[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6303-S6307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THUNE:
  S. 3652. A bill to provide for comprehensive budget reform in order 
to increase transparency and reduce the deficit.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have been bombarded with some pretty big 
numbers lately. Our total national debt recently topped $13 trillion. 
In 5 years, it is expected to pass $20 trillion. This fiscal year 
alone, the Federal Government plans to run a deficit of $1.4 trillion. 
In other words, we are borrowing 41 cents out of every $1 we spend.
  The numbers are mind blowing. We cannot even wrap our heads around 
the immensity of these numbers that run into the trillions. But they 
should be a very big red flag indicating that something--something--has 
gone very wrong here in Washington.
  The American people are struggling with high unemployment and a 
difficult economy, trying to make ends meet. The American Government--
their government--ought to be doing what it can to balance its own 
budget, not spending like drunken sailors in a way that will put the 
future of many American families at risk.
  I hear it in my State. I know most of my colleagues do. I hear it as 
I drive around the country. There is a palpable fear that this enormous 
burden of debt is going to crush us.
  The Federal budget for 2010 is already 24 percent higher than it was 
in 2008. How many families are able to increase their spending by 24 
percent over a 2-year period? Congress has to realize what the American 
people already know: Our current rate of spending is unsustainable. 
There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, you 
tend to see everything as a nail. Well, this administration and the 
Democratic leadership of Congress seem to think the only tool they have 
is a checkbook and every problem can be solved with more money.
  But all of this reckless spending is not solving the problems it was 
meant to solve. If you recall, the trillion dollar stimulus was 
supposed to create jobs and get the economy growing again. 
Unfortunately, it has not worked that way.
  Look at the latest jobs report for last month. We actually lost 
125,000 total jobs across the country. Where I come from, that is known 
as heading in the wrong direction. Look as the massive health care law 
passed earlier this year. When the other side was jamming this bill 
through the Senate, they said, even though it would cost $2.5 trillion, 
it would actually bring down--down--our spending on health care and 
lower the deficit over time.
  In the past few weeks, however, we have gotten new estimates that the 
law will cost billions more than was thought a few months ago. On top 
of that, health care spending is expected to rise even faster as a 
result of the law than if we had done nothing at all.
  Time after time after time that is what we have seen: more spending, 
more debt, and a bill we will hand to

[[Page S6304]]

our children--all because we cannot live within our means and we refuse 
to make the tough choices we were elected to make.
  The irresponsible spending and borrowing that is making our mountain 
of debt bigger every day has to stop. Today, I am introducing a bill 
entitled the Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act that will take the 
first steps toward reining in our spending. It is high time we show the 
American taxpayers we are responsible stewards not just of their tax 
dollars but of the future of this country.
  The goal here is to reform the budget process and to reduce our 
structural deficits so we will live within our means. My proposal is a 
three-legged stool that aims to support our country and economy while 
reducing the burden our rapidly expanding government places on American 
families and businesses.
  The first proposal is to create a new standing joint committee of 
Congress for budget deficit reduction. The committee would be required 
to put forward a plan to cut the deficit by 10 percent every budget 
cycle, and to do it without raising taxes. This would be Members of 
Congress--both parties--taking responsibility and not punting the job 
to outsiders.
  This bill would then receive expedited consideration in both Chambers 
of Congress. We have 26 committees and subcommittees in Congress that 
are dedicated to spending tax dollars. We should have at least one 
dedicated to saving tax dollars.
  Second, to make sure those changes have a better chance of success in 
practice, I am proposing additional reforms to the budget process. 
Crucially, we would reform pay-go rules to prevent the double counting 
of new revenues or reduced spending in trust funds for the purpose of 
offsetting other expenditures.
  When pay-go rules were set up earlier this year, they allowed for 
these kinds of gimmicks that have been used over and over to subvert 
the budget responsibility the rules were meant to impose.
  More than $600 billion in trust fund offsets was used to pass the 
health care reform bill, and an attempt was made to increase the per-
barrel tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to offset other 
unrelated measures. By preventing these changes from being used as an 
offset under pay-go rules, this provision would end the practice of 
double counting these spending reductions and revenue increases.
  Then we would add teeth to the budget by making it a binding joint 
resolution signed into law by the President. This would force the 
administration and Congress to work more closely together, and Congress 
would have less flexibility to violate the nonbinding resolutions we 
currently use.
  My legislation would also establish a biennial budget timeline to 
give Congress more time for oversight and to determine whether our 
spending is doing what it is supposed to do.
  I will simply point out that it seems to me the way we do the budget 
process currently is broken. In the last 34 years, I think there have 
been 4 times when all of the appropriations bills have been passed by 
the Congress on time, according to schedule. If you look at the number 
of budgets that have been passed here in the past few years, there have 
been a lot of years when we have not passed budgets at all.
  It seems to me it would make sense--in an even-numbered year, when 
there is an election going to be held--that we ought to do oversight, 
that we ought to be looking at ways to save taxpayer money rather than 
spend taxpayer money. Then we could do the budget in the odd-numbered 
years, after an election, so we have an opportunity to do the 
appropriations bills and go through the budget process in the odd-
numbered year, so when the even-numbered year comes around again we are 
not consumed with trying to spend money to attract some constituency to 
vote for us in an election year, but, rather, we are focused on 
oversight and on ways we could actually save the taxpayers money as 
opposed to spending it.
  So a biennial budget process, budget timeline, is something this bill 
would also do. When Congress inevitably resorts to pork-barrel politics 
that inflates our budgets, we need a legislative line-item veto to 
allow the President to cut them out and to send a more responsible 
budget back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Governors of most 
States, including my State of South Dakota, have some kind of a line-
item veto. The President ought to have that power as well.
  Third, on top of these vital systemic changes, we need to take 
control of the government's outrageous spending. My bill would impose a 
10-year spending freeze to cap the Federal Government's discretionary 
spending at the level it was in fiscal year 2008, adjusted for 
inflation. I said earlier that between 2008 and 2010, Federal spending 
had increased 24 percent, at a time when inflation in this country was 
about 3.5 percent. If we take that baseline back to that 2008 level and 
index it for inflation every year for the next 10 years, we can save 
the taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Beyond that freeze, we should end the failed stimulus program and 
reclaim any money remaining unspent and unobligated and apply it to the 
Federal debt.
  Those are not the only possible answers, and many are not new. Many 
of these are ideas my Republican colleagues and I have proposed and 
that we fought for in the past. We will keep fighting for them because 
they are the kinds of things we need to do to break the back of this 
budget problem we are fighting.
  The government's current level of borrowing, this out-of-control 
spending, and this amount of taxation are too much for our economy and 
our taxpayers to bear. What may be even more troubling is the point 
that was made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike 
Mullen. He said the biggest threat to our national security is our 
debt, not al-Qaida, not Iran's nuclear program, not Russian spies, but 
the debt Congress itself has created.
  It does not have to be this way. My plan is a responsible approach 
that takes prudent but manageable steps to get our spending under 
control and to start to draw down our debt. It provides concrete 
savings of nearly a trillion dollars, and it puts in place a framework 
to help us save trillions more over time.
  It is easy to say: I will be responsible tomorrow, but first I want 
to spend a little more today. Well, there will always be something that 
seems important to spend tax dollars on, and if we keep taking that 
same old approach that the other side has been pushing since they took 
control of Congress in 2007, we will be waiting for fiscal 
responsibility forever.
  Tackling our outrageous national debt is not a priority we should put 
off until the long term, after the debt has gone up even higher and 
higher and higher than it is today. It needs to be a priority now.
  I will also note that we cannot afford the old trick where the 
President calls for spending cuts in theory but then happily signs 
congressional spending bills that do not save a dime. We have to move 
beyond the same old political games and the same old phony rhetoric. We 
need real commitment to making a real difference.
  There is another old saying that the definition of insanity is doing 
the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The 
President and the Democratic leadership of Congress want to keep doing 
the same thing over and over: borrowing money, spending too much, and 
then borrowing even more.
  But thinking that somehow with all that borrowing and spending we 
will buy our way out of the hole we are in, that is insanity. In 
reality, all we are doing is digging ourselves deeper and deeper into 
debt.
  I am going to conclude by urging my colleagues to take up this 
legislation I am introducing and to take that first crucial step to 
fiscal responsibility. The American people expect us to take our debt 
seriously, and it is high time we lived up to that expectation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Webb):
  S. 3654. A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code to 
include firearms in the type of property allowable under the 
alternative provision for exempting property from the estate; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to create an 
express exemption in the Federal Bankruptcy Code for personal firearms.

[[Page S6305]]

Given the place that firearms occupy in our culture for law-abiding 
Americans, I believe it makes sense for the Federal Bankruptcy Code to 
reflect these values. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second 
Amendment protects a fundamental right. I agree that the right 
protected by the Second Amendment is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's 
history and tradition.'' One needs to look no further than the woods of 
Vermont in the autumn to know this is true. Amending the Code to 
expressly include this exemption will not only allow more Americans to 
participate in these traditions, but will further the exercise of the 
Second Amendment right itself.
  Under the Bankruptcy Code, debtors are permitted to exempt from the 
bankruptcy estate a wide variety of household goods and other personal 
effects. For example, a debtor using the Federal bankruptcy exemptions 
may exempt furniture, musical instruments, jewelry, and other household 
goods. The code defines ``household goods'' to include items such as 
linens, china, and a television or other entertainment equipment. All 
of this is subject to limitations on monetary value, which is important 
to ensure that the exemptions are not abused to the detriment of 
creditors. The code's list of exemptions is designed to permit a debtor 
to obtain a fresh start in such a way that he or she has the continued 
use of personal items that are both utilitarian and that add to the 
enjoyment of day to day life. I believe many Americans would place 
personal firearms squarely within both of these categories.
  Several States have enacted specific bankruptcy exemptions for 
firearms in their State laws. The Federal exemption I propose would 
leave all of these state exemptions untouched and would only apply if a 
debtor affirmatively chose, where permitted, to use the Federal 
exemptions. The exemption is modeled on the work these states have done 
and takes a modest approach that will nonetheless be meaningful for 
someone using the Federal exemptions. This legislation would permit a 
debtor using the Federal exemptions to at least exempt one rifle, 
shotgun, or pistol, separately or in combination, with an aggregate 
value of $3,000.
  For many Americans, a personal firearm--whether a hunting rifle, a 
family heirloom, or a firearm for self-protection--is an important 
possession. It is one that in many cases may have little significant 
monetary value to creditors. People own firearms for many lawful 
reasons. In many parts of the United States, hunting is an essential 
part of life. In others, people feel strongly about the need to own a 
firearm to help keep themselves and their families safe. For still 
others, firearms have deep historical or sentimental value. The 
Bankruptcy Code should reflect these values.
  Our bankruptcy policy is intended to help those in severe financial 
difficulty regain financial health and repay what they owe to their 
creditors to the extent possible. And in encouraging and helping those 
in bankruptcy to make a new start we are right to do so in a way that 
allows room for the things that give our lives enjoyment and meaning. 
If the amendment made by this legislation makes it possible for a 
parent and child to continue a family hunting tradition or a person to 
retain a piece of family history passed down through generations to 
them, those are good things.
  I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3654

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Gun Owners in 
     Bankruptcy Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 522 of title 11, the United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) The debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed 
     $3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or pistol, or 
     any combination thereof.''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(4)(A)--
       (A) in clause (xiv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (xv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xvi) the debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed 
     $3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or pistol, or 
     any combination thereof.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     Act shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under 
     title 11, United States Code, on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bennet, Mr. 
        Harkin, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 3656. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to 
improve the reporting on sales of livestock and dairy products, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Chambliss and Grassley, to introduce legislation 
that would reauthorize mandatory price reporting for another 5 years. 
This bill will guarantee transparency of the livestock marketing sector 
and help improve producers' timely access to market prices so that they 
can make the best decision on when to sell the livestock they have 
worked hard to bring to market.
  To address producers' concerns regarding low livestock prices, 
industry concentration, and the unavailability of accurate market 
information, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act in 
1999 to help improve market transparency.
  Producers tell me that Mandatory Price Reporting yields valuable 
information, helps to keep the markets honest, and helps take the guess 
work out of business decisions for producers and packers.
  This legislation, which is supported by producers and packers alike, 
will extend for an additional 5 years the reporting requirements of 
livestock daily markets. This bill makes two important changes from 
existing law.
  First, as specified in the 2008 Farm Bill, this bill will require 
Mandatory Reporting of Wholesale Pork, MRWP, cuts. A study on MRWP, 
required by the 2008 Farm Bill and published earlier this year, will 
help guide the new regulations. This legislation also included 
negotiated rule making that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 
bring stakeholders, as well as representatives from industry and the 
Department of Agriculture together to design the regulations for 
reporting MRWP cuts. The bill requires that a final rule be completed 
no later than 18 months after it is signed by the President. This 
important addition, once completed, would simply expand transparency to 
the pork industry that was not previously required and further protect 
producers.
  Second, the bill instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 
within 1 year an electronic price reporting system for dairy products. 
Published reports will be required on a weekly and monthly basis. This 
is a first critical step in continuing to assist our producers as they 
make decisions that impact their businesses. Furthermore, on a weekly 
basis, the Secretary of Agriculture must publish a report disclosing 
milk prices from the previous week. This too was included in the Farm 
Bill, and I am hopeful it will be another tool for dairy farmers across 
the country.
  This bill represents several months of negotiations by all interested 
stakeholders who worked hard to find compromise on these critical 
issues. I want to thank everyone involved in this process for working 
together to reach consensus. Those groups supporting the 
reauthorization bill include:
  American Farm Bureau Federation, American Meat Institute, American 
Sheep Industry Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
National Farmers Union, National Pork Producers Council, National Meat 
Association, and the United States Cattleman's Association.
  I look forward to moving this critical reauthorization through 
Congress so we do not disrupt the critical reporting

[[Page S6306]]

on livestock markets and so that family farmers and ranchers in 
Arkansas can have confidence that they are receiving fair market value.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     July 9, 2010.
     Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. 
         Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lincoln and Ranking Member Chambliss: We, the 
     undersigned organizations, are writing to request that the 
     Senate Agriculture Committee work with relevant stakeholders 
     in the livestock industry to reauthorize for a period of five 
     (5) years the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting provisions 
     contained in the 2006 Livestock Mandatory Reauthorization Act 
     (P.L. 109-296).
       The original 1999 Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act 
     was a culmination of many hours of negotiations among 
     industry participants and required packers to report, among 
     other things, livestock purchase prices to the USDA's 
     Agricultural Marketing Service. Livestock producers and 
     processors continue to need a transparent, accurate and 
     timely market price reporting system to make informed 
     business decisions. Mandatory price reporting makes markets 
     more transparent and offers new market information with 
     regard to pricing, contracting for purchase and supply and 
     demand conditions for cattle, hogs and sheep. During the 
     109th Congress, the Mandatory Price Reporting provisions were 
     reauthorized until September 30, 2010.
       The U.S. pork industry supports the inclusion in this 
     reauthorization of two new pork industry-specific provisions. 
     We believe these consensus recommendations will increase and 
     improve the transparency of the Livestock Mandatory Price 
     Reporting system. We recommend that the following consensus 
     provisions be included:
       1. Reporting of wholesale pork cuts. Require USDA to enter 
     a negotiated rulemaking process to develop this system.
       2. Reporting on a weekly basis of pork exports. These 
     exports should be added to the list of commodities that are 
     required to be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture. 
     Information reported should include any contract for export 
     sales entered into during the reporting period.
       These proposed provisions are part of a carefully balanced 
     consensus legislative package reached by interested 
     stakeholders over a long period of negotiation and discussion 
     representing all segments of the industry. We support the 
     consensus legislative package, including the new pork 
     reporting provisions, with the collective goal that mandatory 
     price reporting will be enacted before September 30, 2010.
       We recognize that the Committee has a full slate of 
     legislative business ahead, and we urge expeditious action to 
     reauthorize the Act for a period of five years with these 
     industry consensus recommendations. We look forward to 
     working with the Senate Agriculture Committee on this 
     important issue to America's livestock industry.
           Sincerely,
     American Farm Bureau Federation,
     American Meat Institute,
     American Sheep Industry Association,
     National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
     National Farmers Union,
     National Pork Producers Council,
     National Meat Association,
     United States Cattleman's Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Begich, 
        Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 3658. A bill to provide professional development for elementary 
school principals in early childhood education and development; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along 
with Senators Michael Bennet, Mark Begich, Bob Casey, and Jeanne 
Shaheen, legislation to support elementary school principals and help 
prepare America's children for a successful education. Our bill would 
provide grant funds to train elementary school principals on how best 
to bridge the gap between early childhood development programs and 
elementary school learning.
  Oftentimes for elementary school principals, the competing demands of 
running a school, without the proper training or experience, can crowd 
out successful partnerships with early childhood learning programs. 
This can lead to an assortment of educational approaches and, on a 
practical level, disjointed efforts to ensure students receive a 
continuum of learning.
  The aim of my bill is to provide elementary school principals with 
the ability to take research-based, early childhood development 
practices and incorporate those skills into their schools in order to 
better prepare our Nation's youth for success. As part of this effort, 
our House colleagues, Congressmen Altmire and Himes, will be 
introducing a companion version to this legislation in their chamber.
  As we all know, a child's education does not begin on that first day 
of kindergarten; rather, it begins much earlier in life as an infant's 
brain develops and cognitive skills are acquired through daily 
interaction with parents, grandparents, siblings, and other caregivers. 
As a parent, I remember firsthand the interactions I had with my two 
children during their infant years. When the time came, my wife and I 
knew that our children were prepared for pre-school, where they would 
acquire additional skills to further prepare them for their K-3 years. 
We wanted them to be ready to learn on day one.
  My story is similar to the stories of millions of American parents 
who do what they can to ensure their children are fully prepared for 
that first day of kindergarten. While there are many different early 
learning settings, whether through the Head Start or other programs, we 
can all agree that ensuring our children are school-ready is an 
admirable goal.
  As the research suggests, children who participate in early learning 
programs often perform better upon entering elementary school than 
their peers who do not. In order to build on that success and do right 
by our children by giving them the best chance to succeed when they 
begin kindergarten, our bill will help train principals on how to 
establish relationships with early childhood learning providers and 
collaborate to ensure they are on the same page when it comes to a 
child's development.
  Building this pathway and ensuring a close connection between these 
two critical educational settings, especially for principals early in 
their careers, is a common-sense way to build better learning 
environments for our children. Our legislation has the support of the 
National Association of Elementary School Principals and a host of 
early learning advocacy organizations. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 3659. A bill to reauthorize certain port security programs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the SAFE Port 
Reauthorization Act of 2010. This bill extends important programs that 
protect our nation's critical shipping lanes and seaports from attack 
and sabotage.
  The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2010 is co-sponsored by my 
colleague, Senator Murray. Senator Murray and I drafted the original 
SAFE Port Act in 2005, leading to its enactment in 2006. I am pleased 
that she has again joined me to extend and strengthen this important 
law. Several stakeholders have expressed their support for our efforts, 
including the American Association of Port Authorities, the National 
Retail Federation, and the National Association of State Boating Law 
Administrators.
  The scope of what we need to protect is broad. America has 361 
seaports--each vital links in our Nation's transportation network. Our 
seaports move more than 95 percent of overseas trade. In 2009, U.S. 
ports logged 68,000 ports-of-call by foreign-flagged vessels, bringing 
9.8 million shipping containers to our shores.
  The largest 21 ports handle 98 percent of the shipping container 
traffic. Indeed, nearly 60 percent of all container-ship calls are made 
in just three States--California, New York, and Georgia--but this 
container traffic arrives at many points across the United States, from 
Maine to Hawaii.
  Coming from a State with three international cargo ports--including

[[Page S6307]]

Portland, the largest port by tonnage in New England--I am keenly aware 
of the importance of seaports to our national economy and to the 
communities in which they are located.
  Because seaports are flourishing, our harbors operate as vital 
centers of economic activity; they also represent vulnerable targets. 
Shipping containers are a special source of concern.
  A single obscure container, hidden among a ship's cargo of several 
hundred containers, could be used to hide a squad of terrorists or a 
dirty bomb. In other words, a container could be turned into a 21st-
Century Trojan horse.
  The shipping container's security vulnerabilities are so well known 
that it has also been called ``the poor man's missile,'' because for 
only a few thousand dollars, a terrorist could ship one across the 
Atlantic or the Pacific to a U.S. port.
  The contents of such a container don't have to be something as 
complex as a nuclear or biological weapon. As former Customs and Border 
Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told The New York Times, a single 
container packed with readily available ammonium sulfate fertilizer and 
a detonation system could produce ten times the blast that destroyed 
the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
  Whatever the type of weapon, an attack on one or more U.S. ports 
could cause great loss of life and large numbers of injuries; it could 
damage our energy supplies and infrastructure; it could cripple 
retailers and manufacturers dependent on incoming inventory; and it 
could hamper our ability to move and supply American military forces 
fighting against the forces of terrorism.
  I have had the opportunity to visit seaports across the country and, 
as one looks at some of the nation's busiest harbors, one sees what a 
terrorist might call ``high-value targets.'' Ferries move thousands of 
people daily. Large and sprawling urban populations are situated around 
the ports. At some locations, there are large sports stadiums nearby as 
well.
  Add up those factors and one realizes immediately the death and 
destruction that a ship carrying a container hiding a weapon of mass 
destruction could inflict at a single port.
  Of course, a port can be a conduit for an attack as well as a target. 
A container with dangerous cargo could be loaded on a truck or rail 
car, or have its contents unpacked at the port and distributed to 
support attacks elsewhere. In 2008, we saw that the port in Mumbai, 
India, offered the means for a gang of terrorists to launch an attack 
on a section of the city's downtown. That attack killed more than 170 
people and wounded hundreds more.
  To address these security threats, our bill would reauthorize the 
SAFE Port Act cargo security programs that have proven to be 
successful: the Automated Targeting System that identifies high-risk 
cargo; the Container Security Initiative that ensures high-risk cargo 
containers are inspected at ports overseas before they travel to the 
United States; and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or 
C-TPAT, that provides incentives to importers to enhance the security 
of their cargo from point of origin to destination.
  The bill would also strengthen the C-TPAT program by providing new 
benefits, including voluntary security training to industry 
participants and providing participants an information sharing 
mechanism on maritime and port security threats, and by authorizing 
Customs and Border Protection to conduct unannounced inspections to 
ensure that security practices are robust. The cooperation of private 
industry is vital to protecting supply chains, and C-TPAT is a 
necessary tool for securing their active cooperation in supply chain 
security efforts.
  The bill also would extend the competitive, risk-based, port security 
grants that have provided $1.5 billion to improve the security of our 
ports. An authorization for the next 5 years at $400 million per year 
is a continued major commitment of resources, but it is fully 
proportional to what is at stake, and a priority that we cannot ignore.
  In addition to continuing and strengthening critical programs, the 
bill also would expand the America's Waterway Watch Program to promote 
voluntary reporting of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious 
behavior against a vessel, facility, port, or waterway. While the 
program has proven valuable in ports throughout the country, the 
legislation would broaden its scope and increase public awareness 
through boating education and industry stakeholder meetings coordinated 
by the Coast Guard and its Reserve and Auxiliary components. The 
America's Waterway Watch Program has received strong endorsements from 
numerous professional boating associations for the enhanced situational 
awareness it will bring to our nation's ports and waterways.
  Our bill would protect citizens from frivolous lawsuits when they 
report, in good faith, suspicious behavior that may indicate terrorist 
activity against the United States. It builds on a provision from the 
2007 homeland security law that encourages people to report potential 
terrorist threats directed against transportation systems by protecting 
people from those who would misuse our legal system in an attempt to 
chill the willingness of citizens to come forward and report possible 
dangers.
  In addition, this legislation enhances the research and development 
efforts to improve maritime cargo security. The demonstration project 
authorized by this law would study the feasibility of using composite 
materials in cargo containers to improve container integrity and deploy 
next generation sensors.
  This legislation also addresses the difficulties in administering the 
mandate of x-raying and scanning for radiation all cargo containers 
overseas that are destined for the United States by July 2012. Until x-
ray scanning technology is proven effective at detecting radiological 
material and not disruptive of trade, requiring the x-raying of all 
U.S. bound cargo, regardless of its risk, at every foreign port, is 
misguided and provides a false sense of security. It would also impose 
onerous restrictions on the flow of commerce, costing billions with 
little additional security benefit.
  Under the original provisions of the SAFE Port Act, all cargo 
designated as high-risk at foreign ports is already scanned for 
radiation and x-rayed. In addition, cargo entering the U.S. at all 
major seaports is scanned for radiation. These security measures 
currently in place are part of a layered, risk-based method to ensure 
cargo entering the U.S. is safe.
  This legislation would eliminate the deadline for 100 percent x-
raying of containers if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies 
the effectiveness of individual security measures of that layered 
security approach. This is a more reasonable method to secure our cargo 
until a new method of x-raying containers is proven effective.
  The SAFE Port Reauthorization Act of 2010 will help us to continue an 
effective, layered, coordinated security system that extends from point 
of origin to point of destination, and that covers the people, the 
vessels, the cargo, and the facilities involved in our maritime 
commerce. It will continue to address a major vulnerability in our 
homeland security critical infrastructure while preserving the flow of 
goods on which our economy depends.

                          ____________________