. Let me reinforce a few of 
the points he has made. As my colleagues can see from the chart behind 
me, under Senator Obama's amendment, 32 States and the District of 
Columbia would have a decrease in the guaranteed funding. Under the 
Obama amendment, two previous targets of attack, both the District of 
Columbia and Oklahoma, would receive less guaranteed funding than 18 
other States. Indeed, Senator Obama's own projections show that the 
District of Columbia, presumably one of the highest risk areas in the 
country, would lose almost 45 percent of its total funding under his 
proposal
  I think we need to keep in mind that assessing risk is not an exact 
science. Who would have guessed that Portland, ME, would have been the 
departure point for two of the hijackers on 9/11? Who would have 
guessed that four of the hijackers would train and live in Norman, OK? 
Who would have guessed that two of the hijackers would have spent 
considerable time in Stone Mountain, GA? My point is the evidence is 
clear that terrorists train, hide, and transit through more rural 
areas, which is one reason that the chairman and I have put such 
emphasis on preventing terrorist attacks and have allocated a 
percentage of funds to be used specifically for that purpose.
  Now I wish to specifically address the chart that is being circulated 
by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. The breakdown of the 
winners and losers under his amendment on his chart relies upon the 
Department of Homeland Security allocating future risk-based funding in 
the same manner as it did in 2006. We know that is not going to happen. 
The process by which the Department allocated funding based on its risk 
analysis was denounced all around. I could quote the Senators from New 
York and California, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, 
Minnesota, and myself. All of us believed that whether we represented 
big States, small States or medium-sized States, the methodology was 
flawed.
  Indeed, the Department has moved away from that methodology. So it is 
a false assumption to assume the exact same risk analysis is going to 
be used in future years, when, in fact, we know it would not be. I wish 
to point out, in fiscal year 2006, 60 percent of the Homeland Security 
Grant funds were allocated based on risk. We are requiring that an 
estimated 95 percent be allocated based on risk, but we want that risk 
formula reported to Congress. We want to take a look at it. We are 
working with the Department on it. If we

[[Page S2667]]

are going to become better prepared as a nation, all States must have a 
predictable, steady stream of homeland security funding. We need to 
bring all States up to reach minimum levels of preparedness, because 
otherwise the terrorists will exploit the weak links.

  We also know many of the parts of our critical infrastructure are 
located in more rural areas. Nuclear powerplants are a prime example. 
Military bases are yet another example. So the problem is one cannot 
assume the only targets are in large urban areas. That is not true.
  There was another point the Senator from Connecticut made that is a 
very important point, and that is this is an all-hazards approach to 
funding. As the Presiding Officer well knows, because he participated 
so actively in the investigation held by the Homeland Security 
Committee into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, there is 
virtually no area of our country that is immune from natural disasters. 
The same kinds of communications equipment that come into play when 
there is a terrorist attack are also needed when a hurricane or an ice 
storm or an earthquake strikes. So I think we have struck the right 
balance in our proposal.
  Now, I would note the Senator's proposal does not hit my home State. 
It does not hurt Maine, because he has additional funding for border 
States, so I am not arguing out of a parochial interest. I am arguing 
for the formula in our bill because it takes an all-hazards approach. 
It understands all States have vulnerabilities. It recognizes we need 
to improve every link in the chain, that we need to bring all States up 
to minimal levels of preparedness, and they are simply not there now. 
It recognizes we need predictable funding streams so that States, 
regions, and communities can enter into multiyear projects, because a 
lot of these projects, such as with interoperable communications, 
require more than 1 year to get to the goal.
  The potential of terrorist attacks against rural or at least nonurban 
targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. Our 
committee held hearings on the threat of agri-terrorism--an attack on 
our food supply. That would be devastating for our Nation. A study 
conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health shows rural areas 
face profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and 
water supplies, as well as virtually our entire food supply, are 
located outside of urban areas.
  The RAND Corporation has repeatedly warned:

       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, that report recognized much of the Nation's infrastructure and 
potential high-value targets are located in rural areas.
  I hope our colleagues will join us in voting against the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois. I truly believe it would not 
advance the goal we all share of strengthening our homeland security.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. If the Senator from Maine will yield, I want to ask a 
couple of questions based on my understanding. Maybe I am confused.
  We based our assessment of which States see an increase, which States 
do not see an increase, and which States see a decrease under our bill 
on the CRS analysis, assuming $913 million appropriated. They tell us 
34 States will see an increase in funding, 6 States will see the same 
amount of funding under my amendment to S. 4, and 10 States will see a 
loss. We have not had the benefit of the analysis that was just 
presented on that chart indicating 32 States would see a decrease, so I 
am curious if either the chairman or the Senator from Maine would tell 
me where they got that statistic. Because I understand the statement 
was made: Well, the formulas may change, and this was based on the 
previous formula.
  I have no problem with changing the formula so it is more risk-based 
assessed. But I don't understand how it is that simply because we are 
going to eliminate some of the flaws of the previous formula that 
somehow--or the risk assessments, that somehow that is going to change 
the basic assessment that was made by the Congressional Research 
Service.
  I am happy for either Senator to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will start a response. Senator Obama has circulated 
a document which indicates if this formula is applied, I believe 34 
States will get more money than under our proposal. We have a chart we 
are circulating which says that, in fact, 32 States lose. That is 
translated into the map here. Here is what the difference is, because 
in some sense we are measuring different things. In our chart, we are 
measuring the guaranteed funding of .45 under ours and .25 under that 
of the Senator from Illinois. The reason we are doing that is because 
that is all we can say with certainty that is guaranteed. We are both 
in fact using the same bottom line or top line, which is $913 million, 
which is the level the bill, S. 4, authorizes for the State Homeland 
Security Grant funding. The reason this says 32 States and the District 
of Columbia will lose guaranteed funding under the amendment of the 
Senator from Illinois is because that is what we have studied: the 
guaranteed minimum. Because the rest is an assessment of risk that is 
left to the Department of Homeland Security which it applied this year 
and it has already said it would never apply again because it was so 
criticized by New York and others.
  So let me in fairness yield--it takes two of us to equal the Senator 
from Illinois on this.
  Mr. OBAMA. Very briefly----
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. We will roundrobin. I yield to my friend from 
Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much. I want to make clear now, it sounds 
to me as if we are comparing apples and oranges. Assuming we--which is 
what CRS did--apply the same formula on my amendment, my amendment 
would have 34 States see an increase in funding, and 6 States would 
remain the same. Now, if the funding formula changes, it might change 1 
or 2 States, depending on what the risk assessments were, but it is not 
going to result in 32 States suddenly seeing a decrease in funding. 
This is a decrease in funding based on the bare minimums without 
applying any of the additional funding which we know is going to be 
coming. So it strikes me that chart does not describe at all the 
reality of what would happen under my amendment. I want to make sure I 
am clear in terms of what we are preparing here, because the best 
estimate of how this funding will be impacted is based on the CRS's own 
assessment of what would have happened this year.

  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. OBAMA. It is their time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. OBAMA. I certainly yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine 
to respond to my inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from 
Illinois so that I may respond to his questions.
  The only thing we can count on is what the minimum is going to 
produce. CRS, the same as the Senator from Illinois, used last year's 
DHS risk assessment--a risk assessment we already know DHS has 
abandoned; a risk assessment that resulted in significant cuts in 
funding to New York City; a risk assessment that was roundly criticized 
by virtually every member of our Homeland Security Committee. What we 
are trying to do is to share with our colleagues what we know for sure, 
and what we know for sure is what the impact of the minimum funding 
percentage is under our proposal versus under the proposal of the 
Senator from Illinois.
  What we did is we looked at what the guaranteed funding--that is why 
it says guaranteed funding--would be under Senator Obama's amendment, 
and as you see 32 States and the District of Columbia would lose under 
the amendment. I say to my friend from Illinois that I am surprised he 
would want to cut funding for the District of Columbia when that is a 
high-risk area that did not do well under the Department's formulation 
of applying risk

[[Page S2668]]

and thus does not do well under the formula of the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I want to be exactly clear on what we are 
talking about here so there is no confusion among my colleagues. No one 
disputes that under my amendment, the minimum funding changes. That is 
the whole point of the amendment, is to change the minimum funding 
levels and shift more of the money into the risk-based assessment. So 
to state that 32 States lose on the minimum funding levels is to state 
the obvious. That is the point of the amendment.
  The point is more money then goes into the risk-based funding, and 
when you factor that in, unless there is going to be no risk-based 
funding--I mean I suppose that is a possibility, but I don't think so--
all that money, when you factor it in, will result in, under last 
year's formula, 34 States gaining and 6 States staying the same.
  Now, I also agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that 
there were problems with last year's formula, and I am fine with 
changes to that formula. I have actively supported changes to that 
formula, including any possible shortchanging of high-risk areas such 
as Washington, DC or New York.
  The point of my amendment is very simple, and that is more money is 
allocated on the basis of risk. I am not concerned about predetermining 
where those risks are. That is the job of the Department of Homeland 
Security, and that is the purpose of our amendment.
  I want to be clear. Under your chart, Illinois loses money that is 
guaranteed under the minimum funding, as does New Jersey, Oklahoma, and 
Louisiana. But I would note that Senators Menendez, Coburn, and 
Landrieu were all cosponsors because they understand when the money is 
allocated based on risk, then wherever we live throughout the United 
States, we are going to be potentially better off.
  I am going to make one last point and then I am happy to listen to a 
response. Both Senators Lieberman and Collins talked about an all-
hazards funding approach. I have no objection to that either. But keep 
in mind, we are talking here about the State Homeland Security Grant 
Program, which is not supposed to be targeted at all hazards. We have a 
separate program--the Emergency Management Grant Program--that is 
supposed to be addressing all hazards and that is why this amendment 
does not touch that portion of homeland security funding that is 
directed at all hazards. That is not the purpose of the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program. The purpose of that is supposed to be to deal 
with potential terrorist threats. That is why the 9/11 Commission and 
Chairman Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families, all 
of whom I think have great concern about the safety of all Americans, 
indicate it makes sense for us to allocate this as much on the basis of 
risk as possible.
  It is for that reason that the House allocated funding on the basis 
of the formula we are discussing. I wish to make sure that anybody who 
is listening understands, yes, the guaranteed minimum funding might be 
less for 32 States, but that is because more of the money goes into the 
pot based on risk. When you add the funding that will be allocated on 
the basis of risk, then we can assume that at least 34 States would see 
an increase under my amendment, and 6 States would see about the same 
amount of funding. If the formula changes, it is conceivable that 
instead of 34 States, it may be 32 States or 36 States that see an 
increase in funding; instead of 6 States with the same amount under 
both amendments, it might be 4 States or 8 States. But the basic 
principle is that the funding is going to be allocated on risk. The 
Emergency Management Planning Grant Program deals with all-hazards 
funding.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, very briefly, this is an important 
debate. I say this to my friend from Illinois about the CRS estimate of 
his amendment.
  If you take the risk analysis the Department of Homeland Security 
applied for this year, those numbers look correct. But what we are 
saying is we know the Department of Homeland Security would not use 
that same risk analysis because they have said so. We also know the 
risk analysis has changed year by year through the Department of 
Homeland Security. I am going to be real local about this. My hometown, 
New Haven, CT, in the fiscal year 2004 grant, got a grant under the 
Homeland Security Grant Funding Program, specifically the Urban Area 
Security Initiative. In the years since then, because the risk analysis 
changed, New Haven has received zero UASI money. So that is the basis 
on which we contend that the Senator's amendment would amount to 32 
States getting less money than they would under our proposal.
  Our proposal is evaluated based on the guaranteed minimum because 
that is all we will know for sure after we adopt the law.
  My friend from Illinois is good, but he has not reached the level of 
prophet. None of us can know--perhaps Secretary Chertoff--what the 
Department of Homeland Security will use as a risk analysis formula in 
the years ahead. The top five States are getting about half of the 
homeland security grant funding now at the .75 level, and we are coming 
in, in the spirit of compromise, at .45. So they will probably get a 
larger share of that money--California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and, 
of course, New York.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I think it has been a good debate. The 
Senator from Illinois offered a thoughtful amendment, raised some 
questions, and I think the managers of the bill, the Senators from 
Connecticut and Maine, have defended well the language in the bill.
  For our colleagues who may be watching this--or if they are at 
committee hearings, perhaps their staffs are watching--I ask a couple 
of rhetorical questions as we decide how to vote on Senator Obama's 
amendment.
  Should most of the funds for homeland security be allocated on the 
basis of risk? Sure. Should the lion's share of the funding be 
allocated on the basis of risk? Certainly, it should. Should all the 
funding for homeland security be allocated on the basis of risk? No.
  What Senator Obama is trying to do is thread the needle and get us 
closer to somewhere between the lion's share and all the funds being 
allocated on the basis of risk. We have all heard the old adage that 
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is risk. Senator Collins 
talked about some staging that was done by the perpetrators of violence 
on 9/11 from places such as Stone Mountain, GA; Portland, ME; and maybe 
Norman, OK. Maybe Senator Lieberman talked about the kinds of targets 
that terrorists have chosen in this country and others that maybe would 
not have come to mind, such as the Federal courthouse in Oklahoma City, 
in a disco or a bus or a train.
  I don't think most people think of Delaware as a very high-risk 
State. As we think what is a target for terrorists, in my State we have 
a lot of chemical plants. Delaware used to be known as the chemical 
capital of the world; I don't know if it still is. We have a lot of 
inviting targets for people who want to do mischief. There are nuclear 
powerplants across the river in New Jersey, and they are closer to my 
home than to the Senator's from New Jersey. We have northeast corridor 
train tracks, not just for passengers, that run up and down my State on 
which all kinds of hazardous cargo is carried by Norfolk Southern and 
CSX Railroad. We have a busy Delaware River; hazardous cargo goes down 
that river every day.
  Some people might look at those in my State and say there is not much 
risk there and, as a result, they don't need extra money. In my 
judgment, those are risky targets, which invite some mischief. We don't 
need an enormous amount of money to help prepare for some harm that may 
come to those targets and the people who live around them, but we need 
a reasonable amount. The idea that .45 percent of one program, among 
several that are funded through this bill, is somehow too much, I don't 
buy that. The real compelling point is that, if you do the math, 
multiply .45 percent times 50 percent, you come up with .22, .23 
percent on the basis allocated by the fact that your State is under the 
minimum.

[[Page S2669]]

When you run through the numbers, as the Senators have said, 95 percent 
of the money under this funding program, the State Homeland Security 
Grant Program, would be allocated on the basis of risk. For the Urban 
Area Security Initiative, I think all the money is allocated on the 
basis of risk.
  That having been said, we can have ``food fights,'' I call them, and 
debates all day trying to figure out should the minimum be .75 or .45 
or .25 percent. Our committee said .75 percent is too much. We believe 
.25 percent as a minimum is too little. We believe .45 percent, which 
leads to about 95 percent of the funding under this specific grant 
program being allocated on the basis of risk, is about right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I have a very quick comment, and then I 
will yield to the Senator from New Jersey, who wants to speak on this 
amendment. I wish to make perfectly clear that the statement made by 
the Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Every State has some 
risks. I have no doubt that Delaware has chemical plants and there are 
ports and various facilities that constitute real risk. Under the 
formula I am advocating, the funding is allocated on the basis of risk 
that will take into account such infrastructure. The notion somehow 
that the Department of Homeland Security will not take chemical plants 
into account is simply incorrect.
  Rural States, small States, large States--for all states, all of the 
allocations that are made, other than the .25 percent guaranteed level 
of funding, would be made on the basis of risk. The Department of 
Homeland Security will presumably make an educated, expert assessment 
on the risk that exists in Delaware, Maine or Connecticut. So it is not 
as if those States would not be getting money under this amendment. It 
is simply that the judgment of those experts, who are paid to determine 
what the threats are and what the risks are, would be the guiding basis 
upon which we make these decisions.
  Mr. CARPER. Before the Senator yields, I have one further comment. I 
take far greater comfort in the words of my friend from Illinois. But 
what we heard about Washington, DC,--this place was a target. We had 
people who lost their lives not many miles from where we are. There was 
another plane trying to get here. Somehow this place, our Nation's 
capital, which we acknowledge was a prime target on 9/11, and probably 
is today, should somehow be allocated less funding under the formulas--
not the one in the bill but allocated less funding--doesn't make sense 
to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois still has the floor.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I would like to yield the remaining time 
to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no controlled time.
  Mr. OBAMA. The Senator from New Jersey has been waiting for quite 
some time.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside for the purpose of resubmittal of a 
technical correction to an existing amendment and laying down a second 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 317, as Modified

  Mr. KYL. First, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 317 be 
modified, and I send the modification to the desk. The minority has 
been given a copy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 317), as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the rewarding of suicide bombings and allow 
  adequate punishments for terrorist murders, kidnappings, and sexual 
                               assaults)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. __. PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF TERRORIST SUICIDE 
                   BOMBINGS AND TERRORIST MURDERS, KIDNAPPING, AND 
                   SEXUAL ASSAULTS.

       (a) Offense of Rewarding or Facilitating International 
     Terrorist Acts.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2339E. Providing material support to international 
       terrorism

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `facility of interstate or foreign commerce' 
     has the same meaning as in section 1958(b)(2).
       ``(2) The term `international terrorism' has the same 
     meaning as in section 2331.
       ``(3) The term `material support or resources' has the same 
     meaning as in section 2339A(b).
       ``(4) The term `perpetrator of an act' includes any person 
     who--
       ``(A) commits the act;
       ``(B) aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures 
     its commission; or
       ``(C) attempts, plots, or conspires to commit the act.
       ``(5) The term `serious bodily injury' has the same meaning 
     as in section 1365.
       ``(b) Prohibition.--Whoever, in a circumstance described in 
     subsection (c), provides, or attempts or conspires to 
     provide, material support or resources to the perpetrator of 
     an act of international terrorism, or to a family member or 
     other person associated with such perpetrator, with the 
     intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage that act or other 
     acts of international terrorism, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and, if 
     death results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or 
     for life.
       ``(c) Jurisdictional Bases.--A circumstance referred to in 
     subsection (b) is that--
       ``(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or 
     foreign commerce;
       ``(2) the offense involves the use of the mails or a 
     facility of interstate or foreign commerce;
       ``(3) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or 
     encourage an act of international terrorism that affects 
     interstate or foreign commerce or would have affected 
     interstate or foreign commerce had it been consummated;
       ``(4) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or 
     encourage an act of international terrorism that violates the 
     criminal laws of the United States;
       ``(5) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or 
     encourage an act of international terrorism that is designed 
     to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United 
     States Government;
       ``(6) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or 
     encourage an act of international terrorism that occurs in 
     part within the United States and is designed to influence 
     the policy or affect the conduct of a foreign government;
       ``(7) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or 
     encourage an act of international terrorism that causes or is 
     designed to cause death or serious bodily injury to a 
     national of the United States while that national is outside 
     the United States, or substantial damage to the property of a 
     legal entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     (including any of its States, districts, commonwealths, 
     territories, or possessions) while that property is outside 
     of the United States;
       ``(8) the offense occurs in whole or in part within the 
     United States, and an offender intends to facilitate, reward 
     or encourage an act of international terrorism that is 
     designed to influence the policy or affect the conduct of a 
     foreign government; or
       ``(9) the offense occurs in whole or in part outside of the 
     United States, and an offender is a national of the United 
     States, a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the 
     United States, or a legal entity organized under the laws of 
     the United States (including any of its States, districts, 
     commonwealths, territories, or possessions).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--
       (A) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``2339D. Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist 
              organization.
``2339E. Providing material support to international terrorism.''.

       (B) Other amendment.--Section 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``2339E 
     (relating to providing material support to international 
     terrorism),'' before ``or 2340A (relating to torture);''.
       (b) Increased Penalties for Providing Material Support to 
     Terrorists.--
       (1) Providing material support to designated foreign 
     terrorist organizations.--Section 2339B(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``15 years'' and 
     inserting ``25 years''.
       (2) Providing material support or resources in aid of a 
     terrorist crime.--Section 2339A(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``15 years'' and inserting ``40 
     years''.
       (3) Receiving military-type training from a foreign 
     terrorist organization.--Section 2339D(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``ten years'' and 
     inserting ``15 years''.
       (4) Addition of attempts and conspiracies to an offense 
     relating to military training.--Section 2339D(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or attempts 
     or conspires to receive,'' after ``receives''.
       (c) Denial of Federal Benefits to Convicted Terrorists.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by this section, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

[[Page S2670]]

     ``Sec. 2339F. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists

       ``(a) In General.--Any individual who is convicted of a 
     Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)) 
     shall, as provided by the court on motion of the Government, 
     be ineligible for any or all Federal benefits for any term of 
     years or for life.
       ``(b) Federal Benefit Defined.--In this section, `Federal 
     benefit' has the meaning given that term in section 421(d) of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862(d)).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, as 
     amended by this section, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``2339F. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists.''.

       (d) Addition of Attempts or Conspiracies to Offense of 
     Terrorist Murder.--Section 2332(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or attempts or conspires to kill,'' 
     after ``Whoever kills''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``ten years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years''.
       (e) Addition of Offense of Terrorist Kidnapping.--Section 
     2332(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(b) Kidnapping.--Whoever outside the United States 
     unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, 
     abducts, or carries away, or attempts or conspires to seize, 
     confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away, a 
     national of the United States, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or 
     both.''.
       (f) Addition of Sexual Assault to Definition of Offense of 
     Terrorist Assault.--Section 2332(c) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(as defined in section 
     1365, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in 
     the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 
     United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242)'' after 
     ``injury'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(as defined in section 
     1365, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in 
     the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 
     United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242)'' after 
     ``injury''; and
       (3) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``ten years'' and inserting ``40 years''.


                 Amendment No. 357 to Amendment No. 275

  Mr. KYL. I send a second amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 357 to amendment No. 275.

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

  (Purpose: to amend the data-mining reporting requirement to protect 
 existing patents, trade secrets, and confidential business processes, 
 and to adopt a narrower definition of data mining in order to exclude 
                       routine computer searches)

       At page 174, strike line 1 and all that follows through 
     page 175, line 18, and insert the following:
       ``The terms ``data-mining'' and ``database'' have the same 
     meaning as in Sec. 126(b) of Public Law 109-177.
       (c) Reports on Data Mining Activities by Federal 
     Agencies.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or 
     agency of the Federal Government that is engaged in any 
     activity to use or develop data mining shall submit a report 
     to Congress on all such activities of the department or 
     agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The report 
     shall be made available to the public, except for a 
     classified annex described in paragraph (2)(H).
       (2) Content of report.--Each report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, for each activity to use or 
     develop data mining, the following information:
       (A) A thorough description of the data mining activity, its 
     goals, and, where appropriate, the target dates for the 
     deployment of the data mining activity.
       (B) A thorough description, consistent with the protection 
     of existing patents, proprietary business processes, trade 
     secrets, and intelligence sources and methods, of the data 
     mining technology that is being used or will be used, 
     including the basis for determining whether a particular 
     pattern or anomaly is indicative of terrorist or criminal 
     activity.''

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise today to address an amendment that I 
have filed to the 9/11 recommendations bill, amendment no. 317. This 
amendment would prohibit rewarding the families of suicide bombers for 
such attacks, and stiffen penalties for other terrorist crimes.
  The first part of the amendment would create a new offense of aiding 
the family or associates of a terrorist with the intent to encourage 
terrorist acts. This provision is targeted at those individuals who 
give money to the families of suicide bombers after such bombings. The 
amendment would make it a Federal offense to do so if the act can be 
connected to the United States, and if die defendant acted with the 
intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage acts of international 
terrorism.
  Let me offer an example of why this amendment is necessary. In August 
2001, a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a Sbarro pizza parlor in 
Jerusalem. He killed 15 people. Among those killed was an American 
citizen, Shoshana Greenbaum, who was a schoolteacher and who was 
pregnant at the time.
  Shortly after this bombing took place, the family of the suicide 
bomber was told to go to the Arab Bank. The bomber's family began 
receiving monthly payments through an account at that bank, and later 
received a lump sum payment of $6,000.
  According to accounts in the press, this is not the only time that 
the Arab Bank has funneled money to the families of suicide bombers. 
One news account describes a branch of the bank in the Palestinian 
territories whose walls are covered with posters eulogizing suicide 
bombers.
  According to other news accounts, suicide bombers in the Palestinian 
territories are recruited with promises that their families will be 
taken care of financially after the attack. Saudi charities, the 
Palestinian authority, and even Saddam Hussein have rewarded suicide 
bombers' families for their acts. According to the BBC, Saddam Hussein 
paid a total of $35 million to terrorists' families during his time.
  Obviously, Saddam Hussein's actions are no longer a concern, but we 
should all be deeply concerned about other wealthy individuals and 
financial institutions who continue to pay out these rewards. It is 
undoubtedly the case that in some instances these payments make the 
difference in whether an individual will commit a suicide bombing.
  My amendment would make it a Federal crime, with extraterritorial 
jurisdiction in cases that can be linked to U.S. interests, to pay the 
families of suicide bombers and other terrorists with the intent to 
facilitate terrorist acts.
  My amendment also makes several other needed improvements to our 
antiterrorism laws.
  The amendment increases the maximum penalties for existing material 
support offenses. The material-support statutes have been the Justice 
Department's workhorse in the war against terrorists, accounting for a 
majority of prosecutions. These statutes are also very effective at 
starving terrorist groups of resources. My amendment increases the 
penalty for giving material support to a designated foreign terrorist 
organization from a maximum of 15 years to a maximum of 25 years. The 
penalty for providing material support to the commission of a 
particular terrorist act is increased from a maximum of 15 years to a 
maximum of 40 years. And the maximum penalty for receiving military-
type training from a foreign terrorist organization is increased from 
10 years to 15 years. The amendment also adds attempts and conspiracies 
to the substantive offense of receiving military-type training, and 
denies Federal benefits to persons convicted of terrorist offenses.
  Finally, my amendment expands existing proscriptions on the murder or 
assault of U.S. nationals overseas for terrorist purposes, so that the 
law punishes attempts and conspiracies to commit murder equally to the 
substantive offense. The amendment adds a new offense of kidnapping a 
U.S. national for terrorist purposes, regardless of whether a ransom is 
demanded. And the amendment adds sexual assault to the definition of 
the types of injury that are punishable under the existing offense of 
assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
  I ask unanimous consent that a number of news articles be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Federal News Service, May 11, 2005]

                 Program Transcript--Funding Terrorism

       BRIAN WILLIAMS: Following the money in the war on 
     terrorism. As NBC News first reported a few weeks ago, U.S. 
     government regulators have uncovered evidence that suggests a 
     prominent Middle Eastern bank with

[[Page S2671]]

     a branch here in New York City has had dozens of suspected 
     terrorists as customers and may even have transferred funds 
     for suspected al Qaeda terrorists through its New York 
     office.
       Now U.S. News has learned a criminal investigation of the 
     bank is under way. Our NBC News senior investigative 
     correspondent, Lisa Myers, has our exclusive report in depth.
       LISA MYERS: August 2001. A suicide bomber hits the Sbarro 
     pizza parlor in Jerusalem, killing 15, including an 
     American--Shoshana Greenbaum, a pregnant schoolteacher.
       The Palestinian bomber? Izz Ad-Din Al-Masri. His parents 
     told NBC News that soon after the bombing a group which helps 
     families of suicide bombers told them they'd be compensated 
     for their son's `sacrifice.'
       `They told me to go to the Arab Bank and open an account 
     and you will receive a salary.'
       He says almost immediately he began receiving $140 a month. 
     And after the Israelis leveled his house, he says he was told 
     to go the bank and pick up more money.
       (Myers' question to Shuhail Ahmed Al-Masri, Izz Ad-Din Al- 
     Masri's father): So you went to the Arab bank, and they gave 
     you $6,000?
       SHUHAIL AHMED AL-MASRI: Yes. Six thousand dollars.
       MYERS: This is the branch of the Arab Bank where Al-Masri's 
     father says he was told to open an account, where he says 
     received money almost every month for the last three years.
       The branch, plastered with posters eulogizing suicide 
     bombers, isn't the only one allegedly paying bombers' 
     families. This ad in a Palestinian newspaper told dozens of 
     martyrs' families to pick up money at the nearest branch of 
     the Arab Bank.
       Jimmy Gurule was a top U.S. official in charge of cutting 
     off money to terrorists.
       JIMMY GURULE (former U.S. Treasury official): Those types 
     of payments were aiding and abetting terrorism.
       MYERS: The FBI tells NBC News that it's now conducting a 
     criminal investigation into the Arab Bank's alleged movement 
     of funds for suspected terrorists. The investigation was 
     triggered after U.S. regulators examined Arab Bank operation 
     in New York City, here in this building on Madison Avenue.
       U.S. officials tell NBC News that regulators found that the 
     bank had as customers 40 to 60 suspected terrorists and 
     groups allegedly associated with al Qaeda, Hamas and 
     Hezbollah. Officials say all had accounts with the bank or 
     had moved money through the NEW YORK office.
       GURULE: I'm not aware of another situation involving a bank 
     operating in the United States that has conducted itself in 
     such a manner.
       MYERS: The Arab Bank, headquartered here in Jordan, turned 
     down repeated requests for an interview, so we visited bank 
     headquarters in Amman.
       (Myers at the bank): Lisa Myers with NBC News.
       MYERS: We only got as far as the lobby.
       OMAR AL-SHEIK (Arab Bank official): Of course not.
       MYERS: Does the bank believe it's proper to move money to 
     help terrorists'?
       OMAR AL-SHEIK: Of course not.
       MYERS: In a statement, the Arab bank denies ever knowingly 
     doing business with terrorists. And officials insist the bank 
     has never moved money for anyone officially designated a 
     terrorist by the U.S. government.
       However, NBC News provided the bank with these documents 
     showing it dealt with three Hamas terror groups, even after 
     they were blacklisted by the U.S. It's against the law for 
     banks in the U.S. to handle transactions for terrorists on 
     the blacklist.
       The bank says these three transactions still were legal 
     because they occurred outside the U.S., but that in the 
     future it will honor the U.S. blacklist worldwide.
       As for suicide bombers, the Arab Bank strongly denies ever 
     knowingly handling payments for bombers' families. 'Arab Bank 
     considers suicide bombings an abominable human act.'
       Then what about the ad telling bombers' families to collect 
     money at the Arab Bank?
       The bank says it didn't place the ad.
       After NBC provided account numbers for the Al-Masris, the 
     bank froze their account, which the bank claims was opened 
     before the bombing.
       Shoshana Greenbaum's father, who moved to Israel after her 
     death, is now suing the bank.
       ALAN HAYMAN (Greenbaum's father): This organization, if 
     allowed to continue in business with a mere slap on the 
     wrist, would be sending a message that it's perfectly all 
     right to support terrorism.
       MYERS: The Arab Bank, which Israeli officials call `the 
     Grand Central Station of terrorist financing,' has been 
     forced down much of its U.S. operation but remains a dominant 
     player in the Middle East.
                                  ____


                      Arab Bank's Terror Trial Hit

       A Federal judge in Brooklyn ordered Jordan's Arab Bank to 
     stand trial in New York on charges that it knowingly financed 
     the Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed and maimed 
     thousands, including many American citizens.
       The survivors of suicide attacks in Israel and family 
     members of Americans killed or wounded in the attacks sued 
     Arab Bank last year.
       The suits argue the bank had full knowledge of the acts 
     committed by their clients from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic 
     Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigades.
       The victims also charge Arab Bank's distribution of 
     payments to the families of suicide bombers was a part of the 
     terror recruiting process.
       ``[The charges] support an inference that Arab Bank and the 
     terrorist organizations were participants in a common plan 
     under which Arab Bank would supply necessary financial 
     services to the organizations which would themselves perform 
     the violent acts,'' wrote U.S, District Judge Nina Gershon in 
     an opinion released yesterday.
       In July, The Post broke the story that the bank required 
     intricate and official so-called Martyr's Kits to process the 
     payments, concrete proof that the bank knew where its 
     payments were destined.
       A bank spokesman said ``Arab Bank remains confident that it 
     will prevail at trial. The bank abhors terrorism and has not, 
     and would not, knowingly or willfully support terrorism.'' 
     Judge Gershon dismissed the bank's argument that these were 
     ``ordinary banking services.''
       She said ``there is nothing routine about the services the 
     bank is alleged to provide.''
                                  ____


 Sick `Martyr Kits'--Secret Files Finger Bank in Mideast Terror Payoffs

       Secret documents known as ``martyrs' kits'' obtained by The 
     Post provide a startling glimpse into the world of suicide 
     bombers, who are recruited with promises that their families 
     will be well taken care of financially.
       These kits ensure that the families of Hamas, PLO and 
     Palestinian Islamic Jihad killers get generous ``charitable 
     donations'' from Saudi Arabia-based organizations and, while 
     he was in power, Saddam Hussein.
       The documents reviewed by The Post include a martyr kit for 
     Maher Kamel Hbeishe, a Hamas fanatic who blew himself up on a 
     Haifa bus Dec. 2, 2001, killing 15 Israelis and wounding 40.
       Much of the kit's paperwork carries the corporate logo of 
     the Arab Bank--the Middle East's most important and 
     influential financial institution--and the numbers of the 
     accounts through which his family was paid.
       The cover on Hbeishe's file--in the records of Saudi relief 
     committees--proclaims: ``the martyrs receive reward from 
     their Lord, they and their light.''
       Replete with florid Arabic tributes to dead terrorists, the 
     paperwork explains the manner of death, making it clear that 
     the bank knew exactly whom it was giving money to and why.
       If the terrorist were successful, the family would receive 
     $5,316; being wounded or captured would earn them a lesser 
     amount.
       Though small by Western standards, the payments are more 
     than six times the West Bank's average annual income of $850.
       To get its money, Hbeishe's family was most likely 
     contacted by the so-called ``social welfare arm'' of Hamas 
     and instructed to open up an Arab Bank account. Then 
     representatives of Hamas would use the information in the 
     martyrs' kit to provide the bank with the name of the 
     attacker and the beneficiaries getting checks.
       The Saudi charities--called relief committees--that provide 
     the funding for the terrorists make no secret of their 
     activities, even taking out full-page ads in newspapers. One 
     such ad listed more than 1,000 individuals who had been 
     wounded or captured by the Israelis during the intifada and 
     whose families were eligible for benefits.
       Every ad explicitly directs the family members to go to 
     Arab Bank.
       A bank spokesman said, ``Arab Bank abhors terrorism. The 
     bank would never do business with individuals or 
     organizations it knows to be terrorists.''
       It said that the documents obtained by The Post proved only 
     that relatives of the two suicide bombers had accounts there, 
     which is not surprising given the bank's 50 percent market 
     share in the West Bank.
       Lee Wolosky, a lawyer suing the bank on behalf of families 
     murdered in terrorist attacks, said, ``New Yorkers would be 
     outraged if a bank on Madison Avenue was alleged to have 
     provided financial support to the families of al Qaeda 
     terrorists. These allegations are no different.''
                                  ____


                          [From the BBC News]

                     Palestinians Get Saddam Funds

       Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to 
     families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
       Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other 
     militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to 
     receive cheques.
       ``Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero,'' 
     read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and 
     Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.
       With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers 
     condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the 
     ceremony as support for terrorism.
       One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their 
     cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a 
     local pro-Iraq group.
       A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the 
     others--relatives of militants killed in fighting or 
     civilians killed during Israeli military operations--all 
     received $10,000 each.
       Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the 
     ``blessings of Saddam Hussein'' and PALF speakers extolled 
     the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

[[Page S2672]]

       ``Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom 
     attacks as people who have won the highest degree of 
     martyrdom,'' said one.
       The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to 
     Palestinian families since the current uprising began in 
     September 2000.
       Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his 
     missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him 
     wide backing in the territories.
       Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for 
     terrorism.
       ``It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that 
     is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the 
     Middle East,'' said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign 
     Ministry.
       However, families at this week's ceremony said the money 
     would be used to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel and bring 
     up orphaned children.
       ``Saddam supports the families of the martyrs, not 
     terrorism,'' said Ahmed Sabah, 69, whose son was killed by an 
     Israeli missile strike in December.
       ``It is a shame that Arabs stand silent as America prepares 
     to occupy Iraq.''
       Israel blamed Mr Sabah's son Mustafa for bomb attacks on 
     three Israeli tanks which killed seven soldiers in 2002.
       Tahseen Maghani, whose Hamas militant son Karam was killed 
     trying to infiltrate the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, said 
     he would use the money to plant crops and build a house.
       ``These are tough times for Saddam but his kindness will 
     help us a lot,'' he said.
       ``Saddam is the only one that has stood with us.''
       Sabri Salama, a relative of two Palestinian teenagers 
     killed in an Israeli air strike on Gaza in January, said 
     America was ``the chief terrorist state''.
       Ibrahim Zanen, a PALF spokesman, said he hoped the ceremony 
     would not be the last.
                                  ____


                [From the Daily Standard, Dec. 19, 2005]

   Meet the New Boss--President Abbas's Palestinian Authority Looks 
                         Distressingly Familiar

                           (By Scott Johnson)

       Are things getting better in Israel? Charles Krauthammer 
     recently observed that ``the more than four-year-long 
     intifada, which left more than 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 
     Palestinians dead, is over. And better than that, defeated.'' 
     Krauthammer believes that Israel's Gaza withdrawal was a 
     success and that the electoral campaigns underway in both 
     Israel and the Palestinian Authority can fairly be attributed 
     to Israeli unilateralism and Palestinian maturation.
       All of which may be true. Yet the news from Israel isn't 
     all good. Far from it. The terror war against Israel 
     certainly continues. Every day Israeli security forces 
     receive 10 to 30 security alerts regarding prospective 
     attacks within Israel. Only the successful attacks make the 
     news, such as the December 5 bombing that took five lives at 
     the mall in Netanya.
       More worrisome is that the terror groups operate at will 
     within the Palestinian Authority. Among them are Hamas, 
     Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad--all groups with 
     foreign bases of support in Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. 
     These groups parade openly and operate with impunity within 
     the territory of the Palestinian Authority. The numerous 
     security services of the Palestinian Authority have yet to 
     disarm them. Other terror groups actually operate as militias 
     under the umbrella of Fatah, the party over which Palestinian 
     Authority President Mahmoud Abbas presides. Among them, for 
     example, is the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.
       The Palestinian Authority has also taken action to support 
     terrorists within its jurisdiction. Rachel Ehrenfeld reported 
     on the Palestinian Authority's continuing financial support 
     of terrorists in a November 29 Jerusalem Post column. 
     Ehrenfeld cited a senior PA official explaining that the 
     Palestinian Authority has created a special committee to 
     determine the pension eligibility of all members of armed 
     organizations. Earlier reports indicate that the Palestinian 
     Authority contributes $4 million a month to support 
     terrorists held in Israeli jails. (For those looking to see 
     the glass as half full, PA finance minister Salam Fayad 
     resigned over this issue--which is a truly optimistic 
     development.)
       Earlier this month Israel National News reported that 
     President Abbas approved a law providing financial support to 
     the families of ``shahids'' (martyrs)--including suicide 
     bombers. Abbas's approval of the law was announced in the 
     pages of the semi-official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 
     the day of the Netanya bombing. (In addition to the sums 
     indicated in the linked story, the law provides for a lump 
     sum payment of $2,200 to the surviving family of 
     ``martyrs.'')
       The law would allow the Palestinian Authority to step into 
     the role--recently vacated by Saddam Hussein--of providing 
     financial support to the families of suicide bombers 
     attacking Israel. Asked for comment, a U.S. State Department 
     Near East spokesman noted that Abbas had not signed the law 
     and that the State Department had expressed its concern to 
     Abbas regarding it.
       That's technically true: The law has been passed twice by 
     the PA legislative council. Abbas's signature and a third 
     approval of the law by the PA legislative council are 
     necessary for final enactment. Perhaps the State Department's 
     expression of concern will head off its final enactment. Yet 
     that the law that reached President Abbas's office--and that 
     he appears to have announced his approval of it--seems 
     telling.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, July 31, 2006]

      Islamist Terror Twins; Shi'ite, Sunni Jihadists Pose Danger

                         (By Rachel Ehrenfeld)

       It took the United States four years after September 11 to 
     develop a useful working definition of the gravest danger to 
     world peace. Last October President Bush finally identified 
     our enemies: ``Islamic Radicals . . . empowered by helpers 
     and enablers . . . strengthened by front operations who 
     aggressively fund the[m].'' Making no distinction between 
     Sunni or Shi'ite radicals, he concluded that defeating ``the 
     murderous ideology of the Islamic Radicals,'' is the ``great 
     challenge of our century.''
       Mr. Bush keeps addressing the turmoil in the Middle East 
     focusing on Hezbollah as a regional struggle. Yet, defeating 
     Israel and controlling the Middle East is only part of the 
     global mission of both Sunni and Shi'ite terrorists. Their 
     goal is to establish the Caliphate, extending the rule of 
     Shariah to the entire world.
       Israel is now fighting two of radical Islam's most virulent 
     versions--the Shi'ite Hezbollah and the Sunni Hamas. Israel 
     fights not only for its own survival. Its ability to defeat 
     Hamas and Hezbollah will determine the survival of the United 
     States and all Western-style democracies.
       When Hezbollah attacked Israel over two weeks ago, Mr. Bush 
     accused Syria of being the primary sponsor of Hezbollah, 
     providing it with shipments of Iranian-made weapons. The 
     president added: ``Iran's regime has also repeatedly defied 
     the international community with its ambition for nuclear 
     weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten 
     the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the 
     current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled 
     region.''
       One wonders what the leader of the free world needs to 
     witness before he connects the dots. Radical Islam, or 
     Islamofascism, as he himself described it on other occasions, 
     is not limited to the Middle East, or promoted and advanced 
     only by Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. Sunni radicals such as 
     Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the numerous offspring of al Qaeda 
     pose similar threats to Israel, the region, the United States 
     and the rest of the world.
       All radical Muslims, according to the president, are 
     terrorists ``target[ing] nations whose behavior they believe 
     they can change through violence.'' Their goal, he said, is 
     to ``establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain 
     to Indonesia.'' Then, they ``would be able to advance their 
     stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to 
     destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American 
     people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.''
       ``Against such an enemy there is only one effective 
     response,'' concluded Mr. Bush: ``We will never back down, 
     never give in, and never accept anything less than complete 
     victory.'' Yet, Israel is pressured for restraint by most 
     U.S. allies, including the Saudis.
       Nonetheless, the White House, politicians and the 
     international media fall all over themselves to praise the 
     Saudis for admonishing Hezbollah as yet more evidence of 
     their commitment to ending extremism. In fact, the Saudis 
     demonstrate their commitment only to end Shi'a extremism. In 
     typical double-talk, while lambasting Hezbollah, the Saudis 
     refrain from condemning Hamas, and in fact, they are its 
     principal financiers from the beginning.
       On Tuesday, the Saudi Government announced generous 
     financial contributions to rebuild Lebanon and Palestine. The 
     Saudis also held a well-advertised ``popular fundraising 
     campaign,'' urging Saudis, all Arabs and Muslims ``to show 
     the usual generosity and commitment towards the Arabs and 
     Muslim Nation.'' Last week's Saudi Telethon raised $32 
     million, and an additional $13.5 million was raised in the 
     UAE. There is little doubt that some of this money would find 
     its way to the families of ``martyrs'' from Hezbollah, Hamas 
     and Islamic Jihad carrying out the ``mission'' of Jihad.
       This fundraiser brings back memories of previous Telethons 
     such as the April 2002 King Fahd-sponsored fundraiser for the 
     Palestinian intifada, and the August 2005 Saudi fundraiser 
     for the Palestinian cause, aired on Iqra TV. The organizers 
     then stated: ``Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam. A person who 
     cannot wage Jihad with his soul is required to wage Jihad 
     with his money . . . our brothers in Palestine desperately 
     need financial support, which goes directly to this cause, 
     and helps them to carry out this mission.'' On July 27, $29 
     million were raised in the latest Saudi telethon. Some of 
     this money would surely find its way to the families of 
     ``martyrs'' from Hamas and Islamic Jihad carrying out the 
     ``mission'' of Jihad.
       The radical Sunni modus operandi differs not at all from 
     that of Hezbollah's Shi'ite terrorists. Al Qaeda and Hamas 
     also provide social services, jobs, medical care and schools 
     to the needy. And like Iran and Hezbollah, the Saudis use 
     their fortunes both to fund radical terrorist groups and to 
     develop vast international Islamic communications networks 
     which they leverage in order to expand their anti-American 
     and anti-Israel propaganda, while aptly manipulating U.S. 
     leaders and the media.
       The Saudi fears of a nuclear Iran are behind their 
     condemnation of Hezbollah. However, since Hassan Nasrallah is 
     now the leading figure of the Arab world, supported by

[[Page S2673]]

     The Muslim Brotherhood, and ``the most prominent cleric in 
     the Arab world, [Sheikh Yousef Al] Qaradhawi,'' the Saudis 
     can not afford to ignore Nasrallah's popularity. That is why 
     the Saudis publicly asked the United States to pressure 
     Israel into ceasefire. But the growing violence of and anti-
     American propaganda by Sunni radical groups worldwide funded 
     by Saudi paymasters should serve as potent reminder for the 
     U.S. to demand that our Saudi ``ally'' stop their own 
     terrorist financing and the propagation of their own version 
     of radical Islam, Wahhabism, around the world. Moreover, the 
     United States should focus on developing alternative energy 
     sources, consequently reducing billions of dollars now 
     available to fund terrorism.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 338

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment by my distinguished colleague from Illinois. His effort is 
not about Illinois or any of the other significant States. His effort 
ultimately culminates in 34 States getting additional funds and moving 
far closer to the 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation 
that funding for homeland security should follow risk and risk alone.
  Having said that, he still doesn't deny to other States the 
opportunity to have some baseline of homeland security funding. He 
still preserves an element for all States. But I think here is how we 
determine the equation. It is very interesting that one chart says 32 
States and the District of Columbia will lose, but that depends upon 
the factor you are using.
  The reality is, under Senator Obama's amendment, which I am proud to 
cosponsor, when you include the totality of homeland security funds, 34 
States receive an increase--that is a significant majority of the 
States--and we move closer to the public policy recommendation the 9/11 
Commission made that all homeland security funding should be based on 
risk and risk alone.
  Now, whether you were on the street below at the World Trade Center 
or across the river in New Jersey watching the towers burn or halfway 
across the country watching the horrific events unfold on television, 
we all experienced the blow our Nation suffered that day.
  I say to my distinguished colleague from Maine who mentioned a 
stone--I forget exactly--a location in Georgia and some other locations 
in rural parts of America where supposedly some of the terrorists were, 
but where were their targets? Not where were they hiding, but where 
were their targets? Their targets are very clear.
  We all suffered a blow that day, but there is something unique about 
the locations that were chosen by the terrorists to strike. Thousands 
work in the Pentagon. Roughly 50,000 people worked in what was the 
World Trade Center, and 200,000 visitors used to go there on any given 
day, including many of the people from my home State of New Jersey who 
perished that day. Where were the planes coming from? They were coming 
from major airports--Logan, Newark, Dulles. To where? To major cities 
in California--Los Angeles, San Francisco.
  So the terrorists made calculations about where and how they could 
inflict the most damage on our Nation because while New York and the 
Pentagon were the epicenters of that act, the reality is the ripple 
effect came across economically as well as in terms of the loss of 
lives across the whole country. But they understood the unavoidable 
facts of where their targets were. Their targets were not in rural 
parts. They may have hidden there as they got ready to commit their 
dastardly act. Their targets were in the places they could make 
unavoidably the greatest impact. The fact is, these targets are 
consistently in some of the most densely populated areas of the Nation 
where the greatest risk lies.
  This debate should not be about fighting to maintain a certain level 
of funding as general revenue sharing. At issue is how to best allocate 
limited resources to those parts of our Nation facing the greatest 
risk. Senator Obama does that by having 34 States enhance their 
position and 6 being unchanged.
  We cannot deny that some States simply have more risk than others. 
Some States simply have more risk than others. Just as I would not 
argue for the same share of agricultural funding for New Jersey as 
Iowa, or I could not possibly make an intellectually honest fight for 
the same level of hurricane preparedness as Florida, neither can many 
of my colleagues argue that some States have the same risks as other 
States throughout the Nation. If we had unlimited funds, that would be 
different. That is not the case. The case is, we have limited funds.
  Senator Obama's amendment clearly drives us closer and closer to risk 
being the determining factor. That is what the 9/11 Commission 
unanimously said, that is what the 9/11 families have said, that is 
what the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, that 
is what the amendment of the Senator from Illinois ultimately does, and 
that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment and one that 
ultimately understands that there clearly are greater risks in certain 
parts of the Nation. The terrorists know that. They understand the 
greatest consequences they can strike at and create the greatest horror 
for their efforts, and that is going to be a continuing truth. It is a 
continuing truth I hope the Senate will acknowledge in voting for 
Senator Obama's amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
New Jersey for an eloquent summation of what this amendment is about. 
What I would like to do is reiterate my response to some of the issues 
that were raised by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut and 
Maine.
  No. 1, we are talking about real money. We don't have exact figures, 
but let's assume we are talking about around $80 million that would be 
shifted from guaranteed funding to the States and instead would be 
allocated on the basis of risk. That $80 million will mean firefighters 
are getting the equipment they need in States that have higher risks. 
It will mean more money will be available for interoperability systems. 
It means this money will be allocated to States that have chemical 
plants and nuclear plants in higher proportion than those States that 
do not. In each case, this money, under my amendment, will be allocated 
on the basis of the risk assessments made by experts, as recommended 
under the 9/11 Commission Report, and will not be allocated simply on 
the basis that every State gets a piece of the pie regardless of risk, 
threats and vulnerabilities.
  To go back to the issue of how many States benefit or lose, my main 
point is that we all win when the money is allocated on the basis of 
risk. We all win. Every State wins. But in terms of the estimates of 
which States gain and which States lose, I reiterate, the chart that 
was put up by the Senator from Maine is only talking about the amount 
of money that is allocated on the basis of guaranteed funding, not 
based on risk. The additional funding, the lion's share of the funding, 
as the Senator from Delaware stated, will be allocated on the basis of 
risk, and once you factor that in, then you can be assured that the 
overwhelming majority of States will get more money under my amendment 
than they will under the underlying bill. That is the central point. 
Don't get confused when it is stated that 32 States stand to lose money 
under this amendment. They stand to lose the guaranteed money because 
more money goes back into risk assessment, and once it is put back into 
the States, then you will see a majority of States gaining under my 
amendment.

  Madam President, there is one last point I wish to reiterate. One of 
the seemingly plausible arguments made by the Senator from Connecticut 
and the Senator from Maine was that we want an all-hazards funding 
approach--hurricanes, natural disasters. We want to make sure that 
money is fairly allocated. I reiterate, that is not the point of this 
program. We have another program that allocates on the basis of all 
hazards. That is the Emergency Management Planning Grant Program.
  So if they want to make an argument that money should be allocated to 
all States at a certain percentage to guarantee minimum funding for all 
hazards funding, that is entirely sensible, but that is not what this 
funding stream is all about. This funding stream is supposed to address 
the specific risks and

[[Page S2674]]

threats of terrorism. So if we want to follow the recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission Report, then we must protect against those 
particular risks for which the program is designed.
  I appreciate the healthy debate. This does not always happen on the 
floor of the Senate. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, the 
chairman of the committee, for entertaining as many questions as he 
did, and I thank him for his patience.
  I reiterate that the underlying bill is an improvement over the 
status quo, but the same principles that drove the Senator from 
Connecticut and the Senator from Maine to change and reduce the amount 
of minimum funding each State obtains is the same principle of my 
amendment. I just take it a step further.
  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you applied the manner of 
calculating funding that was up on the chart behind the Senator from 
Maine, it is not clear to me you wouldn't see a whole bunch of States 
losing under the change the Chairman has proposed as well. But what he 
realizes and the reason he thinks the underlying bill makes sense is 
because that money is going to be distributed based on risk, and in the 
end a lot of States will do better. This amendment is no different. It 
simply takes it a step further in line with what the House has done and 
in line with what the 9/11 Commission Report recommends.
  I urge all my colleagues to join on this amendment. I believe it will 
be an improvement not just for some States but for the entire country.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. It 
has been a good debate. Again, we don't have these often enough on the 
floor.
  I hope our friends understand the difference. Again, we know we are 
basing our comparison of the two formulas on the guaranteed minimums, 
which are the only things we can be sure about. My friend from Illinois 
takes the risk assessment from this year and projects it forward. It 
happens to have underfunded the District of Columbia, which is why they 
lose under this proposal as well. I will leave that for the moment and 
simply say that we are having a good debate about how to distribute the 
money.
  One thing I believe we all agree on--I know my friend from Illinois 
and I certainly do--is that the Federal Government has been 
underfunding the State Homeland Security Grant Program and all the 
others. So while we have these significant arguments about how to 
divide the pie, the other part of this debate--which, fortunately, we 
have an agreement on--is that the pie should be bigger.
  In this bill, for State homeland security grants, we go back to the 
high level of fiscal year 2004, $3.1 billion. Quite shockingly, the 
administration has lowered the money in each of the years since then, 
though no one's estimate would say the threat to homeland security is 
less than it was in 2004. That agreement we have, though we have a 
mutually respectful disagreement about how to divide the pie.
  While we are on this subject, there was a reference earlier on the 
question of how the money is being spent. We hear references to this 
now famous air-conditioned garbage truck from New Jersey. Likewise, 
there was apparently a police department that is purported to have 
purchased leather jackets for its officers. Presumably, allegedly, 
these items where purchased with State homeland security grant funds. 
If, in fact, that is what happened--although there is some suspicion 
that the air-conditioned garbage truck was bought with funds that came 
through the Department of Justice, not the State homeland security 
grant funding--it was, obviously, wrong and unacceptable. This has been 
used to undercut support for the program generally.
  I assure my colleagues, however they vote on the funding formula--
and, incidentally, New Jersey is one of the States, as the Senator from 
New Jersey indicated, that would gain under the amendment of the 
Senator from Illinois high-risk States can misspend money just as 
easily as low-risk States. In fact, they have more money to spend, so 
the probability is higher.
  Here is what I want to assure my colleagues: S. 4, the underlying 
bill, is designed to make sure the money we send back to the States and 
localities is spent for homeland security. Under Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive No. 8, the Department of Homeland Security has 
issued target capabilities for prevention, preparedness, and response 
that all communities must be able to achieve. What are target 
capabilities? They include risk management, citizen preparedness, 
information sharing, intelligence gathering, and medical triage--all 
necessary elements of homeland security and disaster response.
  Under the Post Katrina Act that stemmed from our committee's 
investigation of Government failures during Hurricane Katrina, the 
Senate and the House and the President implemented these target 
capabilities as statutory requirements. So S. 4 requires that all 
homeland security grants must be spent in a way that works to reach the 
specific target capabilities stipulated by the Department of Homeland 
Security and the national preparedness goal. Obviously, this air-
conditioned garbage truck would be an illegal expenditure, as would the 
purported purchase of leather jackets for a police department somewhere 
in America. In turn, each of these expenditures, whether at the State, 
local, or tribal level, must be consistent with a State homeland 
security plan that is required by S. 4.
  S. 4 authorizes specific uses for the grants; among which are the 
following:

  Developing plans and risk assessments, which are essential for the 
optimal and most efficient allocation of resources;
  Designing, conducting, and evaluating training and exercises, 
including for mass evacuations, as we learned was so essential in 
Hurricane Katrina;
  Purchasing and maintaining equipment, such as interoperable 
communications devices that are critical to responding to a disaster;
  Additional measures, including overtime personnel costs, when 
required to respond to an increase in the threat level under the 
Homeland Security Advisory System;
  The protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and
  Establishing fusion centers that comply with specific information-
sharing guidelines as described in title I of this bill.
  S. 4 also ensures that the Department has the flexibility to approve 
activities funded by the grants, but again, all expenditures must be 
tied to the achievement of target capabilities.
  Additionally, S. 4 contains explicit restrictions on the use of 
homeland security grants: We prohibit funds from being spent on 
recreational or social purposes.
  These provisions, backed up by extensive accountability and audit 
requirements, will ensure that funds are spent in the most efficient 
and effective way possible. Some have suggested that the misuse of 
grant funds in the past has been a result of extraneous funds being 
distributed in the form of a State minimum. But, in fact, I point out 
that the air-conditioned garbage trucks were purchased by New Jersey--a 
State which my colleagues have pointed out is one of the higher-risk 
States, and has, in fact, received a significant portion of 
antiterrorism funding. Likewise, the leather jackets were purchased by 
the D.C. Police Department--again, one of the areas of the country with 
the highest risk assessments. So no State should be considered immune 
from such expenses, and it is wrong to imply a link to State minimums. 
S. 4 will ensure that each grant awarded is tied to a carefully 
analyzed homeland security plan, and is expended for a specific target 
capability.
  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, earlier today, the Senate tabled an 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, that 
would have struck all of the provisions in the bill related to the 
employment rights of the employees of the Transportation Security 
Administration,

[[Page S2675]]

TSA. Last night, I filed an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Warner, Senator Sununu, Senator Coleman, and Senator 
Stevens that seeks to strike a middle ground in this area.
  Through our committee's work on homeland security, it has become 
clear that the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing 
conditions, to emerging threats, and to crisis situations is essential. 
From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to 
this response is flexibility, putting assets and, more importantly, 
personnel where they are needed, when they are needed.
  My question about giving TSA employees the right to collectively 
bargain is whether this additional right would hamper flexibility at 
this critical time.
  I have been a strong supporter of Federal employees throughout my 
time in the Senate. I very much appreciate the work they do not only in 
the Department of Homeland Security but throughout the Federal 
Government. It is my hope that we will be able to work cooperatively to 
forge a compromise that preserves the needed flexibility that has been 
described to us in both classified sessions and open hearings while 
protecting the rights of TSA employees. These are employees who are 
working hard every day to protect us.
  The TSA is charged with great responsibility. In order to accomplish 
its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation 
Security Act provided TSA with the authority to shift resources and to 
implement new procedures daily--in some instances hourly--in response 
to emergencies and changing conditions. This authority enables TSA to 
make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated 
workforce.
  We have already seen the benefit of this flexibility. In both the 
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in 
Great Britain last year, TSA was able to change the nature of its 
employees' work and even the location of their work in response to 
these emergencies. Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area 
and many local TSA officers were unable to get to the airport, the 
agency acted quickly, flying in voluntary TSOs from Las Vegas to cover 
the shifts and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers transferred 
temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without the ability to rapidly ask for 
volunteers and deploy them to Denver, the Denver airport would have 
been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 
travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential.
  The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the 
unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Most of those 
recommendations were enacted in 2004, but when we look at this report 
we don't see recommendations about changing the employees' conditions 
at TSA. Before we so dramatically change the TSA personnel system, we 
must ensure that we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out 
its mission.
  That doesn't mean the status quo is adequate. I believe we know 
enough now that we should proceed with providing TSA employees 
important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees. Let me 
mention two such important protections with which we should proceed. 
The first is to bring them under the Whistleblower Protections Act. 
There is simply no reason TSA employees should not enjoy the formal 
protections and procedures set forth in that act.
  Second, these TSA employees should have the same kinds of rights as 
other Federal employees to appeal adverse employment actions--
disciplinary actions, for example, demotions, even firings--to the 
Merit System Protection Board. That would give them an independent 
agency to review their complaints, and that is an important protection 
as well.
  In addition to these two very important provisions, the amendment 
makes clear that TSOs have the right to join labor unions. My amendment 
also requires TSA to establish a pay-for-performance system. That 
already exists in the agency, but we want to codify that.
  Finally, the amendment would require TSA and the Government 
Accountability Office, GAO, to report to Congress in 1 year to assess 
employment matters at TSA, indicating what further changes, if any, 
should be made in the TSA personnel system.
  I believe this takes the right approach. This is not an all-or-
nothing debate, and yet that is what we seem to have boiled it down to. 
I urge my colleagues to take a look at the amendment. I am very pleased 
to have the cosponsorship of several Senators, and I hope that we will 
have the opportunity to vote on it, if not today, tomorrow.
  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.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 294

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to discuss an amendment that has 
been previously called up, amendment No. 294. This is an amendment on 
the 
9/11 bill.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I have no objection, obviously, to the Senator from 
Oklahoma proceeding to the discussion. I want him to know that Senator 
Collins and I are negotiating a consent agreement on votes on the 
funding formulas and we may, with the Senator's permission, interrupt 
him as he goes forward if we reach that agreement.
  Mr. COBURN. I will be more than happy to be interrupted by the 
chairman.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am a member of the Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs Committee, as is the Presiding Officer today. We 
have gone through this bill--this is the second time--looking at 9/11 
and what we need to do in terms of our risk, in terms of how we protect 
the homeland.
  As this bill is drafted, its implementation authority never expires. 
It never stops. So what we have is approximately $4 billion a year from 
now on. Actually, what we say is: however much money is needed in year 
four of the bill to be spent on homeland security, whether or not we 
need to or whether it is time to relook at the priorities of the bill.
  This is an amendment that I offered in committee. I got one 
Democratic vote for it and my own. But what this amendment does is 
sunset this bill in 5 years and says it is time to take a look at it 
again.
  One of the critical things we did following 9/11 was the PATRIOT Act, 
and we sunset it. Last year we took it up again and we sunset a good 
portion of it again. So we will look at it again.
  This bill is never sunset. It is like the hundreds of other bills 
this body has passed, that we pass and we never look at again. We never 
do oversight. We never make the decisions. We just let the money keep 
rolling out the door and charging it to our grandchildren. This is a 
very simple, straightforward amendment.
  All this amendment says is that 5 years from now, this one goes 
``time out,'' it is over, do it again with a fresh look at the problems 
that we face in this very dangerous world, a fresh look at the success 
we have made, the accomplishments today, and ask where we need to go.
  The bill, as written, assumes that nothing in the future, in terms of 
our risk, is going to change. I would put forward 5 years from now 
everything will have changed in terms of the risks that we are going to 
face. If we have done our jobs right with this bill, many of the areas 
of preparedness that we are attempting to direct funds to in this bill 
will be solved. Why should we continue to have money going to areas 
that we have solved rather than redirect money to areas that we have 
not solved, or maybe for our children's sake, not spend any money 
because there is no need other than the need for politicians to tell 
people at home that we sent money to them.
  So this is a very simple, very straightforward amendment that says 
improving America's security by implementing the unfinished 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

[[Page S2676]]

Act of 2007 will cease having an effect on December 31, 2012.
  Good government is what the American people both expect and desire. 
They also deserve good government. They deserve the wisdom of knowing 
we cannot know what is in the future today, so let's limit what we do 
until we can relook at it again.
  Having held 46 hearings with Senator Carper in the last 18 months on 
the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the Homeland Security 
and the Government Affairs Committee, what we know is what Congresses 
have done in the past have created about $200 billion worth of waste 
per year in this country.
  Now, sadly, the Congress refuses to address those duplications, the 
fraud and the waste that is associated with that $200 billion worth of 
waste, fraud, and abuse. We should not add to that. We should not have 
a program that goes on ad nauseum addressing needs of today and saying 
it is OK.
  All I am asking with this amendment, and I think most commonsense 
Americans would ask, what is so hard about saying this ends and we have 
to look at it again in 2012? Make the decision again based on what the 
very real risks are and, oh, we might even consider what our financial 
condition is when we decide what we are going to spend on security and 
what else might ought not be paid for by the Federal Government as we 
fund homeland security and protect this Nation.
  This provision will cause us to review the needed programs and 
authorize spending. It will cause us to make better decisions 5 years 
from now than we can make today.
  I will draw the corollary as a primary care physician, what I know 
about my 55-year-old patients with hypertension and high cholesterol. 
And I am going to have an example today. I said: Here is what you need 
to do for the next 5 years. Do not come back and see me. Your risks 
probably are not going to change. I can predict exactly what you are 
going to need. Do not worry. I will just give you prescriptions for the 
next 5 years.
  That is what we are doing on this bill. We are not doing it for just 
5 years, we are doing it for the rest of the patient's life. We would 
never go to a physician who treated us that way. Yet that is the way 
this bill approaches the future.
  What are the reasons to oppose this bill? One is lack of a desire to 
tackle the hard job of looking at this again in 5 years. One is 
arrogance; we know what we are going to need. There is no way we can. 
Political expediency, that might have something to do with it, to be 
able to tell the special interest groups and our campaign donors that 
we have got them taken care of for the next 10 years.
  I quote my chairman for whom I have the utmost respect. Here is what 
his quote was on the PATRIOT Act.

       The best thing we did with the PATRIOT Act was to sunset 
     it, was to say that it needs to be reauthorized or it will go 
     out of existence. And we are going to look back and see what 
     happened with the PATRIOT Act so we can make a better 
     decision in the future.

  I have trouble not understanding why that same wonderful logic and 
great common sense should not be applied to this bill.

  Senator Reid in 2005:

       But we are currently considering renewal of those 
     provisions that were considered so expensive or so vulnerable 
     that Congress wisely decided for a 4-year sunset.

  The author of the act wanted Congress to reassess in a more 
deliberative manner with the benefit of experience. We are presented 
with an opportunity again now, 4 years later, to get it right. Why 
would we not want to sunset this bill? I have even a bigger one. Why do 
we not want to sunset every bill, to go back and look at it and 
reassess it so we get rid of the waste, the fraud and duplication, to 
do the very things that we were sent to do?
  I will not spend a great deal more time. I recognize that the ranking 
member, Senator Collins, and Senator Lieberman have some business they 
want to consider. I would remind Senators there is no score on this 
bill. CBO hasn't scored this bill. We know the one from the House was 
$20 billion. Should we not look at $20 billion worth of spending again 
in 5 years and ask if it is under our priorities? Were we wise? What 
have we learned? What can we do better? What worked? What did not work?
  Why would we not want to do that? I think it is a no-brainer to 
sunset this bill so that we, in fact, can learn from our mistakes, 
learn from our priorities, look at the world the way it will be 5 years 
from now rather than the way the world is today, and also, yes, 
consider the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves.
  I also am adamantly opposed to any piece of legislation that says, 
``such sums.'' Well, does this legislation mean we want to spend $100 
billion 6 years from now? That is what we are saying if we are giving 
to the Appropriations Committee all our power to make the decision on 
areas that are under our purview 6 years from now. Don't we believe we 
ought to do that? I believe we ought to maintain that power, and 
actually it is not 6 years, it is 4 years from now because in the 
fourth year is when we do that.
  Congress needs more sunsets, not fewer sunsets. We have an 
inexcusable situation that we have seen today with much of the 
Government operating on expired authority--expired authority. Madam 
President, $170 billion of what was appropriated last year was under 
expired authority.
  Congress has not done its job to reauthorize those programs. So let's 
look at this again in 5 years, in 2012. We can start with January 2012. 
By the end of that year we can have said: Here is what we need to do 
for 2013. We will do it with wisdom; we will be able to do it with 
insight. We also will be able to do it with competence that we know 
what is best for our country, which we cannot predict today under this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:10 
p.m. today the Senate resume debate on the following amendments, and 
that the time until 5:30 p.m. run concurrently: Feinstein amendment No. 
335, Obama amendment No. 338, and Leahy amendment No. 333; that all 
time be divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member 
of the Homeland Security Committee and the sponsors of the amendments; 
that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered under 
this agreement prior to the vote; that there be 2 minutes of debate 
between each vote; that the amendments be voted in the order listed 
under this agreement, and that at 5:30 p.m., without further 
intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to 
each amendment covered under this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that after 
the three votes I be recognized on the floor for another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would object for the moment pending a conversation 
between the Senator from Oklahoma and the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that the time be charged equally between both parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 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 yield 5 minutes of my time to the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to make a comment or two about 
the distribution of funding for homeland security. Of course, there has 
been a great deal of discussion about it, but we haven't heard much 
from small States.
  I am from Wyoming and I suggest to my colleagues that we have needs--
perhaps at a different level but we have needs--like everyone else for 
homeland security. So I have been a little disappointed with my 
colleagues' comments yesterday and some today with respect to securing 
America. I actually hadn't heard anything about rural areas, as they 
are at risk as well. I know we have fewer people. But what I

[[Page S2677]]

did hear is that rural America doesn't need homeland security funding, 
and that is not the case.
  Most people don't know that Wyoming, which I guess is probably at the 
moment our smallest populated State, is the largest exporter of energy 
in the United States. We have oil reserves, we have gasfields, we have 
coal mines, we have powerplants, we have uranium mines, all of which 
contribute to the rest of the country and to the security of the rest 
of the country. If folks don't believe our rail lines and transmission 
lines and refineries and pipelines are not targets, then we need to 
reevaluate that. We need to think about it again. As a matter of fact, 
if you were someone seeking to do damage, you might think it is easier 
to go into a rather rural area and stop some of the energy development 
than to go into an urban area and have to go through all the network 
that is involved.
  This energy we talk about is the very same energy that drives our 
economy; it turns on the lights in Los Angeles and New York City. So 
there are important factors to keep in mind, to keep in perspective as 
we go about this idea of homeland security and as we think about where 
the homeland security risks are.
  Certainly I will tell my colleagues that Wyoming is not as at risk as 
Washington and New York, but, nevertheless, there is a fairly high 
level of risk on rural States that provide these kinds of resources. 
Our State is nearly 100,000 square miles in size. It is a State of 
diverse topography and harsh weather. Major railroads and interstate 
highways that connect the east and the west coasts of this country 
traverse the State. Whether it is ships that come into the east and 
west coasts or whatever, they go through this area and therefore that 
makes it certainly subject to various kinds of events that could happen 
in terms of homeland security.
  The movement of hazardous waste by train and vehicle puts the 
citizens I represent in harm's way every day. When homeland security 
grants first began, Wyoming initially received roughly $20 million. 
Wyoming's share has dropped to $9 million over the course of time.
  Let me put this debate in context. My State stands to receive roughly 
$10 million out of $3 billion under the plan that has been suggested 
that we have. I certainly understand that cities such as New York need 
more than my State; no one is questioning that. I also recognize that 
large urban areas have more resources to draw upon than rural areas do. 
We have less resources to protect the things we have that are not only 
for our State but that are for our Nation. Congress has debated and 
established a fair system. Every State should be provided with baseline 
funding.
  I fully support allowing the Department of Homeland Security to 
determine who has the greatest risk to qualify for the urban area 
security funding as current law provides. Big-city States have their 
own urban programs so I cannot understand the uproar and anger 
officials from large populated States have toward their rural 
neighbors.
  Wyoming generally doesn't ask for a lot, of course, but my State has 
a lot more to offer than just wide open country for people on the coast 
to fly over.
  Let me repeat for my colleagues that Wyoming is the largest exporter 
of energy in the lower 48. Protecting Wyoming's infrastructure and 
securing our resources is critical not only to our State but to 
national well being. I would remind my colleagues who have directly and 
indirectly criticized small States that the States they represent are 
not the only ones that have risks that need to be addressed.
  I strongly support Senator Leahy's amendment to put fairness back 
into the process. Protecting rural America is something that should be 
important to all of us. It is all a part of our Nation. No one wins by 
the current effort to pit big cities against rural America.
  I hope we can come to an agreement that does deal with national 
security and gives us an opportunity to secure all of the resources in 
our Nation for national benefit.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, 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.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes of the time 
allocated to me to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who 
will speak on another matter than the three amendments but is 
sympathetic to the position I am taking on the three amendments.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, there is a procedural process that 
is missing.
  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, was the time running under the quorum 
call being charged equally or just to one side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for this quorum call has been counted 
against Senator Lieberman. The Thomas quorum call counted against 
Senator Collins.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any 
further quorum calls between now and the beginning of the votes at 5:30 
be counted equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to 
be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 375

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 20, S. 
372, the Intelligence authorization, 2007; that the Rockefeller-Bond 
amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that a statement by Senator 
Rockefeller be printed in the Record as if read, without intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on behalf of another Senator--not 
myself--I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, let me take this opportunity to 
thank many people but not the particular Senator who is objecting--1 
out of 100. Nevertheless, Senators Reid, Bond, myself, and others have 
worked very hard to move this fiscal year 2007 Intelligence 
authorization bill forward. All parties have been enormously supportive 
in this effort. It is one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been 
associated with in my 24 years in this body. I must express my dismay, 
my absolute dismay. I will hold it to that.
  Despite considerable efforts on the part of the chairman and Vice 
Chairman Bond and extensive efforts and negotiations to get agreement 
on this bill, there is still an objection from one Senator for its 
consideration. Is it just another bill? Not quite. The Senate's failure 
to pass this critical national security legislation for the past 2 
years is remarkably shocking and inexcusable.
  In 2005, the Senate failed, for the first time since the 
establishment of the congressional intelligence committees, to pass an 
annual Intelligence authorization bill. That means for 27 years we 
passed authorization bills for the Intelligence Committee. It is not an 
inconsequential committee. It instructs how intelligence is to be done. 
There are a number of changes that have been agreed to. All of that 
failure was followed by a repeat failure in 2006--in 2005 and then in 
2006.

[[Page S2678]]

  So from 1978 through 2004, the Senate had an unbroken 27-year record 
of completing its work on this critical legislation. You cannot move to 
appropriations until you go through authorization, particularly in a 
field such as intelligence authorization that has an unbelievably 
important role. The Intelligence authorization bill has been considered 
must-pass legislation for many years--until recently. Now, in the midst 
of the war on terror, with things going downhill in Iraq, going 
downhill in Afghanistan, and our continued military involvement in both 
places, when good intelligence is not just vital but a matter of life 
and death--and I emphasize the second--we have been prevented from 
passing that bill that provides the legislative roadmap for our 
intelligence programs.
  Similar to the Defense authorization and appropriations bills, the 
Intelligence authorization bill is at the core of our efforts to 
protect America. That is why it is simply incomprehensible, shocking, 
and debasing that we cannot find a way to bring up and pass this 
critical legislation.
  The result of this continued obstruction will be diminished authority 
for intelligence agencies to do their job in protecting America. I hope 
the Senator involved takes satisfaction in that. I am not sure his 
constituents--if it is a he--would. Yes, I am angry.
  The authorization bill contains 16 separate provisions enhancing or 
clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The 
bill includes major improvements in the way we approach and manage 
human intelligence, information sharing, protection of sources and 
methods, and even the nominations process for key intelligence 
community leaders.
  I came to the floor several times last year to explain those 
provisions in detail. Today, I reiterate how important this legislation 
is to the war on terrorism and to every other aspect of our national 
security, including the ongoing fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. This 
should have happened years ago. Somebody objects and, of course, it 
cannot happen; the rules of the Senate prevail.
  There is no reason the Senate cannot pass this bill quickly, so that 
we can confer with the House before the committee is required to turn 
its attention to drafting and reporting out what will be another 
experiment, the 2008 authorization, which we should already be halfway 
toward completing. If there is objection to passing this bill by 
unanimous consent, we have been--the vice chairman and I, who worked 
very well together--more than willing to negotiate a time agreement and 
quickly debate and pass this long-overdue national security bill.
  It is essential we assist the men and women of the intelligence 
agencies to continue their vital work on the frontlines of Iraq and 
Afghanistan and something called the war on terror.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I conclude by simply saying we need 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEAHY. Has there been time reserved for the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there an order for 
recognition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry: Does anybody else have time 
reserved to them?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I do for an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from 
California each have 13 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, may I just appeal to whatever 
reasoned and reasonable people there may be around here, and that is 
that the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee has something to 
say on this matter which relates to what I said. There is a sequential 
power in that which I think deserves consideration.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, in order for the Senator from Missouri 
to speak, would the Senator from Maine or one of the sponsors have to 
yield time to him?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Ms. COLLINS. How much time does the Senator from Maine have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes remaining.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the ranking member of the 
committee.
  When this committee was formed a long time ago--30 years ago--we 
lacked congressional oversight. Since 9/11, we found that congressional 
oversight had not been as good as it should have been, and one of my 
first acts when I was appointed vice chairman was I suggested to the 
chairman that passing the authorization bill was the top priority. He 
agreed. We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to 
have an impact on the intelligence community.
  There are already a number of Rockefeller-Bond amendments on this 9/
11 bill. There will be more.
  There are some who say there is nothing an executive branch agency 
values more than a lack of congressional oversight. But I believe 
congressional oversight can help them do their job better.
  Is this bill perfect? No. But it is largely the same bill as last 
year, and we have changed provisions that were objectionable. On the 
good side, it would ensure that the exemption of Freedom of Information 
Act requirements carries over to operational files. There is a specific 
provision creating, within the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence, a National Space Intelligence Center.
  In reviewing all these, we worked very closely together to deal with 
problems in the bill. I believe we have taken care of most of the 
problems people raised. What I am afraid of is that people are 
objecting to the bill without knowing what is in the bill, without 
knowing the changes we have made, the accommodations that have been 
made by the chairman and by the vice chairman to make this bill 
acceptable.
  Some have said that the administration has concerns. If the 
administration has concerns, obviously they could exercise those 
concerns in a veto. But if they have concerns, I am not sure they know 
the changes and the provisions we have added to this bill.
  I invite my colleagues who have problems with the bill to talk with 
me or with the chairman about the bill so we can move it. We have 
worked long and hard to help improve the operations of the intelligence 
community. Our bill is the one way we have of providing that guidance 
and sharing with the intelligence community the issues that the 
bipartisan members of this committee believe are important.
  I invite anybody, all people or any person who has a hold on this 
bill, to come forward and find out what is in the bill. Don't judge it 
by what you think it may contain.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________