[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16044-16087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2360, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations to the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd amendment No. 1200, to provide funds for certain 
     programs authorized by the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974.
       Akaka amendment No. 1113, to increase funding for State and 
     local grant programs and firefighter assistance grants.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1111, to prohibit the use of funds 
     appropriated under this Act to promulgate the regulations to 
     implement the plan developed pursuant to section 7209(b) of 
     the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
       Durbin (for Boxer) amendment No. 1216, to provide for the 
     strengthening of security at nuclear power plants.
       Durbin (for Stabenow) amendment No. 1217, to provide 
     funding for interoperable communications equipment grants.
       Gregg (for Ensign) modified amendment No. 1124, to transfer 
     appropriated funds from the Office of State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness to the U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection for the purpose of hiring 1,000 
     additional border agents and related expenditures.
       McCain modified amendment No. 1150, to increase the number 
     of border patrol agents consistent with the number authorized 
     in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004 (Public Law 108-458).
       McCain modified amendment No. 1171, to increase the number 
     of detention beds and positions or FTEs in the United States 
     consistent with the number authorized in the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
     458).
       Schumer amendment No. 1189, to provide that certain air 
     cargo security programs are implemented.
       Schumer amendment No. 1190, to appropriate $70,000,000 to 
     identify and track hazardous materials shipments.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 1218, to provide additional 
     funding for intercity passenger rail transportation, freight 
     rail, and mass transit.
       Ensign amendment No. 1219 (to amendment No. 1124), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Shelby modified amendment No. 1205, to appropriate funds 
     for transit security grants for fiscal year 2006 authorized 
     in the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004.
       Gregg amendment No. 1220 (to amendment No. 1205, as 
     modified), of a perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10 a.m. shall be equally divided by the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 1208

  Mr. CORZINE. I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up 
amendment No. 1208.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1208.

  Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) On February 6, 2002, Director of Central Intelligence 
     George Tenet testified that ``[A]l Qaeda or other terrorist 
     groups might also try to launch conventional attacks against 
     the chemical or nuclear industrial infrastructure of the 
     United States to cause widespread toxic or radiological 
     damage.''
       (2) On April 27, 2005, the GAO found that ``Experts'' agree 
     that the nation's chemical facilities present an attractive 
     target for terrorists intent on causing massive damage. For 
     example, the Department of Justice has concluded that the 
     risk of an attempt in the foreseeable future to cause an 
     industrial chemical release is both real and credible.

[[Page 16045]]

     Terrorist attacks involving the theft or release of certain 
     chemicals could significantly impact the health and safety of 
     millions of Americans, disrupt the local or regional economy, 
     or impact other critical infrastructures that rely on 
     chemicals, such as drinking water and wastewater treatment 
     systems.''
       (3) As of May 2005, according to data collected pursuant to 
     the Risk Management Plan (RMP) of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA), a worst-case release of chemicals 
     from 2237 facilities would potentially affect between 10,000 
     and 99,999 people, a release from 493 facilities would 
     potentially affect between 100,000 and 999,000, and a release 
     from 111 facilities would potentially affect over one 
     million.
       (4) On April 27, 2005, the GAO found that EPA RMP data was 
     based on a release from a single vessel or pipe rather than 
     the entire quantity on site and that ``[A]n attack that 
     breached multiple chemical vessels simultaneously could 
     result in a larger release with potentially more severe 
     consequences than those outlined in `worst-case' scenarios.''
       (5) On April 27, 2005, the GAO found that ``Despite efforts 
     by DHS to assess facility vulnerabilities and suggest 
     security improvements, no one has comprehensively assessed 
     security at facilities that house chemicals nationwide.'' GAO 
     further testified that ``EPA officials estimated in 2003, 
     that voluntary initiatives led by industry associations only 
     reach a portion of the 15,000 RMP facilities. Further, EPA 
     and DHS have stated publicly that voluntary efforts alone are 
     not sufficient to assure the public of the industry's 
     preparedness.''
       (6) On June 15, 2005, Thomas P. Dunne, Deputy Assistant 
     Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
     Response of the EPA testified that ``[O]nly a fraction of 
     U.S. hazardous chemical facilities are currently subject to 
     Federal security requirements'' and that ``we cannot be sure 
     that every high-risk chemical facility has taken voluntary 
     action to secure itself against terrorism.''
       (7) On June 15, 2005, Robert Stephan, Acting Undersecretary 
     for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and 
     Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the 
     Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department 
     ``has concluded that from the regulatory perspective, the 
     existing patchwork of authorities does not permit us to 
     regulate the industry effectively.'' Stephan further 
     testified that ``[I]t has become clear that the entirely 
     voluntary efforts of [chemical facility] companies alone will 
     not sufficiently address security for the entire sector'' and 
     that ``The Department should develop enforceable performance 
     standards . . .''
       (8) The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, through a series of valuable and wide-
     ranging hearings, has demonstrated bipartisan commitment to 
     effective Congressional action to protect Americans against a 
     possible terrorist attack against chemical facilities.
       (B) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the Congress should pass legislation establishing 
     enforceable federal standards to protect against a terrorist 
     attack on chemical facilities within the United States.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most 
glaring vulnerabilities in our Nation's homeland security--chemical 
plant security. This is an amendment which is agreed to on both sides. 
At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask for unanimous consent that 
the amendment be agreed to.
  It is a very simple amendment. It is a sense of the Senate that 
Federal standards should be established to protect chemical facilities 
from terrorist attacks.
  I understand it is an indication of a consensus that is building 
across this Senate and across this country and in the Department of 
Homeland Security that we have a serious issue with regard to the 
infrastructure surrounding our chemical plants and the danger they 
present to the population that surrounds them--the neighborhoods, the 
people who live in these densely populated communities that surround 
these chemical plants.
  The State of New Jersey, which is the most densely populated State in 
the Nation, has seven plants where more than a million people could be 
impacted by an explosion and the release of toxic chemicals. It is a 
real danger for our broader community, but it is true across the Nation 
as well.
  The Pentagon and the United Nations together spent over $900 million 
over a 2-year period searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 
when in fact those weapons, chemical weapons, anyway, are right in our 
backyard. Unsecured chemical plants, arguably, are pre-positioned 
weapons of mass destruction right in the backyards of Americans.
  That is why I offer this amendment today, to express the sense of the 
Senate that Congress should pass legislation establishing enforceable 
Federal standards to protect against a terrorist attack. There is a lot 
of work going on. The chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee are holding a series of hearings on 
chemical plants, I believe one even today, and they have done 
tremendous work.
  I compliment Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and others in 
pursuing full efforts with regard to trying to establish a formula, a 
format for securing our chemical plants across this country. I will 
work with them shoulder to shoulder as we go forward on this effort. It 
is something I have been working on since October of 2001. So I 
compliment them. I also thank Senators Judd and Byrd for their 
cooperation in allowing for this sense of the Senate to show there is 
momentum behind this effort as we go forward.
  This is something that has been recognized by every expert as we have 
gone forward, particularly post 9/11. On February 6, 2002, Director of 
Central Intelligence George Tenet testified:

       [A]l Qaeda or other terrorist groups might also try to 
     launch conventional attacks against the chemical or nuclear 
     industrial infrastructure of the United States to cause 
     widespread toxic or radiological damage.

  The threat continues to become more apparent almost by the day. On 
the day before last Thursday's criminal attacks took place in London, 
the Congressional Research Service released a study saying there were 
111 plants in 23 States, such as those 7 in my State of New Jersey, 
that could kill more than a million people. Preventing such a terrorist 
attack, especially against plants where they are in these densely 
populated areas, should be one of our highest priorities.
  These chemical plants present a clear and present danger to the 
American people. We have one that sits under a freeway that feeds the 
Holland Tunnel in metropolitan New York, northern New Jersey. 
Literally, hundreds of thousands of people transverse right over the 
top of a chlorine plant. It is open to exposure, surrounded by 12 
million people, in that particular case.
  The GAO reported on April 27, 2005:

       Experts agree that the nation's chemical facilities present 
     an attractive target for terrorists intent on causing massive 
     damage.

  Economic damage and loss of life. This is an important recognition. 
The GAO went on to say:

       Terrorist attacks involving the theft or release of certain 
     chemicals could significantly impact the health and safety of 
     millions of Americans. . . .

  In January of this year, Richard Falkenrath, the former Deputy 
Homeland Security Adviser to President Bush, called the threat of 
industrial chemicals ``acutely vulnerable and almost uniquely 
dangerous.'' He said:

       These poorly secured chemicals, which in some cases are 
     identical to the chemical weapons used in World War I, are 
     routinely present in vast, multi-ton quantities adjacent to 
     or in the midst of many dense population centers.

  Falkenrath went on to testify:

       Toxic-by-inhalation industrial chemicals present a mass-
     casualty terrorist potential. . . .

  I could go on and on. Expert after expert after expert has testified 
to this. On June 15 of this year, Thomas P. Dunne, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response of 
the EPA, testified that:

       [O]nly a fraction of U.S. hazardous chemical facilities are 
     currently subject to Federal security requirements. . . .

  This is a real problem. We are not doing enough. As a matter of fact, 
there are investigative reporters who have been able to walk on to many 
of these plants with unchallenged efforts. We need Federal standards to 
address a real problem. It needs to be done now. So I hope this sense-
of-the-Senate amendment moves us forward. It is right in line with what 
is being asked for by the Department of Homeland Security.
  The Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the 
Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department:


[[Page 16046]]

     has concluded that from the regulatory perspective, the 
     existing patchwork of authorities does not permit us to 
     regulate the industry effectively.

  He further testified:

       The Department should develop enforceable performance 
     standards. . . .

  There is widespread agreement on this. I think we need to move 
forward. I encourage and support the efforts of Senators Collins and 
Lieberman. It is time we move forward so we are not looking back after 
the fact on something we have been warned, and warned time and again, 
is a danger to the American people. I hope this amendment will help us 
proceed on that.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment at the 
appropriate time. I do believe the amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides, but I do not see either of the managers on the floor, so I 
suppose----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment? If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 1208) was agreed to.
  Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are about to begin a series of votes. 
There will be five votes. Many of these votes are on proposals to spend 
money above the allocations which we have in this budget. That is 
unfortunate and I think probably not good fiscal discipline or 
appropriate action.
  I do think, however, it is important to look at the underlying bill 
as to its substance and its implications because I believe, through a 
bipartisan effort on the Appropriations Committee, working closely with 
the Senator from West Virginia and other members of the committee, we 
have been able to put together a bill which responds to many of the 
concerns that our Senate colleagues and the American people have.
  I think if you ask the American people what they most fear relative 
to terrorist acts in the United States, it is terrorists who get their 
hands on a weapon of mass destruction. We know if biological or 
chemical weapons were used or, God forbid, a nuclear device was used in 
any of our major cities, the damage would be overwhelming. We know from 
his own testimony that it is Osama bin Laden's intention and the 
intention of his organizations to obtain those types of weapons and to 
try to use them against western cultures. Why? Because they are willing 
to kill people indiscriminately to make their political points. They 
are people without regard for human life, and they are people who act 
outside the boundaries of any norm of civilization.
  I think if you talk to most Americans, they will tell you they are 
concerned about our borders. The fact is they read every day in the 
papers and they see on the streets situations which reflect the fact 
that people are coming into our country unaccounted for, that we have 
approximately 3 million people every year who are entering this country 
illegally, that we have somewhere between 8 million and 16 million 
people who are in this country illegally, that of the 300 to 500 
million people who come across our borders legally, we do not have any 
idea who most of these people are and what their purposes are.
  The vast majority of those people coming into this country legally 
are coming here to take advantage of America's good lifestyle or our 
business climate or to visit us and see our Nation, which we 
appreciate. But a very small percentage, unfortunately, come here with 
ill intent. And the American people rightly ask, Why is the Federal 
Government unable to control our borders?
  Of course, there is a history to this. We are a nation that has 
always honored the openness of our borders. I remember growing up in 
New Hampshire, as does the Presiding Officer. We took great pride as a 
nation in the fact that people in the northern tier could travel into 
Canada and people from Canada could travel into the United States at 
will. They did, and they still try to. They still do, to a large 
degree.
  People along our northern border in the New England region shop in 
Canada for their groceries. They get their haircuts in Canada. They 
take their boats up across the Canadian border and go fishing. And the 
same goes the other way. It used to be historically, until the Canadian 
dollar got a little weak, that the No. 1 tourist in New England was a 
Canadian coming down to take advantage of our coastlines or our 
mountains and enjoy the summer weather.
  So this relationship has built up over literally hundreds of years. 
But now we have to be more vigilant. We know that, and especially along 
our southern border, where not only are there people coming across the 
border who are coming here to seek jobs, but there are people coming 
across the border who wish us ill will.
  This bill has attempted to address this issue. We have done it in an 
aggressive way. As I said, there are 3 million people coming across our 
border illegally, as this chart shows. Of that group, unfortunately, a 
large number are not Mexicans. This is the biggest change we are 
seeing. For the most part, we know most people coming across our border 
who are of Mexican lineage are seeking jobs. They are seeking a better 
lifestyle. They are trying to improve their quality of life.
  We now also see a large number of people coming across the Mexican 
border illegally who are not Mexicans, almost 100,000 a year. This is a 
serious problem for us because we do not know what countries they come 
from, and we know some of the countries they come from have a history 
of producing individuals who wish us ill will.
  So what we did in this bill is we radically increased the number of 
Border Patrol agents. We are trying to expand our capacity as quickly 
as we can in putting feet on the ground on the border. That is what we 
have done here. We have added 1,000 new agents in this bill. We added 
500 in the supplemental. That is 1,500 new agents. That is actually 
more than the Border Patrol has the capability to train--about 200 or 
300 more--but we are putting pressure on them to accomplish that.
  We also have increased training facilities so next year we will 
hopefully be able to add 2,000 or 2,500, and the following year 2,500, 
and the following year 2,500. Our goal is to increase the number of 
Border Patrol agents by 10,000 people over the next 4 or 5 years. But 
we have to ramp up to it. This year we are making an aggressive step in 
that direction with 1,500.
  In addition, we have added over 4,100 detention beds because we know 
when a Border Patrol agent catches someone who is in this country 
illegally that, unfortunately, they are having to let a lot of people 
go or send them out on their personal recognizance. That is not 
acceptable. So we added 2,200 beds in this bill. We added 1,900 beds in 
the supplemental. We are ramping up our capacity to hold people here 
who may be a danger to us.
  This bill is focused on threat. That is the purpose of this bill. It 
realigns our efforts as a Senate to focus the Homeland Security effort 
on what are the priority threats, the No. 1 threat being weapons of 
mass destruction. The No. 2 threat is the fact that our borders are so 
porous.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the courtesy of the Presiding Officer and the 
Senate.


                Amendment No. 1219 To Amendment No. 1124

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a series of votes.
  Under the previous order, there are now 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote on amendment No. 1219 to amendment No. 1124. Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page 16047]]


  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Ensign-McCain amendment. Last year during the debate on the national 
intelligence reform bill, we adopted several of the recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission, including hiring 2,000 agents per year for border 
control. This bill, while it is an increase over what the President 
requested, only funds 1,000 new agents. What our amendment will do is 
fund the full 2,000. It will fund an additional 1,000 on top of what 
the original bill does. The offset to pay for this does not increase 
the deficit. It is all paid for under the bill. Some may question 
whether this offset makes any sense. I believe it does because we have 
limited resources at the Federal level, and we must spend those wisely.
  As recently as this past Sunday, a CBS News report did a segment on 
how some local governments were spending their dollars. These funds 
have been used to purchase defibrillators used at high school 
basketball games, not for national security, trailers to haul 
lawnmowers to annual lawnmower races. The program has been used to 
purchase Segway scooters at a computerized towing service.
  I urge our colleagues to support strengthening our borders and not 
using the money in wasteful ways.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this amendment seeks to strengthen the 
borders, which is a good goal, but at an awful price. It could take 24 
percent of our money away from our first responders--police, 
firefighters, emergency technicians. In every one of the States we had 
an argument the other day that we don't get enough money for these 
people, that whether you are from Wyoming or Kansas or Maine or New 
York, there is not enough money for our first responders. There is 
nothing that says we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That is the problem 
here. It is not in strengthening the borders. It is in taking money 
away from the people every day who defend us and, since 9/11, have new 
duties. That is why both Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, the chairman 
and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security, are against this amendment. There is bipartisan opposition to 
it because our police, our firefighters, our medical technicians are 
the ones who need the help. Don't take money away from localities to 
put into this Federal pot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1219.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Warner

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The amendment (No. 1219) was rejected.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, today's vote pitted two of 
America's top priorities against each other in a face off over Federal 
funding. Our national security interests are inherent is both securing 
our borders to keep terrorists out and providing first responders the 
resources they need to detect, prevent and respond to emergencies and 
terrorism.
  The underlying bill supports 1,000 new border patrol agents. That is 
a significant investment in securing our borders. The amendment we 
voted on would have added funding for an additional 1,000 agents, but 
redirected funds away from scarce first responder resources.
  We need to make border control and first responders copriorities. 
Considering the existing funding in the underlying bill for 1,000 new 
border patrol agents, I simply could not support an amendment that 
would strip funds from our police officers, firefighters, and emergency 
response personnel. For most people, homeland security is really 
hometown security. Our States rely heavily on these first responder 
funds to keep our communities safe.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1124

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment No. 1124.
  The amendment (No. 1124) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1189

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act point of order on the Schumer amendment No. 1189.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
be 10 minutes on this amendment and the next one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has previously been ordered.
  Who yields time? The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this amendment deals with air cargo. We 
have done a very fine job in making our air travel safer when it comes 
to passengers. They are checked very well to prevent them from 
smuggling not only metal but now explosives onto planes.
  However, most passenger planes--more than half--carry cargo in the 
belly of the plane. That cargo is not inspected. So somebody who, God 
forbid, would want to do damage could smuggle explosives into the cargo 
and detonate it and do just as much damage as a passenger.
  This amendment very simply provides $302 million to provide for air 
cargo security, $200 million for existing air cargo security 
countermeasures, $2 million for a pilot program on hardened containers, 
and $100 million for research.
  We have learned since 9/11 that terrorists look for our weakest 
pressure point. Cargo is our weakest pressure point on air travel, and 
I urge support of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, this amendment would add to the deficit 
by $302 million. It exceeds the committee's allocation. More 
importantly than that--or equally important--the Department cannot 
spend this money. The Department does not have in place yet the plans 
necessary to pursue this type of technology.
  The administration asked for $40 million in this account. The 
committee put $50 million into this account. We believe the first focus 
should be on pilot security relative to cargo, which is what we are 
working on right now, and then moving forward with technology which we 
are also working on, but we should do it in an orderly way, and this 
amendment would create a disorderly process and, as I said, add $302 
million to the deficit.
  I hope people will vote not to waive the budget point of order.

[[Page 16048]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act point of order. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 1190

  Under the previous order, there are now 2 minutes equally divided on 
the motion to waive the budget point of order on the Schumer amendment 
No. 1190. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, what I have been attempting to do in 
some of these amendments is look for our weakest pressure points 
because the terrorists also know where we have done things, and they 
know where we have not done enough. A place where we are completely 
weak is truck security. We have seen that terrorists have used trucks 
to hurt us--in New York City at the World Trade Center in 1993, of 
course in Oklahoma City a few years later, and in Europe and around the 
world as well. A truck loaded with explosives can do terrible damage at 
a football stadium, at a skyscraper or another place that is heavily 
populated.
  The interesting thing is that technology does exist to track trucks 
the way we track airplanes. It is GPS. It is not very expensive. But 
since the truck market is so fragmented, no one company does it alone, 
even though many companies have GPS systems in their trucks, mainly for 
theft.
  We provide just $70 million, not very much, to develop and implement 
a system for identification and tracking only of hazardous material 
trucks--those that carry gasoline, explosives, chlorine--that could be 
used for terrible purposes. If we can't afford $70 million to do this--
and I disagree with my friend from New Hampshire, we are not doing 
enough now--then we ought to look into the mirror. I hope this 
amendment will be supported.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I point out initially that this amendment 
exceeds the budget allocation of the committee and is a deficit 
spending item. More important than that, the Department of Homeland 
Security does not yet have the technology nor the pilot programs 
capable of doing this. They will be pursuing this course of action when 
they are ready to do this in an effective and comprehensive way, and we 
will fund it.
  Again, there dollars are being put in a problem that there is no 
solution for at this time. The Department has not asked for money for 
this because they know they are not capable of handling it yet. We will 
certainly pursue this activity, if it is appropriate, as the Department 
gets their pilot programs in place and shows that they can handle this 
type of program. Right now it is premature. In addition, of course, it 
is deficit spending.
  I hope Senators support the budget point of order and vote against 
waiving it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

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

                                NAYS--62

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 36, the nays are 62. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.


                    Amendment No. 1221, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously 
agreed to Hatch amendment numbered 1221 be modified with the changes 
that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1221), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       (A) On line 2, page 2, strike``.'' and insert``;''.
       (B) Add at the end, ``provided that the balance shall be 
     allocated from the funds available to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for States, urban areas, or regions based 
     on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and unmet essential 
     capabilities pursuant to Homeland Security presidential 
     directive 8 (HSPD-8).''


                           Amendment No. 1171

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to the vote on McCain amendment No. 1171.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I use my minute, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Kyl and Senator Brownback be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act, which we passed 7 months ago, authorized 8,000 new 
detention

[[Page 16049]]

beds. This bill provides for about a quarter of that. The Border Patrol 
now releases 90 percent of the people they catch through voluntary 
repatriation--90 percent. My friends, anybody who comes into the United 
States of America across our southern border today and is from a 
country other than Mexico, there is a 95-percent chance they will 
continue their journey to wherever they want to go. We don't have 
enough detention facilities. We don't have enough beds.
  Mr. President, here is a story:

       Twenty Brazilians glided across the Rio Grande in rubber 
     rafts propelled by Mexican smugglers who leaned forward and 
     breast-stroked through the gentle current.
       Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled ashore and 
     started looking for the Border Patrol. Their quick and well-
     rehearsed surrender was part of a growing trend that is 
     demoralizing the Border Patrol and beckoning a rising number 
     of illegal immigrants from countries beyond Mexico.
       ``We used to chase them; now they're chasing us,'' Border 
     Patrol Agent Gus Balderas said as he frisked the Brazilians.

  Mr. President, we have to provide sufficient facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask my colleagues to approve this much needed 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The amendment (No. 1171) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that after this vote, which is the 
final vote of this group, there be 3 hours to be divided in the usual 
form to be used concurrently on the amendments; provided further that 
following the use or yielding back of debate time, the Senate proceed 
to the votes in relation to the following amendments: Senator Byrd's 
amendment 1218; my amendment No. 1220, as modified; Senator Shelby's 
amendment 1205. Provided further that no second-degree amendments be in 
order and the amendments be prior to the votes.
  The time will be divided as follows under the 3-hour agreement: 
Senator Shelby, 15 minutes; Senator Schumer, 15 minutes; Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island, 15 minutes; Senator Carper, 15 minutes; Senator Biden, 
15 minutes; Senator Sarbanes, 15 minutes; Senator Byrd, 15 minutes; and 
I will retain an hour.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 15 minutes and 
Senator Jack Reed has 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. May I make a unanimous consent request before we proceed?
  Mr. GREGG. Proceed.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators have 
their names added as cosponsors to the Byrd amendment numbered 1200: 
Senators Warner, Collins, Murray, Stabenow, Kohl, Sarbanes, Levin, and 
Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand it, the prior unanimous consent request 
that I asked for reflects the Democratic leader's time was also agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you.


                           Amendment No. 1217

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to a vote on a point of order to waive the Budget 
Act on the Stabenow amendment numbered 1217.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Durbin as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Our primary goal as the Senate must be to make sure our 
families are prepared and protected. That means preparing our first 
responders. This amendment is an amendment to provide the first 
installment on fully investing in interoperability communications, $5 
billion in emergency spending, which is the equivalent of 1 month 
spending in Iraq, in order to make sure we can talk to each other--
State, Federal, local, police, fire, and emergency responders.
  When our cities were attacked, they were not attacking individual 
cities; they were attacking our country. No longer is interoperable 
communications just a State and local function. It must be committed to 
nationally to keep America safe.
  Finally, my distinguished friend from New Hampshire I am sure will 
say the Department still has funds that have not been allocated. My 
question is, Why not? Let's get about the business of keeping prepared 
and protected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                           Amendment No. 1222

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to this 
vote the pending amendment be set aside so I can send this amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection to the request by the Democratic 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Nevada?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1222.

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

    (Purpose: To prohibit Federal employees who disclose classified 
information to persons not authorized to receive such information from 
                     holding a security clearance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page 16050]]

       Sec. __. No Federal employee who discloses, or has 
     disclosed, classified information, including the identity of 
     a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a 
     person not authorized to receive such information shall be 
     permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such 
     information.


                           Amendment No. 1217

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute now in 
opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this will be a $5 billion budget buster. It 
is $5 billion above the allocation. Just as significant, it is declared 
an emergency. Now, under the budget rules, an emergency is something 
that is sudden, urgent, or unforeseen. Clearly, this is not a sudden, 
urgent, or unforeseen event. In fact, we have spent over $1.8 billion 
already on interoperability. There are significant dollars in the bill 
for interoperability.
  The problem with interoperability is, quite simply, no one can agree 
on what the interoperability should be yet. In fact, we spent 10 years 
trying to reach a regime on this. It is called standard P25. It has not 
been reached yet. We will continue to put money into interoperability, 
but this money will be misallocated and misspent if it is put in at 
this level. And it would clearly add to the deficit by $5 billion.
  So I hope people will support the budget point of order to make the 
point this is not an emergency. Should this point of order be 
sustained, there may be another vote. We will have to wait and see what 
the Senator from Michigan wants to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 35, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                                NAYS--63

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are 
63. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the emergency designation on the amendment falls.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thought the motion was on the emergency 
designation. The amendment would survive that, and we would need a vote 
on the amendment. I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1217.
  The amendment (No. 1217) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now proceeding under a prior 
unanimous consent agreement relative to debate on the three amendments 
dealing with mass transit and rail. I hope that Members who have time 
allocated under that agreement will come over and begin the debate. 
Otherwise, I recommend that the time be equally divided in the quorum 
call between my hour and the 2 hours on the other side and that the 
time come off those in the proper proportion.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


     Amendment Nos. 1117, 1118, 1137, 1108, 1197, and 1194, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1117, Senator Nelson; amendment No. 1118, Senator Nelson; amendment No. 
1137, Senator Collins; amendment No. 1108, Senator Lott; amendment No. 
1197, Senator Lautenberg; and amendment No. 1194, Senator Nelson, which 
are at the desk, be called up and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for clear, concise, and uniform guidelines for 
  reimbursement for hurricane debris removal for counties affected by 
                              hurricanes)


                           amendment no. 1117

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 5___. In light of concerns regarding inconsistent 
     policy memoranda and guidelines issued to counties and 
     communities affected by the 2004 hurricane season, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Under 
     Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall 
     provide clear, concise, and uniform guidelines for the 
     reimbursement to any county or government entity affected by 
     a hurricane of the costs of hurricane debris removal.


                           amendment no. 1118

 (Purpose: To provide for a report describing changes made to Federal 
emergency preparedness and response policies and practices in light of 
            the May 20, 2005 DHS Inspector General's Report)

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 5___. Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     acting through the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness 
     and Response, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives a report describing any changes to Federal 
     emergency preparedness and response policies and practices 
     made as a result of the report of the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Homeland Security, dated May 20, 2005, 
     relating to the individual and household program of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency in Miami-Dade County, 
     Florida, in response to Hurricane Frances.


                           amendment no. 1137

  (Purpose: To allow additional uses for funds provided under the law 
                enforcement terrorism prevention grants)

       On page 78, line 12, strike the period at the end and 
     insert the following: ``: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this paragraph may be used for overtime costs 
     associated with providing enhanced law enforcement operations 
     in support of Federal agencies for increased border security 
     and border crossing enforcement.''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Collins amendment, No. 1137, would 
allow the use of law enforcement terrorism prevention funds to be used 
for overtime costs associated with providing law enforcement operations 
in support of Federal agencies for increased border security and border 
crossing enforcement.
  I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by Senator Dorgan.
  There has been considerable discussion in recent months on the need 
to

[[Page 16051]]

improve border security. One way to do this is to increase the number 
of Border Patrol Agents. But it takes significant time to recruit and 
train new Federal law enforcement agents. A more immediate way to 
improve border security is to activate our existing State, local, and 
tribal law enforcement partners as a back-up force in support of 
Federal border agents.
  This is not a new idea. The Department of Homeland Security has 
authorized this use with different funds in the past. Beginning with 
the last Federal election period up until the Presidential inauguration 
last January, Operation Stonegarden permitted reimbursement for State 
and local law enforcement activities that assisted Federal officials in 
securing the border.
  My own State of Maine participated in that operation with a great 
degree of success. Arthur Cleaves, the Director of the Maine Emergency 
Management Agency, told me that Maine realized the Nation's second 
highest level of agency participation in Operation Stonegarden with 22 
State, county, local, and tribal agencies involved. These dedicated law 
enforcement professionals assisted the Border Patrol Sector in Houlton, 
ME, with increased patrols, reporting of incidents, and arrests of 
significant persons attempting to enter the United States from Canada. 
In fact, according to the final report on the program's activities in 
Maine, more than 12 arrests of persons on Government watch lists were 
made by State and local law enforcement in Maine.
  Now, however, the Department proposes to pull the rug out from under 
border States by allowing urban area grant funds to be used for such 
border security efforts, but not State grant funds.
  This approach makes no sense whatsoever. And when my staff asked, 
even the Department could not explain the rationale behind the policy 
of allowing interior cities--but not more rural border areas--to use 
Federal funds to partner with State, local, and tribal law enforcement 
to protect our borders.
  Partnering with State and local law enforcement is a proven and cost 
effective way to buttress our Nation's Federal border security efforts. 
I urge its adoption.


                           amendment no. 1108

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding a study of the 
  potential use of FM radio signals for an emergency messaging system)

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 519. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security should conduct a study of the 
     feasibility of leveraging existing FM broadcast radio 
     infrastructure to provide a first alert, encrypted, multi-
     point emergency messaging system for emergency response using 
     proven technology.


                           amendment no. 1197

      (Purpose: To clarify authorization for port security grants)

       On page 78, line 19 after ``based on'', insert ``risk 
     and''.


                           amendment no. 1194

(Purpose: To require the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and 
   Response to proposed new inspection guidelines within 90 days of 
 enactment that prohibit inspectors from entering into a contract with 
any individual or entity for whom the inspector performs an inspection 
for purposes of determining eligibility for assistance from the Federal 
                      Emergency Management Agency)

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through Under 
     Secretary for Emergency Preparedness shall propose new 
     inspection guidelines that prohibit inspectors from entering 
     into a contract with any individual or entity for whom the 
     inspector performs an inspection for purposes of determining 
     eligibility for assistance from the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency.


                    Amendment No. 1111, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk of 
amendment No. 1111, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, and ask unanimous 
consent that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified and agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1111), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to promulgate regulations to implement the plan 
     developed pursuant to section 7209(b) of the 9/11 Commission 
     Implementation Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) to limit 
     United States citizens to a passport as the exclusive 
     document to be presented upon entry into the United States 
     from Canada by land.


                     Amendment No. 1113, Withdrawn

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 1113 of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am happy that my colleagues have brought 
these important amendments to the floor today to provide the necessary 
funds to secure our inner-city rail, our freight rail, and our transit 
systems. As someone representing a State, Delaware, that relishes and 
relies heavily on rail travel, this is certainly a major concern to me 
and those I am privileged to represent.
  In the weeks and months after September 11, we took unprecedented 
steps to secure our Nation's airlines, and for good reason. We all know 
about the added security--baggage checks, passenger screening--because 
we have all seen it every time we go to an airport and try to get 
through an airport onto our planes. But we have not been as diligent 
when it comes to protecting our Nation's railways and transit systems, 
which is alarming given the number of people who travel by rail, and it 
is alarming when we see what has happened in Madrid and London in the 
last months and, in fact, last days.
  Today, nearly 25 million passengers ride Amtrak. During the course of 
the year, that equates to about 3.5 billion rail trips taken annually 
by people looking to take a vacation, go home for the holidays, or 
traveling for business. In fact, our railroad network is so busy that 
every day more people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York than use 
all of New York's major three airports combined.
  In 2003, public transportation moved over 8.8 billion--almost 9 
billion--passengers, according to the national transit database. Since 
1995, public transportation ridership in the United States has grown by 
over 20 percent--faster than highway, faster than air travel. The 
American Public Transit Association estimates that more than 14 million 
people use public transportation every weekday. Yet we have done 
comparatively little to protect rail travelers and transit travelers 
from terrorist attacks.
  Nowhere is that shortfall more evident than in the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill we are debating today. Under this bill, we would 
provide a scant 12 cents in security funds for each time a person 
boards a bus or a subway car or an Amtrak train to get to work--12 
cents. Yet what we propose spending every time a person gets on board 
an airplane is $7.58.
  Let me repeat that. Every time one of us gets on a Metro bus in 
Washington or boards a SEPTA train in Wilmington, DE, or southeastern 
Pennsylvania, the Federal Government is providing 12 cents to protect 
our safety on that railcar or in that transit station. Yet every time 
one of us flies out of National Airport, the Federal Government is 
spending $7.58--12 cents on the one hand, $7.58 on the other hand. That 
is a whopping disparity. It is one we need to correct.
  During Senate consideration of legislation to create the Department 
of Homeland Security, I, along with several of my colleagues, tried to 
provide funds to Amtrak to secure its trains, station facilities, and 
its infrastructure, but that language was stripped out of the bill 
during the wee hours of the night. Some lawmakers were reluctant to 
give Amtrak any additional funds, while others were too focused on

[[Page 16052]]

responding to the last disaster to start preparing for the next one.
  Since then, supplying even modest amounts of rail security funding 
has been a battle. The danger to our rail and transit system has been 
repeatedly cited by officials at the Department of Homeland Security. 
During his confirmation hearing as Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, Tom Ridge stated:

       Amtrak and freight rail are at considerable risk to 
     terrorist attack.

  Secretary Chertoff has also acknowledged the risk facing our Nation's 
rail and transit systems. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission concluded that 
the risk of attacks on surface transportation is as great or greater 
than that of any aircraft hijacking. Further, the Government 
Accountability Office has stated:

       Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in 
     making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.

  Despite these warnings, progress has been slow, results have been 
few. The Department of Homeland Security has established no 
comprehensive approach to rail and transit security. None. None like we 
developed for airports in the wake of 9/11, that is for sure.
  The Transportation Security Agency, meanwhile, has been working on a 
national transportation security plan since 2003, some 2 years. Yet 
that plan is still not complete. In the wake of the Madrid bombings in 
Spain last year that killed nearly 200 people, several of my colleagues 
and I sponsored legislation to establish rail and transit security 
programs, just as we created an airport security program after 9/11. 
This bill, called the Rail Security Act of 2004, was passed unanimously 
by the Senate on October 4 last year. Although the House did not act on 
this bill, we did succeed in securing $150 million in funding for rail 
and transit security in the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill, which is in effect today. However, only a year 
later, the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security bill reported out of 
committee cut that figure by a third, down to $100 million for the next 
fiscal year.
  Last week, more than 50 people were killed, some 700 people were 
injured when terrorists bombed the London underground. It is time that 
we learn from these tragedies and develop a long-term, comprehensive 
approach to strengthening security of our Nation's rail and transit 
infrastructure. We cannot continue to ignore our transit systems or 
Amtrak or their passengers or the need to secure the hazardous material 
that travels across our freight lines throughout this country.
  There has been a bipartisan effort to increase funding for rail and 
transit security. We hear people talking about increases in the 
magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars. 
This may sound like a lot of money, but keep in mind, this bill 
includes nearly $4.5 billion for airline security. In fact, while 
Congress has spent almost $20 billion on aviation security since 9/11, 
only $400 million has been spent on rail security.
  In other words, we have spent 50 times more money on airline security 
since 9/11 than we spent on rail and transit security combined.
  No one is arguing that airline security is not necessary--it is 
necessary--but is the risk 50 times greater to our airlines and to 
people who fly on our airlines than to public transportation systems, 
to the millions of people who ride transit every day and who take 
inner-city passenger rail across America? I would argue that it is not.
  We have made some progress securing air travel in the wake of 9/11, 
although I would argue, and I think most of us would agree, that there 
is more that we can and should do. The amendments we are considering 
today, though, call for a similar level of focus and attention to be 
brought to the security needs of our Nation's rail and our transit 
systems and to the literally, in the course of a year, billions of 
people who ride transit and who ride Amtrak.
  We should be taking a serious look at ways to help railroads, States, 
cities, and transit agencies do what they can to improve security 
efforts, such as hiring more police, putting out more bomb-sniffing 
dogs with those police, improving ventilation, improving lighting, and 
establishing escape routes in tunnels.
  Amtrak, freight railroads, and local transit agencies are doing all 
they can, but the Federal Government, we in Congress, have not done our 
share. It is time we stand up and take some responsibility in this as 
well. We need to, and can do so, before the disasters that struck 
Madrid and London strike us at home.
  I yield back my time and ask unanimous consent that the time during 
the quorum call be divided equally between either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am told that the time has been running 
against the 15 minutes, and I may have less than that. But if I run out 
of time, I have been authorized to maybe take as much as 5 minutes off 
of Leader Reid's time. Hopefully, I will not get to that point.
  I rise today to support the Byrd rail security amendment. I know even 
though the Presiding Officer is new to this body he is aware I have 
been like a broken record for the past 4 years about rail security. 
When I look at the clerk, she probably thinks: Here he goes again 
because I have been talking about this so much since 9/11.
  Quite frankly, we have an abysmal record, an irresponsible record, 
dealing with rail security. For the longest time, we had trouble in 
2002, 2003, 2004, up until 2005, getting any traction. We have passed 
serious rail security bills, including Amtrak, in the past under the 
leadership of Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings, who was my seatmate 
for years, who is now gone. The McCain-Hollings-Biden amendment that 
was passed called for $1.2 billion. We even passed a $1.7 billion 
amendment. The House and the President seem--I do not know what it is. 
I just do not get it. I thought that maybe this time around my 
colleagues in this body would understand that, as my dad, God love him, 
used to say before he died, if everything is equally important nothing 
is important.
  There are priorities. How there could be anything from a tax cut to 
even an education program that could take priority over dealing with 
our homeland security is beyond my comprehension. I do not get it. But 
obviously we are not prepared to do what I was prepared to introduce, 
and did introduce the beginning of the week, to add $1.1 billion for 
rail security, which would have brought the total number for rail 
security up to $1.2 billion, which was in the bill we passed last time 
around which would have provided $670 million to deal with security in 
tunnels and the places where cataclysmic events could take place--$65 
million, $4 million immediately to Amtrak to go out and buy canine 
patrols, put more cops on, put in cameras and detectors, secure the 
switching stations, and all the things that lend themselves to 
providing for a catastrophe. The bottom line is I do not have the votes 
to get that done.
  So I joined with Senator Byrd, who has been a leader in this area, in 
my sincere hope that $265 million for rail security in this amendment, 
which is one-fourth of the amount passed in the Rail Security Act of 
2004 last October, will actually pass.
  The positive piece is that although it does not give us a straight 
line to deal with the long-term security interests of rail, it would 
give them enough money and all the money they could reasonably spend in 
1 year to be able to begin to upgrade our system.
  The tragedy in London has focused the Congress and the Nation on rail 
security again this week, but quite frankly I learned from Madrid. I 
thought Madrid would be a wake-up call. I thought after Madrid people 
would say: Hey, Biden, you are right, man. We have a real problem with 
rail. We should really do something about this.

[[Page 16053]]

  Nothing, nothing, nothing happened. Now, our closest ally and friend 
maybe gives us a different perspective on the floor. The Madrid attacks 
should have done it, but they did not. Our negligence to this point has 
been inexcusable.
  Many of us have been talking about this for years. The bottom line is 
that nearly 4 years after September 11, over 1 year after Madrid, our 
rail system is as vulnerable as it was 4 years ago.
  I met earlier this week in my office with the head of Amtrak security 
and all of his attendant folks. I cannot reveal publicly everything I 
learned, but it is quite alarming. Let me talk about a few things I can 
reveal. Critics argue that we cannot protect, for example--there are 
22,000 miles of rail in this country, and critics say: Joe, you cannot 
protect all 22,000 miles.
  That is a little bit like saying we cannot protect the airlines. We 
should not have air traffic controllers because we get baggage put in 
the holds that are not inspected? Now, is there anybody on the floor 
saying that?
  Right now one gets on a plane and the baggage that is put in the hold 
is not inspected thoroughly like the baggage that is carried on. But is 
anyone saying we should not spend the money on TSA to inspect the 
people going through the gates? Of course not. Let us not make the 
perfect the enemy of the good.
  The fact that we cannot do everything does not mean we do not do 
anything. That has been the mantra with regard to rail.
  As I said, the argument is 22,000 miles cannot be protected, but 
guess what. We can prevent a Madrid or a London-style attack in the 
United States. We can make our rail system much safer and reduce the 
chance of attack because we understand that the terrorists want 
spectacular, cataclysmic attacks with large body counts in this Nation. 
Because we know that, we can narrow our focus to critical areas such as 
stations and tunnels, areas that security experts and common sense, as 
well as the CIA, tells us are the most vulnerable.
  When I first did this 4 years ago, people said, oh, my God; do not 
point out that the Baltimore Tunnel was built in 1869, has no 
ventilation, no lighting, no escape, no way out. You are going to alert 
the terrorists. The terrorists know this. They know all the 
vulnerabilities. The problem is the American public does not know. So 
there is not enough pressure put on all of us here to make the right 
decision.
  For example, every day over one-half million people pass through New 
York's Penn Station. This morning there were more people sitting in an 
aluminum tube below New York City--aluminum tube meaning a train car--
than in a half dozen full 747 aircraft. Tell me what happens when sarin 
gas is released there. Tell me what happens when there are a series of 
explosions that far underground. Tell me what happens if anything 
remotely approaching a chemical weapon is used. There is no 
ventilation.
  Riding in New York City today in the tunnels one will see 
construction going on, as it should, with these great big things that 
look like jet engines being put up in the ceiling. That is ventilation, 
exhaust. So, if something goes off in the tunnel, 2 people or 20 people 
die, not 200 or 2,000.
  Do you know what the single most visited facility in all of 
Washington, DC, is? It is 2 blocks down the street. I walk to it every 
night: Union Station. More people visit Union Station than any other 
facility in Washington, DC.
  Go down there with me, Mr. President, and get on a train with me, as 
I do every night, and stand on the last car as you ride out of the 
station. Look; tell me if you identify a single camera. Tell me if you 
identify any barbed wire fencing around the switching devices. Tell me 
whether you see any security. Tell me whether you see any guards.
  There are a half-million people going through the station at Penn 
Station, and do you know how many police officers are on duty at any 
one time there? Twelve. There are 12 in New York, 5 in Union Station.
  As I said, if you walk over there with me right now, you will find no 
real police presence, no fencing, inadequate security cameras, all of 
which anybody with common sense would say made no sense.
  For some reason, there is an animus toward Amtrak in Washington. I 
kind of figured it out, actually. I think a lot of folks here think 
that it is a back-door way of funding Amtrak. Otherwise, I can't 
understand why you wouldn't do this, after the billions we spend on 
airlines, as we should. I am not talking about Amtrak subsidies here; I 
am talking about protecting American lives.
  In addition to the 64,000 daily riders on Amtrak, there are 23 
locations where Amtrak facilities, stations and rails, overlap with 
transit facilities. In the Northeast corridor, Maryland Area Regional 
Commuter, has 400,000 daily commuters that utilize Amtrak--400,000 
daily commuters on MARC that utilize Amtrak facilities. They walk in 
the station, get in a car, and it gets on an Amtrak track.
  My friend from Rhode Island can tell me more about the transit 
systems in Rhode Island, and New York Transit, and Long Island Transit, 
and Connecticut Transit--et cetera. They all use Amtrak facilities.
  Amtrak can only pay a starting salary of $31,000 to its police 
officers, and I cannot pay them more than $38,000, no matter how long 
they have been there, and they have a 10-percent vacancy rate on the 
force right now. Most of these positions are in New York and Washington 
where they need them most, but very little anyplace else. As I stated, 
in an amendment I proposed to add $1.1 billion for rail security, but 
the Byrd amendment only comes up with some $240 million right off the 
bat. We can use it. We can use it desperately. It is my understanding 
the Committee on Commerce and Transportation is going to mark up a 
comprehensive rail bill again next week, but we cannot wait for that. 
We need this $200-plus million right now. The $265 million in the Byrd 
amendment will provide urgent funding for Amtrak, including 200 
additional police officers, 40 additional canine patrols, and improved 
fencing, lighting, and basic cameras--just basic block-and-tackle 
equipment that, if we have them, we can save thousands of lives.
  The London bombers were identified by an expansive system of closed-
circuit television in the London Metro. They have roughly 6,000 high-
quality cameras there. We don't have anywhere near that capacity. We 
need that capacity.
  Another area that needs attention is the transportation of hazardous 
chemicals. We have already voted this down before but, God, we should 
rethink this. The Naval Research Laboratory was asked what would happen 
in an attack on a traditional 90-ton chemical tanker. If you look at a 
train at a railroad crossing, you see the freight rail go by and you 
see these tankers--not containers, tankers; the whole car is one unit. 
You see them go. They are about 90 tons.
  A 90-ton chlorine gas tanker, having an IED like those that explode 
in the streets of Baghdad placed under it on a track or under the 
tanker, exploding in a metropolitan area, according to the U.S. Naval 
Research Laboratory, will kill up to 100,000 Americans. Do you hear me 
now? One chlorine tanker exploding in a metropolitan area will kill 
100,000 Americans. And we have trouble getting Homeland Security to 
come up with a plan to force these kinds of tankers to circumvent the 
population areas? Because it costs more money? It costs business more 
to do that. It costs more in the products we will buy. My Lord, what 
are we doing?
  I might add to my friends in the Congress, when you leave Union 
Station and you head south to Richmond, you go under tunnels. Do you 
know what the tunnel goes under? Straight under the Supreme Court and 
under the House Office Building. If you explode a chlorine tanker 
underground, under that, you implode the Congress, you implode the 
office building called the Supreme Court.
  If you want to make a statement--again, these are the IEDs, the 
roadside bombs that are killing our brave soldiers every day in up-
armored

[[Page 16054]]

humvees. There is no camera to detect anybody walking through those 
tunnels. There is no security. And we sit here like darned fools and 
say, No, that costs money. That is going to cost us money.
  I understand the procedural restrictions will prevent us from 
considering that bill today, but I think this is a critical issue, one 
we simply have to address. I am going to be pushing this legislation 
until the cows come home.
  After Madrid and London, we simply have run out of excuses not to 
act. This Byrd amendment does not solve every problem, but it goes a 
long way toward dealing with the beginning attempt to prevent 
catastrophic damage to American infrastructure and American lives. We 
will never be able to stop someone placing a bomb on a track somewhere 
along the 22,000 miles of track we have. We will only be lucky, one in 
three or one in ten times, with a dog getting someone who walks on a 
train with dynamite or K-2 strapped to their body or carried in their 
knapsack.
  But to use that as an excuse to do virtually nothing, or to use it as 
an excuse that this breaks the budget--give me a break. We are breaking 
the budget on the inheritance tax. We are breaking the budget on an 
additional tax break for the superwealthy. We are breaking the budget 
on so many less worthy expenditures than homeland security.
  There is much more to say, but I know my colleagues, over the last 5 
years, are tired of hearing me say it.
  I have a prayer, a literal prayer, that I never have the occasion to 
walk on this Senate floor and say: We should have done this and we 
failed.
  For God's sake, you guys and women who are going to vote on this, 
think about it in terms of how will you explain to the American people 
if something tragic and preventable happens after having voted against 
measures that, if put in place 4 years ago or put in place now, had a 
reasonable prospect of preventing it? That is a question I think you 
have to ask yourself.
  I will end where I began, with my dad. My dad used to say:

       Champ, if everything is equally important to you, nothing 
     is important to you.

  Every hard decision we make is about priorities. I ask the rhetorical 
question: What priority is higher than the public safety of the 
American people in the face of a demonstrable threat that isn't going 
away?
  I yield the floor. I see my friend from Maryland is on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Before my distinguished colleague from Delaware leaves 
the floor, I want to commend him for his perseverance in pressing this 
issue. This is clearly not the first time he has brought this matter to 
our attention. I want to underscore what he said in closing. Obviously, 
there is a threat, and we need to address this threat. This is the 
opportunity to do it.
  Rail, transit--we know they are high on the target list. The GAO 
actually did a study. One-third of all terrorist events that occurred 
have involved transit systems around the world. Last year, in fact, we 
passed legislation, an authorization for transit to do $3.5 billion 
over 3 years--$1.1 billion this year. An amendment to come later, 
Senator Shelby's amendment, addresses that and tries to provide 
appropriations at the authorized level.
  The rail also cries out for an appropriate appropriation, which is 
contained in the Byrd amendment that is part of this package we are 
going to be considering here. But the Senator from Delaware is 
absolutely correct. This is our chance to provide the resources so we 
can begin to do the obvious things that need to be done. There is a 
whole list of them. Every one of them is common sense. None of them is 
sort of a potential waste of money. All the transit people, the rail 
people tell us we need to do these things, and if we can do these 
things, it would substantially enhance security.
  It wouldn't guarantee security. We live in a world where we can't 
guarantee security. But it would enhance it, surely.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for a comment, the Senator, who 
lives in Baltimore and has commuted to Baltimore every day for the last 
20-some years--more than that, from when he was in the House--he will 
remember that there was a fire in an automobile tunnel going into 
Baltimore Inner Harbor a couple of years ago. It shut down all of 
Baltimore in the harbor region.
  Mr. SARBANES. Right.
  Mr. BIDEN. Just that fire. Even if there were not a terrorist threat, 
the idea that we are continuing to have, in and out and under the 
Baltimore harbor, this antiquated, 150-year-old tunnel, without any 
reasonable upgrade, is mind-boggling.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. The infrastructure 
we are trying to work with is an infrastructure from a previous 
century. That alone needs to be significantly improved.
  Actually, the British are confronting that problem now. One of their 
difficulties is that this deep tunnel, from many years ago, access to 
it is extremely limited.
  We have to get started. That is what it comes down to. We have to get 
smart. These amendments, the Byrd amendment and the Shelby amendment, 
offer us a chance to take a significant step in order to enhance our 
capabilities.
  I thank the Senator for his very strong statement.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I compliment the Senator from 
Maryland. This is not a mutual admiration society, but he has 
jurisdiction in the Banking Committee over surface rail, intracity 
rail, and he has taken care of this amendment. I realize he wanted to 
reach out further and take Amtrak into this, but he does not have that 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is not in our committee.
  Mr. BIDEN. I know.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Amtrak is not in our committee.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is my point.
  Mr. SARBANES. Correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. But the Senator wanted to do it, and he could not 
jurisdictionally do it. That is why I appreciate his support for the 
Byrd amendment as well. That is the only place we could pick up a piece 
of Amtrak.
  I see my friend from New York. There are a million people in Penn 
Station today--more people, as I said--sitting at rush hour in an 
aluminum tube underneath New York City than a half dozen full 747s, and 
we are doing nothing about it.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland. He has done a great job. And I 
thank Senator Shelby. I hope we can move it.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
after Senator Sarbanes speaks for his 7 minutes that I speak for the 10 
that I have been allotted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will be brief. I want to rise again in very strong 
support of the amendment that Senator Shelby the chairman of the 
Banking Committee has proposed, and also to underscore, as I just did 
in my discussion with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, that I 
support the Byrd amendment which is also before us, which encompasses 
inner-city rail as well as transit. The amendment offered by Chairman 
Shelby deals only with those items under the jurisdiction of the 
Banking Committee.
  The point I want to underscore is, this body unanimously passed, last 
year on October 1, the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004. That bill authorized $3.5 billion in 3 years for the security 
of our Nation's mass transportation system, and of that amount $1.16 
billion was scheduled for fiscal year 2006, which would begin to 
address the critical security needs that exist in the thousands of 
public transportation systems in our country.
  The amendment offered by Chairman Shelby seeks to bring the 
appropriation in line with the Senate-approved

[[Page 16055]]

authorized level--approved by the Senate unanimously, brought out of 
the Banking Committee unanimously. Clearly, after the tragic attack in 
London last Thursday, which has now claimed 52 lives and over 700 
injured, we need to fully fund transit security at the Senate-
authorized level.
  This body understood the problem last year. We established these 
authorization levels. We now need to provide the appropriations to 
carry through on the programs that are proposed to enhance transit 
security.
  In 2002, GAO found that over one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide 
were against transit systems. Yet the funding for transit and rail 
security has been grossly inadequate. Those systems have not been able 
to implement necessary security improvements, including those that have 
been identified by the Department of Homeland Security.
  The Baltimore Sun wrote in an editorial on Friday:

       Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent 
     $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which 
     carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about 
     $250 million. That's a ridiculous imbalance.

  I could not agree more. There are obvious necessities that are 
needed--security cameras, radios, training, extra security personnel. 
Those are not extravagant requests.
  Let me give you one example right here in the Washington metropolitan 
area. Washington Metro's greatest security need is a backup control 
operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit 
Administration in its initial security assessment then identified again 
by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security 
assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has not 
been funded. We need to pass these amendments in order to provide the 
funding.
  The same situation exists in transit systems across the country. We 
must not make this mistake. We need to put the resources out there so 
the transit and rail systems across the Nation can begin to address the 
serious potential targets which exist for terrorist attack.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the chairman 
of the Banking Committee which deals with transit security, and I join 
with others in supporting the amendment that has been offered by 
Senator Byrd which encompasses not only that security but rail security 
as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent, that my colleague from Rhode 
Island immediately precede me with his allotted time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, might I inquire--I do wish to seek 
recognition on behalf of the manager, but I would like to know how long 
the Senator is expected to speak.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have already gotten unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. I am informed we have to go back and forth. I ask to modify 
the request that when Senator Cornyn concludes, I would be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am here to address the various amendments we have on 
rail security, but I also must speak about something that occurred in 
the last few hours related to mass security.
  Mr. President, I know Secretary Chertoff. I was proud to support his 
nomination. I was proud to support his nomination to the Federal bench. 
He is a smart man, he is a thoughtful man, he is a capable man. But 
when I read the statements that he made this morning, I was aghast. 
These are some of the most appalling comments that I have heard coming 
from any Government official in a long time.
  First, Secretary Chertoff said that the responsibility for transit 
security must rest with the localities. And then he said the following:

       ``The truth of the matter is that a fully loaded plane with 
     jet fuel, a commercial airliner has the capacity to kill 
     3,000 people,'' Chertoff told Associated Press reporters and 
     editors.

  And then he continues:

       A bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people. When you start 
     thinking about your priorities, you are going to think about 
     making sure you don't have the catastrophic thing first.

  I would like Mr. Chertoff to ask the people in London if what 
happened last week was minor in passing or the people in Madrid--the 
chaos, the loss of life. To say what happens on the subways because it 
might only kill 30 people is less of a priority for this Federal 
Government than what might happen in the air is an appalling statement 
that leaves me aghast. I am asking Mr. Chertoff immediately to withdraw 
his statement and apologize, apologize to those who have lost loved 
ones and apologize to every transit user in New York and around the 
country.
  Our responsibility, I would tell the Secretary, the responsibility of 
the Federal Government is to prevent terrorism in the homeland wherever 
it occurs--in the air, on the rails, in the water. To simply wash the 
Federal Government's hands of responsibility at a time when this 
Government is cutting back on mass transit funding and the localities 
have very little money is an abdication of responsibility.
  I know I am speaking in strong terms, but if Mr. Chertoff professes 
these views, then I am not sure he should continue as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. And as I said, I respect him. He is a smart man, he 
is a bright man. But I could hardly believe it when I read this and 
when a reporter asked me about it that it came out of his mouth. When I 
sat down with Mr. Chertoff when he was the nominee, he didn't voice any 
of these views. In fact, Senator Clinton and I took a tour with him of 
Grand Central Station, and he seemed fully to understand the needs of 
mass transit in terms of homeland security. And now we have a 180-
degree about turn?
  I hope and pray that Secretary Chertoff misspoke, because every one 
of our citizens on transit--whether in the air, on the water, on rail, 
or on the road--is our responsibility to keep safe and prevent 
terrorism from afflicting them.
  If this administration has embarked on a new policy which says that 
we will protect people in the air but not on the rails and washes its 
hands of that responsibility, then they ought to let America know, and 
they will be facing the fight of their life on this floor and in this 
country.
  Here we are, debating amendments to try to get some more money for 
homeland security on the rails because we know we are so short of 
dollars, and at the same time we are hearing from the Secretary of 
Homeland Security that our rails, our commuters don't need that money. 
I would like Mr. Chertoff to go to Grand Central Station or Penn 
Station or to the Atlantic Avenue Station in Brooklyn or the Woodlawn 
Station in the Bronx and tell the commuters there that Washington 
doesn't have the responsibility to protect them from terrorism. Let him 
face them directly and say that to them. Let him go to them and tell 
them that it is all up to the local governments even though we know we 
have declared since 9/11 that the war on terror is largely a Federal 
responsibility.
  So it is really that I rise to speak about this subject with some 
sadness because, as I said, I like Mr. Chertoff, I have respect for Mr. 
Chertoff. And, again, I would repeat my plea. Secretary Chertoff, 
please retract your remarks. Apologize to those who use mass transit 
and the rails and let us agree that the Federal Government has a real 
responsibility to protect the rail riders of this country from 
terrorism.
  Now, in my remaining time I would simply like to address the 
amendments. I salute my colleagues from Alabama and Maryland and Rhode 
Island for their amendments. We have learned since London and Madrid 
that transit seems to be the terrorists' target of choice. Madrid may 
have been our first wakeup call and London was our second. We ignore it 
at our peril.
  Mass transit systems are open. They bring in lots of commuters all at 
once.

[[Page 16056]]

And they prove to be, unfortunately, a tempting target for terrorists.
  What is our responsibility? It is not what Mr. Chertoff says. It is, 
rather, to step up to the plate and provide funding as we do in the 
air. For every air passenger, we spend $7 on homeland security. For 
every rail passenger, we spend a penny. That is out of whack. The 
amendment by Senators Shelby and Sarbanes, Reed, myself, and many 
others moves to address that.
  We need to do so many things in mass transit. I have called my folks 
in New York. We hope in the longer run we can develop detection devices 
that, like smoke detectors, can tell when explosives are brought on a 
train or in railroad stations, whether on someone's person or in a 
knapsack. But until we do, their No. 1 need is for explosive-sniffing 
dogs. They are desperately short. Yet the President's proposal does not 
allow that to happen. There will be a colloquy that urges that to 
happen.
  We are short of transit patrolmen. I have been told, for instance, on 
a heavily populated commuter line there is only one police officer who 
patrols about 10 stations that handle tens of thousands of commuters 
every day over a 30- or 40-mile expansion of commuter rail on Long 
Island.
  Structure changes are needed to strengthen subways and tunnels so 
that, God forbid, if a terrorist attack occurs maybe the structures 
will withstand it. We need signage and help for the tunnels to have 
escape routes and ventilation to minimize loss of life if terrorism, 
God forbid, occurs.
  I rise in support of this badly needed amendment. We have neglected 
mass transit when it comes to homeland security. We are trying to 
redress that in a bipartisan amendment.
  I also mention, of course, Senator Byrd's amendment which deals with 
transit and rail, which I will support. Senator Gregg's amendment, 
which takes $200 million out of port security and adds it to transit 
and rail, is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  The terrorists look for our weakest pressure point and strike there. 
Rail at this point is our weakest pressure point. We should strengthen 
it. To take money from ports, where we have not done the job, and put 
it in rail does not make much sense because if we strengthen air 
security, they will look to the rails. If we strengthen rail security, 
they will look to the ports. If we strengthen port security, they will 
look to the trucks.
  As the war on terror overseas must be fought on many fronts, so must 
the war on terror at home. To pick, as Mr. Chertoff does, one place 
where the Federal Government is going to put its efforts and ignore the 
others, is not doing a service to our citizens. Therefore, we must do 
more to strengthen security on the rails.
  The best thing we can do to show the Nation that Mr. Chertoff's 
statement was not what America needs is to vote for the Shelby-
Sarbanes-Reed amendment and the Byrd amendment, as well.
  How much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will take my 20 seconds to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1205

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment proposed 
by Senator Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, myself, and Senator Schumer to 
increase the allocation for transit security to $1.1 billion. Let me 
put that in perspective.
  That is roughly 1 week's operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I 
believe the American people would look at us and say: If we cannot 
invest that fraction of money to protect Americans here, how can we so 
consistently invest that money overseas? I think it is essential, 
obviously, to protect our forces and our troops and to make those 
commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think it is also essential 
that we protect Americans here at home. That is the essence of our 
amendment.
  We have 6,000 transit systems in the United States. They have 14 
million riders every workday. All these transit systems need assistance 
from the Federal Government to provide increased security, to protect 
Americans here at home. That is the purpose of our amendment and the 
purpose of our debate today. The purpose of this bill before the Senate 
is to provide resources to protect Americans here at home.
  Like my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, I was dismayed to 
hear of the comments by Secretary Chertoff today essentially saying 
there is no Federal support for transit, that it has to be done by the 
States. Not only do I object to the conclusion, I question the logic. 
According to the press report I heard, Secretary Chertoff said the U.S. 
Government, the Federal Government, has to support airlines because 
they are almost exclusively a Federal responsibility, but, by contrast, 
U.S. mass transit systems are largely owned and operated by State and 
local governments.
  Well, I do not know where the Secretary flies in and out of, but in 
Rhode Island, TF Green Airport, the major airport in the State, is 
owned by a State corporation. The airlines that fly in and out are 
private airlines, not Federal airlines. Yet we have provided 
significant resources--and properly so--to enhance the security of the 
airline sector in the United States because of several obvious and 
compelling reasons. The threat is there. After 9/11, we would have been 
derelict if we did not recognize that. These are key parts of our 
economy.
  Oh, by the way, for most of the airline systems, the terminals are 
owned by State and local governments, and the operators are private 
entities, much like transit facilities. Similarly, with transit 
facilities, the threat is there. After London, we would be derelict if 
we did not recognize the potential for an attack on our transit systems 
in the United States and to respond before an attack, not after an 
attack. That is why we are here today--to respond before any attack 
could evolve here in the United States, to respond effectively at home.
  Indeed, Federal support of transit has been historically a fact of 
life over the last several decades. Since 1992, we have invested in the 
order of $68 billion in Federal money to construct and improve our 
transit systems. There has been Federal money going to local transit 
systems for construction and improvements. And then to argue--either 
Mr. Chertoff or others on the floor--it is inconsistent for us to 
support these systems with security money is illogical and 
unsustainable.
  The threat is there. The need is there. I believe the responsibility 
should be here to provide some assistance. Again, we could not possibly 
do all that we must do. There must be cooperation by State and local 
governments. There has to be. They have responsibilities to their 
citizens and the passengers on these systems also. But there is a real 
Federal responsibility, one we will recognize today, I hope, by 
supporting the Shelby-Sarbanes-Reed amendment.
  This is not just a regional issue of one part of the country. Most 
cities in the United States today have some transit system. Our largest 
cities have rather elaborate transit systems. Miami has light-rail and 
bus. Las Vegas is constructing a monorail with private funds to 
supplement their transit system. All of these are very attractive 
targets to terrorists.
  There is one other disconcerting factor that is emerging after 
London. We have to be terribly concerned about those al-Qaida 
operatives, who have been training for years, who have been plotting 
for years to enter this country, or they may already be here, to 
conduct some type of terrorist attack. But, unfortunately, after 
London, we have to be concerned about another category, and that would 
be the homicidal and suicidal amateur, young men who are influenced by 
someone else to go ahead and sacrifice themselves. For these relative 
amateurs, what is a more attractive target today? An airport with a 
pronounced police presence?
  As I drive off to TF Green Airport in Rhode Island, there are always 
two or three police cars parked outside. It is a modest, medium-sized 
airport with police officers on patrol. When you go into a lobby, it is 
full of TSA personnel

[[Page 16057]]

with screening devices, and you have to take your shoes off, your coat 
off, to get through the screening to get on an airplane. Also, by the 
way, since we monitor passenger lists, every airline has an algorithm 
to determine whether you are subject to special searching. It happens 
occasionally to me. Is that their target of choice? Or just simply 
getting on the local bus or going into the local subway today, which is 
virtually without protection?
  So we really have significant responsibilities in this regard. To 
suggest otherwise is inappropriate. It is wrong. I believe we have to 
support this amendment. We recognize that over the last several years 
transit has become one of the most significant targets for these 
terrorist groups.
  After 9/11, in the Banking Committee, as the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I convened a hearing and we 
had witnesses. They came forth. They indicated, first, the lack of 
preparedness of our transit system for potential attacks by terrorists. 
Industry experts estimate we would need roughly $6 billion to bring our 
transit systems up to a level of security that we would be comfortable 
with. That is one factor.
  The other factor is the fact that those resources are not easily 
obtained by local communities. We understand the pressures for local 
transit agencies. It is difficult to raise fares. It is difficult to 
get increased subsidies in State legislatures or local communities. All 
of that really compromises the ability to move dramatically and 
aggressively with transit security.
  We also asked the General Accounting Office to do an evaluation. 
Their conclusions were interesting. First, they estimated that a third 
of the terrorist attacks in the last several years have been directed 
at mass transit. Again, it is a target of opportunity for these 
terrorists. And their conclusion speaks volumes. In their words:

       [I]nsufficient funding is the most significant obstacle 
     agencies face in trying to make their systems more safe and 
     secure.

  Now, in light of that, Senator Sarbanes and myself have repeatedly 
urged this body to adopt more robust funding for transportation 
security. We have proposed amendments with respect to supplemental 
appropriations bills. We have proposed amendments on other bills 
appropriating funds for the Department of Homeland Security. And we 
have offered amendments with respect to the National Intelligence 
Reform Act.
  Indeed, the Senate recognized this need quite dramatically just last 
Congress, where, working with the chairman of the committee, Chairman 
Shelby, who is, again, leading this great effort, we were able to pass 
authorizing legislation that would authorize approximately $3.5 billion 
over several years to begin to deal with this issue of transit 
security. The authorization recognized our Federal responsibilities. 
And as my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, pointed out previously, this 
appropriations bill would be consistent with that authorization, which 
passed this body unanimously on a bipartisan basis.
  So today we are here simply to do what should be obvious to all of 
us, particularly after the dreadful, horrific events in London. People 
who think it cannot happen here should think again. People who think 
this is not our responsibility should think again. We have an 
obligation, a responsibility. We have already spoken as a Senate last 
Congress with respect to the authorization. Now it is our obligation to 
put the resources there to the task. The task is improving the security 
and the safety of passengers on our transit systems throughout this 
country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Shelby amendment.
  Also, Mr. President, I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment because 
he, too, recognizes the need for additional security, not only for 
transit systems but also for intercity train systems. I also recognize 
that significant need. So I would hope we could come together and vote 
enthusiastically and appropriately.
  The irony here, of course, is we all recognize--and we all pray this 
will never happen--but if there was a terrorist transit incident, we 
would be on this floor within hours voting for much more than $1.1 
billion. If we act today, promptly and appropriately, we may be able to 
avert that situation. I hope we can.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on 
this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been divided between nine 
different Senators.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield the 30 seconds to 
the Senator, if that is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
30 seconds.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Shelby amendment 
of $1.1 billion. I come even more to express complete frustration with 
the statements today of Secretary Chertoff on mass transit. This is a 
national issue. It is one that is connected with interstate commerce. 
Most importantly, protecting the American people is a primary 
responsibility of Government. The idea that we would turn our backs on 
the 228 million riders a year on mass transit in the State of New 
Jersey and put it at some second-class level of consideration makes no 
sense at all. Tens of thousands of riders every day ride the trains in 
and out of New York City from New Jersey, in and out of Philadelphia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The time of the Senator from Rhode 
Island has expired.
  Mr. CORZINE. I support the $1.1 billion Shelby amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Reid has 8 minutes, Senator Byrd has 
12 minutes; Senator Sarbanes has 1 minute; Senator Shelby, 15; and 
Senator Gregg, 34 minutes.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 8 
minutes from the time of Senator Reid of Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Let me go back to the start of my comments. I support 
the Shelby amendment of $1.1 billion for mass transit and rail. It is 
absolutely essential that we think of our Nation as one, where all 
aspects that pull us together and provide for the services of the 
people of this country are protected. We are not dividing up those who 
fly on airlines versus those who drive on highways. When Americans are 
at risk, Americans are at risk. The concentration of risk can be 
different in different places at different times. I suggest anybody who 
wants to see large concentrations of people at any moment in time come 
with me to Hoboken train station. Every workday you will see literally 
tens of thousands of people transferring from one train track to subway 
system or bus system.
  It is hard for me to conceive, frankly, that we can get ourselves to 
believe that the only exposure of the American citizenry is to air 
travel. Two hundred twenty-eight million riders per year in New Jersey 
use mass transit. Many of these congregate in large areas. It is 
absolutely essential that we enhance our security, and this is what the 
Shelby amendment is about.
  I hope my good friend, Secretary Chertoff--and I do consider him a 
good friend and someone for whom I have great respect--will reconsider 
the thought that was expressed today that somehow or another this is a 
lower priority. It certainly is not a lower priority on the terrorists' 
minds. It wasn't in Madrid or Moscow and, unfortunately, it was not in 
London most recently.
  Not only is this a mistake with regard to our homeland security 
policy, but it is like putting a bull's-eye on a certain sector of our 
infrastructure where people and the economy come together. It is to say 
that we are going to lay all this responsibility on already budget-
strained State and local governments who have not been able to provide 
the security and say: Come get us.

[[Page 16058]]

We don't want to give the emphasis to an area where there are many 
people and where our economy moves back and forth and through which it 
functions.
  The principle that we are not going to focus on rail and mass transit 
protection makes no sense whatsoever. The way to stand up to that is to 
vote for the Shelby amendment, put $1.1 billion into mass transit, rail 
security. I hope my colleagues will follow that path.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 34 
minutes; the Senator from Alabama, 15 minutes; the Senator from Nevada, 
4 minutes; the Senator from West Virginia, 12 minutes. That is the 
balance of the time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to review this issue because it is 
important in the context of London to understand our purpose and how we 
are proceeding from a policy standpoint to try to address terrorism. To 
begin with, we all know and understand and are all concerned about the 
threat to public transportation, specifically mass transportation, in 
our Nation and in any western culture because of what has happened in 
Madrid and in London and because the people who have decided to pursue 
this heinous approach of killing innocent individuals see this 
opportunity as a soft target, an easy way to kill indiscriminately. It 
is hard for western cultures to understand that people would do that. 
Unfortunately, that is what our enemies do.
  We as a nation must decide how we can best address protecting 
ourselves. It is important not to take the attitude that if we just 
throw money at this, we will solve the problem. That doesn't work. What 
we need to do is address the risk, the threat, and determine what is 
the best way to respond to that risk and that threat.
  When we were attacked on 9/11, we recognized as a nation that the 
individuals who seek to harm us are willing to take what we would 
consider everyday modes of transportation and use those modes of 
transportation as a weapon against us. Those airplanes were used as 
missiles. So as a nation, we decided we were not going to allow that to 
happen. We have committed vast resources--no question about it--to 
making sure that our aircraft are secure from being used as missiles. 
Have we secured them from being able to be blown up or destroyed in the 
air? No, we have not, quite honestly. We have had test after test that 
has shown that regrettably, even though we have this massive structure 
of the TSA and even though we have committed literally billions of 
dollars, we are still unable to essentially protect aircraft, a high 
percentage of the time, from someone who wishes to bring on that 
aircraft a destructive weapon such as a bomb. In fact, we are having 
trouble keeping out individual types of weapons such as knives and 
guns. The percentage of those going through the security systems has 
been shown to be, in some instances, unreasonably high.
  The reason is because a committed professional terrorist--and that is 
what we are dealing with--has the capacity to use weapons systems which 
can go undetected, going through this massive system that we have set 
up known as the TSA. That is something we are trying to address. We are 
trying to develop new technologies. There are new technologies emerging 
which will hopefully allow us to detect explosives that might go on an 
aircraft. But as of now, our capacity is not overwhelmingly good, even 
though we have spent billions of dollars.
  What we have been able to accomplish is that it will be very 
difficult for a terrorist to actually take control of an aircraft again 
and use it as a weapon. That was our priority.
  Now we have seen what has happened in London. The simple fact is, 
even though we spent billions of dollars at very confined ports of 
entry--in other words, an airport is a pretty confined place, pretty 
easily managed compared to other places when it comes to the movement 
of people in and out, everything has a fairly focused place--we have 
not yet been able to adequately or fully secure aircraft from a variety 
of potential attacks. It has to be obvious to anyone who is honest 
about it that our capacity to fully secure transit in New York City, 
where you have literally factors of a hundred more people using 
aircraft as entering and exiting--the number is something like 10 
million people a day use that system. We have tracks that go on 
continually through populated areas that could be where IEDs could be 
put under the tracks, where you have innumerable places where people 
can jump on and jump off, thousands of different entry points--anybody 
who has any intellectual honesty about how we pursue terrorism must be 
ready to say: There isn't enough money in the Federal Treasury to 
effectively address securing the entire transit system in the manner 
which is being proposed in these amendments, which is that you put more 
police officers on trains, more bomb dogs on trains, more detection 
facilities in the entryways, more electronic surveillance.
  We wish it could be done, but we haven't been able to do it in the 
aircraft area where we have spent billions, and the ability to do it in 
the transit area is a factor of complication 1,000 times more difficult 
with which to deal.
  Thus these dollars which are being proposed today are not going to 
dramatically increase safety. They well may have some visual impact, 
and they will give people personal confidence. But as the mayor of New 
York said a couple days ago, a committed professional terrorist who is 
willing to give their life in order to kill other people is going to be 
able to attack that train, to attack that bus system.
  How do you address this? The key to addressing it is as Secretary 
Chertoff has made very clear. It is unfortunate that his words have 
been hyperbolized so much on the floor of the Senate and have been used 
in a political manner. This is a sincere man who is trying to do a good 
job. He is just getting started as Secretary. For him to be subjected 
to politicization in the Senate is not constructive to the process of 
the defense of our country from terrorists, but he has been, as so 
often happens around here. What he has pointed out in his review is the 
way we protect our transit systems is to get better intelligence. It is 
intelligence that is the key. You have to find these people before they 
find us. You have to catch them before they get to our systems, and 
then you deal with them.
  How do you increase intelligence? First, you go to where the breeding 
ground is for the people who are most likely to attack you--Iraq, 
Afghanistan. Most of the good intelligence we are generating today 
comes from the fact that we are in Iraq fighting these terrorists over 
there rather than fighting them over here. We are in Afghanistan 
finding these terrorists before they can find us. And then we either 
get intelligence from them there or, if they are really bad people who 
are fundamentally evil, we take them to Guantanamo Bay and we lock them 
up. Then, under very strict regimes which meet all the responsibilities 
of a civilized society, we interrogate them and find out information, 
intelligence.
  A large percentage of our intelligence comes out of Guantanamo Bay. 
So you aggressively pursue the intelligence efforts, and that means you 
aggressively pursue the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and you use places 
such as Guantanamo Bay.
  In addition, you use our laws effectively. The PATRIOT Act, which has 
been so aggressively maligned from some of the Members actually 
offering this amendment, is a key element in developing the 
intelligence necessary to find out through electronic means what is up 
with the people who might want to attack us before they do so.
  Some of the same people who want to put a billion dollars into 
initiatives which we know cannot significantly impact our capacity to 
secure the transit systems are so resistant to allowing the PATRIOT Act 
to be reauthorized, which provides the tools that will give our people 
at the FBI and other intelligence sources the capacity to find out what 
these people are doing by electronic means.

[[Page 16059]]

  And then, of course, there are issues like profiling. The simple fact 
is there are certain people coming from the Middle East whom we know 
are going to be the type of folks who are going to potentially attack 
us. Profiling is a necessary element of finding them and getting them 
before they can attack us. Most of that activity--intelligence 
gathering--does not fall under this bill.
  What does fall under this bill is border security. That is a big part 
of this whole question of how you protect the transit systems and 
everything else in America. It is not just transit systems; this 
doesn't stop with transit systems. If you are a terrorist--if you 
follow the logic of the Senator from Rhode Island--you are going to 
just move on to the next site of soft opportunity, which may be a 
sporting event or a utility system where they are transmitting power or 
maybe some other facility where people gather.
  We are an open society and a massive democracy. We simply cannot lock 
ourselves down completely. So that is why the intel exercise is so 
important. Part of that is securing our borders, which is critical. 
Putting more money into securing our borders is what the bill does. 
Putting more money to making sure we are able to detect a weapon of 
mass destruction before it is used against us is what this bill does. 
Those are threats we can handle with more dollars. Those are the 
threats we can have an immediate impact on with more dollars--with a 
lot more dollars. This bill moves a lot more dollars into these 
accounts--over $600 million in the Border Patrol, and hundreds of 
millions in weapons of mass destruction issues. But to simply throw 
another billion dollars on the table because there is a political 
element behind the implications of doing that is not going to resolve 
the problem.
  In fact, in the end, that will probably aggravate the issue because 
we will be taking scarce resources--which we have to allocate because 
we live under a philosophy that we only have so many funds--and putting 
them into an account where we cannot, A, use it; or, B, if we use it, 
it might be wasted, and if we use it ineffectively, its impact might be 
at the margin versus if you move the funds into areas where we get a 
response that produces results, such as in the intelligence area, 
Border Patrol area, weapons of mass destruction area. That is why this 
bill has been set up the way it has been set up.
  So, yes, I don't deny that we can spend another billion dollars on 
mass transit. I am sure every mass transit authority in the country 
will be happy to replace their local spending with new Federal dollars, 
or even add it onto their spending. But will it dramatically impact the 
security of those transit systems, other than a visual impact? No. 
Let's be honest, it will not.
  The only way we are going to secure transit systems or sports events 
or other major gathering sites is to find these people before they find 
us. That is why the war in Iraq is so important and the war in 
Afghanistan is so important, and that is why maintaining a vibrant 
facility in Guantanamo where we can incarcerate and interrogate these 
people in an appropriate way, aggressively, is important. It is why the 
PATRIOT Act and profiling and border security are important.
  Those are the priorities on which we should be focused. So I have to 
oppose both amendments by Mr. Shelby and Mr. Byrd. I respect them both, 
and I understand where they are coming from. I respect their 
initiatives to try to do something here. Within the context of the 
budget, we have put the money where we think we can most effectively 
use it, which, as I have outlined, has been weapons of mass 
destruction, border security, and airlines.
  So I will be opposing both of these and making a point of order that 
they will exceed the budget allocation and exceed our allocation within 
the Appropriations Committee, and that both amendments would add a 
billion dollars to the deficit.
  I have, however, listened to my colleagues saying we need more money 
in mass transit. We have offered an amendment which would move $100 
million out of first responders into mass transit. It would mean we 
would be $50 million above last year's spending in those accounts. If 
Members wish to pursue that course, I hope they will vote for that 
amendment because it is a responsible amendment and an affordable one, 
done within the context of the bill, which has a structure built around 
addressing threat first.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how are the quorum calls being charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum calls are charged to the Senator 
who controls time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am fairly confident that earlier, at the 
beginning of this section, I asked that all quorum calls be charged 
equally in relationship to the time allocated. In fact, I am absolutely 
confident that I made that unanimous consent request. However, I will 
renew that unanimous consent request at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
restored in the context of that request, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1205

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on amendment No. 
1205 on which we will soon be voting. This is an amendment I offered 
yesterday to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I 
am joined by several cosponsors, including the ranking member on the 
Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, and also Senator Reed and many 
others.
  As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction 
over transit security, I can tell you that the committee has a long 
history of interest in this issue, and many of my colleagues on the 
Banking Committee join me in supporting this amendment.
  This issue has been on our radar screen for some time. In fact, last 
year, the Banking Committee reported the Public Transportation 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The Senate passed it unanimously. 
This was a thoughtfully considered bill, written with significant input 
from the industry and terrorism experts alike. The amendment I am here 
to speak on today is consistent with that Senate-passed authorization 
bill.
  The amendment before us provides $1.166 billion for public 
transportation security. This provides $790 million for capital 
improvement grants, $333 million for operating grants, and $43 million 
in research. I am the first to admit this is a large sum and that we 
must balance our spending on public transportation with other 
priorities to defend our homeland. I am more than willing to work with 
Chairman Gregg to identify appropriate ways to do that.
  It is difficult for us to predict where terrorists will strike next, 
but in order to help prevent or mitigate the severity of attacks, I 
believe we need to focus on transit security and make some wise and 
careful investments in this area. To the extent it is possible, I think 
we must guard against what the world witnessed last week in London and 
what we have seen in Spain, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and 
other countries.
  When the GAO surveyed the transportation security needs of eight 
transportation agencies in 2002, the GAO estimated these eight alone 
will need $700 million in order to make basic security enhancements.
  In this Nation, there are 6,000 transportation agencies. The needs 
are significant. Americans are proud of being

[[Page 16060]]

an open society with many freedoms, but, unfortunately, it makes us 
potentially vulnerable. We built many of our subway stations and rail 
and bus stations in ways which we now realize in a post-9/11 world need 
some extra reinforcement. The funding in this amendment provides that 
first step. It is a good first start, and that it is a necessity I do 
not believe is in question.
  The funding made available by this amendment is broken down into 
three components: No. 1, capital; No. 2, operating; and No. 3, 
research. The money will provide transportation providers with the 
ability to provide basic security enhancements. With this amendment, we 
can build fences so that intruders cannot enter tunnels or plant bombs 
by walking up to the tracks. We can purchase surveillance equipment in 
and around transportation centers, which is how the British have been 
able to find who carried out last week's attacks. The British, I have 
been told, have over 5,000 surveillance cameras, and they are working. 
We have very few.
  We can provide communications equipment to help passengers, 
transportation officials, and first responders in the event of an 
emergency. We can fund fire suppression and decontamination equipment 
and redundant critical operations control systems, such as a backup 
computer system so that one well-placed bomb cannot shut down an entire 
system. As well, this would fund emergency response equipment--which 
could save hundreds of lives in a terrorist incident--and evacuation 
improvements, such as emergency routes or escape route signs. 
Additionally, the amendment would provide money to train and help 
deploy canine units which can contribute immensely to improved 
security.
  The amendment before us also would provide funding for transportation 
agencies to carry out drills so they will be better prepared in case of 
a terrorist attack. It is one thing to know how the plan works on 
paper, but quite another to see how the plan works in practice.
  Finally, the amendment also provides funding for critically important 
research in determining ways of detecting chemical, biological, or 
radiological weapons in ways that do not interfere with the ease of 
passengers using transportation systems. This is one of the greatest 
obstacles toward providing better security in typical commuter 
transportation environments.
  I seriously believe we must provide resources toward mitigating these 
security threats, and we must do so as soon as possible.
  As I mentioned yesterday on the floor, as an appropriations 
subcommittee chairman myself, I can certainly appreciate the challenge 
Senator Gregg, the chairman of the subcommittee, faces as he attempts 
to address the multitude of security challenges in this appropriations 
bill. Attempting to find the balance is important and, in the end, we 
could have infinite resources to spend and still not be totally 
protected. We know this.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Gregg and other Members of 
the Senate. I commend this amendment to my colleagues and ask for their 
support a little later this afternoon.
  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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to offer some thoughts on the 
appropriations bill regarding homeland security. Being the shepherd of 
one Interior bill a couple of weeks ago, I can understand the problems 
that arise whenever we start into this business of making the 
appropriations to make our Government work. I congratulate Chairman 
Gregg and Senator Byrd and other members of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee because they have changed direction on this 
a little bit with regard to our borders.
  Every time I go to my home State of Montana the borders are talked 
about. I know it is probably one of the most difficult areas over which 
we are given the command to protect. I have said it before, and I will 
say it again, we have to secure our borders. Particularly, we know 
about the situation on our southern border, but we have always been 
understaffed and underfunded and overlooked on the northern border, 
even after September 11, 2001.
  We are faced with the task of patrolling the longest stretch of 
unprotected international border in the United States, nearly 550 miles 
of border in Montana. We have the same pressures there from terrorists, 
drug runners, and criminals. They can cross that border, enter our 
country, and do harm to our citizens.
  Make no mistake, we have made some progress. Again, I congratulate 
the chairman of the subcommittee on this bill. We were able to gain 
about 500 new Border Patrol agents along the northern border to relieve 
some facility overcrowding earlier this year in a new appropriation. 
Meanwhile, however, we have to look at the numbers. Over 500 million 
people cross our borders each year, 330 million of whom are not U.S. 
citizens. Where do these people go?
  The committee has recognized we can no longer allow for the gaps in 
our national security. It has taken the proper steps to ensure that we 
have a plan in place to secure our borders.
  I congratulate the chairman because these bills are difficult at 
best. But when we start talking about our borders, the security of our 
country, it takes on a whole new look. So I want to thank the managers 
of this bill for their work and their recommendations. It is too 
important to ignore any longer. It is my hope we can get this bill 
passed with a proper plan in place to secure our borders and get it to 
the President's desk.
  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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1218

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be 
added as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 1218.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, nearly 4 years have passed since the 
events of 
9/11, yet rail and transit security remain major vulnerabilities.
  The warning signs cannot be clearer. Public transportation and rail 
systems are a primary target for terrorist attacks. Last week's transit 
bombings in London follow similar attacks in Madrid, Moscow, Tel Aviv, 
and Seoul, and each attack has produced massive casualties, caused 
broad economic disruption, and generated widespread fear.
  We have already been warned twice publicly by the FBI that al-Qaida 
may be directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that their 
operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to 
cause derailments.
  We know that more than one-third of all worldwide terrorist attacks 
target transportation systems, with public transit the most frequently 
targeted transportation mode.
  Despite the significant threat to transit and rail systems and the 
Senate's unanimous approval of the Rail Security Act last year, 
security funding has remained grossly inadequate. As a result, our 
Nation's transit and rail systems have been unable to implement 
necessary security improvements.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues this afternoon in supporting an 
amendment that increases rail security by $265 million in fiscal year 
2006.
  This funding level is not fictional. It is absolutely justifiable and 
necessary. Of the total amount proposed in our amendment, $65 million 
would be for Amtrak security, and Amtrak officials have verified they 
can obligate that funding amount in fiscal year 2006.
  An additional $40 million would be for Amtrak tunnel safety, and 
Amtrak

[[Page 16061]]

could obligate this funding in fiscal year 2006 for tunnels in New 
York, Baltimore, and the District of Columbia.
  Of the total amount provided for by the amendment, $120 million would 
be for passenger and freight rail security grants, similar to the 
funding level authorized in S. 2273, the Rail Security Act of 2004, 
which the Senate passed unanimously last year.
  Additionally, $35 million would be provided for rail security 
research and development. Again, the level is similar to the funding 
that the Senate has previously approved.
  Finally, $5 million would be for a Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA, rail security risk assessment.
  Just yesterday, Secretary Chertoff announced his plan to reorganize 
the Department of Homeland Security. He mentioned two points I would 
like to close with. First, he noted that increased preparedness should 
focus on not only risk and threat, but also consequences. We are all 
aware of the devastation that could result from a London-style attack 
on our transit and rail systems.
  Second, he noted in his prepared materials that the TSA will continue 
to be the lead agency for intermodal transportation.
  I couldn't agree with him more, and this amendment gives him the 
necessary funding to support his renewed focus on rail and transit 
security.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment provides an additional $1.3 
billion above the underlying bill for needed security funding for our 
transit systems, intercity rail, freight rail, and intracity buses for 
a total of $1.4 billion. The funding levels I am proposing in this 
amendment are based on two bipartisan rail security authorization 
bills, S. 2273 and S. 2884, which passed the Senate last October.
  Public transportation is used nearly 32 million times every day, 365 
days a year. Thirty-two million times a day is 16 times more than 
travel on domestic airlines. How about that. According to the 
Government Accounting Office, nearly 6,000 agencies provide transit 
services through buses, subways, ferries, and light rail service to 
about 14 million Americans every weekday. Amtrak, while serving nearly 
500 train stations in 46 States, carried an all-time record of 
ridership of 25 million passengers in fiscal year 2004.
  Freight rail consists of more than 140,000 miles of track over which 
nearly 28 million carloads move annually, including over 9 million 
trailers and containers and $1.7 million carloads of hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste. Yes, only 2 cents--get this now, 2 
cents. My colleagues have heard the expression, ``I want to get my 2 
cents' worth.'' Well, only 2 cents on every transportation security 
dollar in this bill--can you believe it? Only 2 cents on every 
transportation security dollar in this bill goes to transit or rail 
security. Can you believe that? Two cents.
  I remember the days of the 2-cent snack--my, that was a long time 
ago--and the penny postcard. Two cents. Let me say that again. Someone 
may not have heard that. Only 2 cents on every transportation security 
dollar in this bill goes to transit or rail security. The rest, where 
does it go? To aviation security.
  When the terrorists blew up trains last year in Madrid, Spain, the 
administration had no plan, none, for securing transit and rail 
systems. The horrific bombings a few days ago in London have raised the 
same question. Are we prepared? What do my colleagues think? Are we 
prepared? Are we prepared? According to the RAND Corporation, between 
1998 and 2003 there were approximately 181 terrorist attacks on rail 
targets worldwide. Since 2001, I have offered seven different 
amendments--think of it, seven different amendments--to fund rail and 
transit security. What do my colleagues think of that? What do they 
think happened? I will give one guess. I offered seven amendments to 
fund rail and transit security. All seven were opposed by this 
administration, and all seven were defeated.
  Well, Robert Bruce, that great Scotsman, was lying in the loft of the 
barn, and he saw this spider try to throw its web across the roof on 
the inside of the barn. He saw that spider try six times, and the 
spider failed. But the spider then threw once more, seven times, and 
succeeded. Robert Bruce thought he would try once more. He did, and he 
succeeded. I offered an amendment seven times that was opposed by the 
administration.
  While we cannot secure every train, every station, and every 
passenger who uses mass transit or rides on trains from city to city, 
we can, with the additional funding I am proposing, implement prudent, 
commonsense actions to reduce the risks and consequences of a terrorist 
attack.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. We must harden infrastructure, install 
intrusion and detection systems, and procure cameras, locks, gates, 
canine teams, and other tools.
  The Gregg amendment provides an increase of only $100 million for 
rail and transit security. That level simply will not be enough. It 
will help some, but it would not be enough to help transit and rail 
agencies in their efforts to deter a potential attack. For transit 
alone the estimate of need is $6 billion.
  I am also concerned that the amendment reduces first responder funds 
by $100 million. This is a $100 million cut on top of the $467 million 
cut already in the bill. We should not be cutting funds to equip and 
train our police and our fire and emergency medical personnel by 24 
percent.
  With regard to the Shelby amendment, I am concerned that it includes 
only $100 million for securing rail systems. With 25 million passengers 
riding Amtrak and 1.7 million carloads of hazardous materials being 
carried on the rails, we must do more. We must do more to secure our 
rail system. My amendment includes $265 million for rail security.
  Our thoughts, our prayers are with the victims of the London bombing. 
The horrific events the world witnessed a few days ago ought to serve 
as a call to action, a call to action by this Government, our 
Government, to protect our citizens from future attacks.
  It is time to act. I urge all Senators to support my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be added 
as a cosponsor to my amendment numbered 1218.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1220, as Further Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment No. 
1220 which I send to the desk and ask be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to further modification?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
question respectfully, would the distinguished Senator wait 
momentarily, until we can hear from Senator Inouye? If he could wait a 
couple of minutes, may I ask?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. I reserve my request and make a point of order a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask again the modification I sent to the desk be 
accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                amendment no. 1220, as further modified

       On page 77, line 15, strike ``For grants,'' down through 
     and including ``tection plan

[[Page 16062]]

     grants.'' and on page 79, line 6 insert the following:

     For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, including grants to State and local governments 
     for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $2,694,300,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $1,418,000,000 for State and local grants, of which 
     $425,000,000 shall be allocated such that each State and 
     territory shall receive the same dollar amount for the State 
     minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 for formula-
     based grants: Provided, That the balance shall be allocated 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security to States, urban areas, 
     or regions based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and 
     unmet essential capabilities pursuant to Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8).
       (2) $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention 
     grants, of which $155,000,000 shall be allocated such that 
     each State and territory shall receive the same dollar amount 
     for the State minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants: Provided, 
     That the balance shall be allocated by the Secretary to 
     States based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and unmet 
     essential capabilities pursuant to HSPD-8.
       (3) $465,000,000 for discretionary transportation and 
     infrastructure grants, as determined by the Secretary, which 
     shall be based on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities, of 
     which--
       (A) $200,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant 
     to the purposes of 46 United States Code 70107(a) through 
     (h), which shall be awarded based on threat notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), for eligible costs as defined in subsections 
     (b)(2)-(4);
       (B) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security 
     grants;
       (C) $15,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
       (D) $195,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail 
     transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, 
     United States Code), freight rail, and transit security 
     grants, including grants for electronic surveillance system, 
     explosive canine teams, and overtime during high alert 
     levels; and (E) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone 
     protection plan grants.''

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provided by 
Senator Byrd provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for purposes of the pending amendment.
  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. GREGG. I ask all time be yielded back, if the Senator from West 
Virginia is agreeable.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Is there any Senator in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 43, and nays 
are 55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the next two votes be 10 minutes 
in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I also ask unanimous consent that prior to the next two 
votes there be 2 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1220, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Gregg amendment 
1220, as modified.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is an amendment to increase funding in 
the mass transit area by $100 million which is done by taking that 
money out of a different account, specifically the State and local 
first responder account. The reason that account was chosen was, as we 
discussed before, there is over $7 billion of unspent money in those 
accounts.
  To the extent the States have the capacity to handle that money, we 
will make sure they get additional moneys, but right now they have more 
money than they can handle in those accounts.
  This will be within the budget. I hope Members support this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1205

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the next amendment we will vote on is 
the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator Shelby, which tries to meet the undertaking this 
body made last year in passing an authorization for transit security 
money. That tries to address the problem. This amendment makes some 
small contribution. I intend to vote no on this amendment. I hope 
Members support the Shelby amendment in due course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Gregg 
amendment 1220, as modified.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes

[[Page 16063]]


     Schumer
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thune
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The amendment (No. 1220), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from New Hampshire.


                    Amendment No. 1205, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment offered by 
Senator Shelby provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1205 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending and a point of order 
has been raised against the amendment.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time for debate yielded back?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like my minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I realize this is a good bit of money. I 
am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I serve on the committee 
with Senator Gregg. I believe, though, we have been spending pennies as 
far as transit security is concerned--that is subways, buses, and 
everything else--as opposed to airline security, which both are 
important.
  We know what happened last week in London. They have over 5,000 
cameras for surveillance. It helped them a lot. I think we have to ask 
ourselves, Are we going to make that big downpayment toward security 
for our people, the millions who ride buses, subways, and trains every 
day? This is the first step in that direction.
  I ask for your support of this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the 
pending amendments on rail and transit security. One is offered by my 
colleague and friend from Alabama.
  I know firsthand his breadth of knowledge and leadership on 
transportation issues, as we worked together for many years as leaders 
on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I am confident that his amendment will help address the transit 
security problem in our country in a necessary and effective way.
  One amendment is offered by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator 
Byrd. His amendment goes beyond the Shelby amendment and includes 
funding for our national freight and passenger rail transportation 
systems as well. This funding is crucial for the security needs of 
Amtrak.
  Each year, the Bush administration and Amtrak opponents in the 
Congress fight to cut funding for Amtrak to provide rail services to 
500 stations in 46 States.
  So as Congress and the administration bicker, 68,000 daily passengers 
rely on Amtrak using some of its Federal transportation operating grant 
for security purposes.
  My point is that if we don't fund Amtrak's security needs in this 
bill, it must come out of the transportation budget, where resources 
are limited.
  Last week's attacks in London--like previous attacks on subway 
systems in Madrid and Moscow--highlighted the importance of securing 
our entire transportation system--and especially public transit.
  Since 9/11 we have made huge strides in the aviation sector. But the 
words of the 9/11 Commission still haunt us:

                Rail and Port Security--the Next Threat

       Over 90 percent of the Nation's $5.3 billion annual 
     investment in the TSA goes to aviation--to fight the last war 
     . . .
       Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in 
     maritime or surface transportation.--9/11 Commission Report, 
     p. 391.

  When are we going to start seriously taking the notion that we must 
secure our homeland from terrorist attack?
  Every day, more than a half a million riders in New Jersey get on a 
bus. Another 340,000 board an Amtrak or commuter train, and another 
30,000 a light rail car. That is a total of 870,000 people--as many as 
the total populations of States served by some of our colleagues.
  These citizens depend on public transit to get to their jobs, to 
school, and to visit family and friends. And they are depending on us 
to protect our rail and transit systems from terrorists.
  Rail and transit systems move people efficiently because they are 
open systems, but unfortunately that also makes them vulnerable to an 
attack.
  The State Department reports that from 1991 to 1998 violent attacks 
worldwide against transportation targets went from 20 percent of all 
those attacks to 40 percent. And a growing number of these are directed 
at bus and rail systems.
  Securing our country will take resources. For every week that we are 
on orange alert, one New Jersey public transit operator is forced to 
spend an extra $100,000. That is on top of a security budget that has 
doubled since 9/11.
  As I said earlier, Amtrak spends tens of millions of dollars of its 
Department of Transportation operating grant on security. This funding 
will upgrade stations and other critical facilities and will improve 
security operations of transit systems. It will also help train our 
frontline employees.
  A report by the Mineta Transportation Institute found after studying 
the events of 9/11 that prompt action by frontline employees can save 
lives. It goes on to say that ``Transportation employees are also first 
responders, so they require training and empowerment.''
  Transit operators must take effective steps to reduce the risk of 
terrorist attack. And they need the resources to do it.
  In addition to the commuters who rely on transit systems daily, 
senior citizens, students an disabled persons are especially reliant on 
transit. For many, it is their only way to get to medical appointments, 
school and other important destinations.
  We can't afford to wait until there is a major terrorist attack on a 
U.S. transit system. We must act now. Let's do what our 
responsibilities demand of us and protect our citizens when they travel 
as well as when they are at home, at work or at school.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Shelby-
Sarbanes transit amendment. This amendment increases transit security 
funding by $1.1 billion. It is endorsed by both the Chicago Transit 
Authority and Metra, the commuter rail agency serving Chicago and all 
of northeastern Illinois.
  The amendment would provide $790 million for public transportation 
agencies for capital security improvements, $333 million for 
operational security improvements, and $43 million for grants to public 
or private entities to conduct research on terrorist prevention 
technologies. This money would be doled out to agencies based on risk.
  The amendment seeks the funding needed to fund a bill passed by the 
Senate in 2004 known as the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention 
Act.
  After the London bombing last week, we became acutely aware of how 
vulnerable our transit systems are in this country, although some of us 
have been concerned about these problems for years.
  Since the London bombing, transit systems across the Nation have been 
upgraded to an Orange Alert level, meaning more canine patrols, 
deployment of explosive detection devices, increased security guard 
patrols, and increased customer assistance. A significant amount of 
this has been borne by State and local governments.

[[Page 16064]]

  I was disappointed today to hear about Homeland Security Secretary 
Michael Chertoffs remarks that State and local governments should bear 
much of the burden of protecting transit systems. A bomb in a subway, 
he says, may kill 30 people, while a fully loaded airplane may kill 
3,000 people.
  This argument is misleading. A well-orchestrated, multipronged attack 
on one of Metra's largest trains, which carry up to 1,600 passengers or 
the equivalent of three fully loaded Boeing 747 aircraft, could produce 
a similar body count.
  I am sure the families of the 50 victims of the London attacks don't 
think the lives of their loved ones were any less important than those 
of people who have been killed on airplanes.
  Transit systems are an accident waiting to happen. They are a 
vulnerability we have ignored for far too long, and the terrorists know 
it.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect trains as well 
as airplanes, for the public good, and it needs to take responsibility.
  For CTA, this increased security is costing an estimated extra 
$60,000 a day, on top of an already massive increase in security 
spending borne since September 11.
  Metra has diverted millions of dollars in funds for police overtime 
pay, extra outside security police, and bomb-sniffing dogs.
  Our rail system covers approximately 16,000 acres, carrying 500 
freight and 700 commuter trains each day. More than 2 million 
passengers travel to or from Chicago on Amtrak, and Chicago's transit 
systems take 73 million local passenger trips a year. These people and 
this cargo needs to be secure.
  Despite these facts, and other impressive statistics from New York, 
New Jersey, California, and elsewhere where rail and transit systems 
are relied on heavily, in the President's budget proposal, nearly 90 
percent of Federal transportation security funds have been directed to 
aviation security. While I don't want to take away from the importance 
of aviation security improvements, this amendment attempts to diminish 
that inequity.
  In this bill before us, the committee proposes only $100 million for 
intercity passenger rail transportation, freight rail, and transit 
security grants. This is one-third less than we appropriated last year 
and hundreds of millions less than the Senate has authorized for these 
programs over the years.
  While the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, chairman of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, will offer an amendment 
to boost this funding by an additional $100 million, there are two 
things wrong with this approach. One, he takes it away from State and 
local grants. And two, $100 million is not enough, given the risks.
  He will talk about the need for fiscal discipline; he will talk about 
this amendment and other important rail security amendments as busting 
the budget, but it is a question of priorities. We are busting the 
budget every day for the priorities of tax cuts and funding the war in 
Iraq.
  Transit operators must take effective steps to reduce the risk of 
terrorist attack. And they need help to do it. State and local 
governments are investing their own time and money, and the Federal 
Government should respond.
  We should not wait for terrorists to attack a U.S. transit system to 
react. We need to take action now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have had substantial debate on the 
substance of this amendment, the fact that the $1 billion probably will 
not impact dramatically the security situation. It might actually 
misallocate funds that could otherwise be used for intelligence and for 
Border Patrol agents and for other activities that are so critical and 
that are threat-oriented.
  But the practical bottom line is this amendment is $1 billion over 
the budget and will add to the deficit by $1 billion, if it is adopted. 
I urge that the motion to waive be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lott
     Mikulski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendments be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1223

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

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1223.

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

    (Purpose: To protect classified information and to protect our 
                         servicemen and women)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. ___
       Any federal officeholder who makes references to a 
     classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the 
     floor of the United States Senate, or any federal 
     officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's 
     comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist 
     organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at 
     risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to 
     hold a security clearance for access to such information.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 
90 minutes equally divided between the

[[Page 16065]]

two leaders or their designees to be used concurrently on the pending 
amendment and No. 1222; further, that following the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
pending Frist amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on the 
Reid amendment No. 1222, and there be no second-degree amendments in 
order to either amendments prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, briefly, with the three votes we just 
completed relating to mass transit, we are on a good glidepath toward 
finishing tonight. I should say we were on a good glidepath for 
finishing tonight. The chairman and ranking member of the Homeland 
Security subcommittee have cleared a large number of amendments, and it 
does appear we will be able to finish tonight.
  Having said that, I am very disappointed that we now have pending 
before us what is purely a political amendment on which we will be 
spending the next 90 minutes, plus the votes. We have been working in 
very good faith on a bill that funds important priorities to this 
country, to our homeland security, and that has been the focus. We have 
done very well staying focused on this bill until the Democratic, 
really political, amendment was offered.
  The pending amendment offered by the Democratic leader has nothing to 
do with funding of our national security. I am disappointed because it 
is going to slow down the underlying process on the bill.
  We will be spending the next 90 minutes on these two amendments, then 
followed by two votes. Hopefully after that we will put politics aside 
and attend to the Nation's business.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.


                           Amendment No. 1222

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. No Federal employee who discloses, or has 
     disclosed, classified information, including the identity of 
     a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a 
     person not authorized to receive such information shall be 
     permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such 
     information.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that my leader time be used now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want everyone here today to be clear on 
what we are talking about. You can call it politics; I call it 
government. I call it good government. We are talking about a matter of 
national security. At least one--there could be more--at least one 
senior White House official disclosed the identity of a CIA 
intelligence officer to a reporter or reporters, and then this 
administration proceeded to deny and deflect the truth after it was 
discovered it had been leaked. It put this agent's life in jeopardy. I 
repeat, it put this agent's life in jeopardy, plus people she had dealt 
with from other countries and here in America. It put our intelligence 
community at risk and, of course, jeopardized our national security.
  Even the President's father, my friend, President George Bush, a 
former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognizes the 
seriousness of this offense. He said:

       I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray 
     the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in 
     my view, the most insidious of traitors.

  Whoever did this, according to George Bush, the first Bush President, 
would be an insidious traitor.
  But instead of dealing with the problem, this administration, this 
White House, and the majority in the Senate want to divert attention 
from this breach of national security. Unfortunately, it is a pattern 
we are all too familiar with from this White House. When they are on 
the ropes, they attack. If you do not believe me, you need look no 
further than yesterday's Washington Post, July 13, 2005, which detailed 
the Republican strategy for this affair:

       The emerging GOP strategy--devised by--

  RNC chair

       [Ken Mehlman] and other Rove loyalists outside the White 
     House--is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for 
     Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President 
     Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selections to drown out the 
     controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

  This is what is known as a coverup. This is an abuse of power. This 
is a diversion from what we should be dealing with in the Senate.
  No interest in coming clean and being honest with the American 
people. This afternoon, the majority is bringing this strategy to the 
Senate floor. Mehlman's strategy is being brought right here, but the 
American people can see right through this.
  This morning, the Wall Street Journal, not a bastion of liberality, 
had a poll which said only 41 percent of Americans believe the 
President is being honest and straightforward. That is from the Wall 
Street Journal this morning, which confirms and underlines what I have 
said that this is a coverup. It is an abuse of power. It is 
diversionary.
  It is time to quit playing partisan politics with our national 
security. It is time for the White House to come clean. It is time to 
address the pressing issues facing this country. This second-degree 
amendment--and I have been in the Congress more than two decades--is 
about as juvenile and as mudslinging as I have seen. We are here to 
protect the country. We are here with a bill that deals with homeland 
security. We are here to talk about issues such as leaking information 
about our CIA agents. Is that not part of our national security? I 
certainly hope so.
  We have pressing issues facing this country. The reason the American 
people have lost faith in this administration is because we are not 
dealing with the problems they care about: 45 million Americans with no 
health insurance, millions of others underinsured; our educational 
system is wanting; K-12 have big problems; our public educational 
system is under attack. With college education today it is how much 
money one has as to where they can go to school and when they can go to 
school. It is how much money their parents have. Only half of American 
workers today have pensions, and more than half of those pensions are 
in distress.
  People are worrying--just like those people who worked all of those 
valiant years at United Airlines--are they going to lose their 
pensions? Are they going to be cut? Are they going to be whacked?
  This administration is obstructing progress. The American people 
deserve more. The Republicans should stop playing games, come clean, 
and work on issues to help this country.
  What we have today, with this little second-degree amendment, is a 
diversion. It is an abuse of power, and it is a coverup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, I noticed the Democratic 
leader had his amendment read. I would like to ask that the Frist 
amendment be read, and then Senator Coleman will be ready to address 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: Section. 
     Any Federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the 
     United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes 
     a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as 
     propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our 
     servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access 
     to such information or to hold security clearance for access 
     to such information.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we have had a very productive day dealing 
with homeland security, which is a $32 billion bill. In the past couple 
of weeks we passed an energy bill, a highway bill, and a trade 
agreement. We have a

[[Page 16066]]

consultation process going on now for a Supreme Court appointment that 
I think is going fairly well. There has been a pretty good atmosphere 
in this body. My concern is that the oxygen is being sucked out of that 
good atmosphere as we get involved in partisan political attacks.
  The circumstances that have motivated this statute are ones that are 
being reviewed right now by special counsel. That is the way it should 
be. We have somebody, the President, who says he has confidence in that 
special counsel, and it seems that rather than play partisan political 
games that we should let the special counsel do his work; that we 
should cool the rhetoric and we should focus on the business of the 
people, which I think we have been doing, which is a good thing.
  I would really love to ask my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle some questions about the statute. There is a reason we do things 
through committee and we review them. Perhaps one of my colleagues on 
the other side would yield to a question. There is an existing Federal 
law that makes it a crime to reveal the identity of agents. There are 
some very specific intent provisions in that statute. The law states 
that for a violation to occur, a Government official must have 
deliberately identified a covert agent.
  As I read this statute, I am not sure whether there is an intent 
requirement. The criminal statute requires that they must have known 
the agent was undercover and that the Government was trying to keep 
that agent's identity a secret. That is the criminal law.
  As I read this statute, I do not see any indication of intent. So 
when the amendment says ``no Federal employee who discloses, or has 
disclosed information,'' does that mean intentionally disclose? Does 
that mean unintentionally disclosed? Are we mirroring the criminal 
provisions to then apply them to a security clearance? I am not sure, 
and I would hope that on the time of my colleagues on the other side 
they will respond to those questions. If we went through the normal 
committee process, I think those are the kinds of questions we would 
sort out.
  As I look at the amendment, it talks about ``no Federal employee.'' 
Does that mean public official? I would hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle would agree that this amendment should cover public 
officials. It should cover us. Is the intent of my colleagues to 
specifically preclude Senators from losing their access to classified 
information? I think that is the intent.
  If one goes back and looks at definitions of Federal employees, that 
is the conclusion one would come to. If one comes to that conclusion, I 
think that is a pretty poor conclusion. If we are going to talk about 
being outraged by the fact that classified information has been 
revealed--and, again, I think we have to answer this question of intent 
or not, but I would hope that my colleagues would look at this and say, 
yes, we mean to include public officials. And if we do include public 
officials, there is some other construction language we would have to 
deal with because public officials do not necessarily have clearances, 
but we have access to classified information. So we would have to work 
on it.
  I know my colleague from Kansas would like to speak.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Did I understand the Senator from Minnesota correctly 
that he was posing two questions to the proponents of the Reid 
amendment, No. 1, whether intent was left out of the amendment on 
purpose, and No. 2, whether it covered Members of Congress?
  I was wondering if anyone on the other side was prepared to answer 
the questions of the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Those questions that my colleague from Kentucky has 
raised are what we would like some answers to. Are we intending to 
cover public officials, U.S. Senators, by the provisions of this 
amendment, and do we include----
  Mr. REID. Absolutely, yes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. If that is the case, I suggest then we perhaps take a 
few minutes to work out the language because there may be some 
technical problems with definitions of Federal employees. The language 
in the statute talks about receiving security clearances for access to 
information. We do not necessarily have security clearances, but we do 
have access, so there may be some technical provisions.
  I am very pleased if in fact my colleagues on the other side intend 
to include public officials. We might want to clean this up before we 
finalize it.
  The other question I have is, is there an intent element in this 
statute? Is it intentionally disclosing or unintentionally disclosing? 
Is it negligently, is it mistakingly, or is there the specific kind of 
intent one usually needs to have in statutes of this kind?
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 39\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Newsweek magazine reported that on July 11, 
2003, a correspondent for Time magazine, Matt Cooper, sent an e-mail to 
his bureau chief, Michael Duffy: Subject, Rove P&C, and that means for 
personal and confidential. The e-mail said: Spoke to Rove on double 
supersecret background for about 2 minutes before he went on vacation.
  According to Newsweek, Cooper wrote that Karl Rove offered him a big 
warning not to get too far out on Joe Wilson. Cooper's e-mail said the 
following: that it was, Karl Rove said, Wilson's wife who apparently 
works at the Agency--and that is referring clearly, by the other part 
of the e-mail, to CIA--on WMD, weapons of mass destruction, issues, who 
authorized the trip, referring to Joe Wilson's trip.
  According to the Newsweek report, Ambassador Wilson's wife is Valerie 
Plame. Then Cooper finished his e-mail by writing: Please do not source 
this to Rove or even White House--and suggested that another reporter 
check with the CIA.
  Then in October of 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was 
asked whether Karl Rove was involved in the leak. These were the 
questions and answers:
  Question: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove 
nor two other named persons disclosed any classified information with 
regard to the leak. I am wondering if you could tell us more 
specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame 
worked for the CIA?
  Mr. McClellan: Those individuals, now referring to including Rove, I 
spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals 
assured me they were not involved in this.
  Question of McClellan: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie 
Plame worked for the CIA?
  Mr. McClellan: They assured me they were not involved in this.
  Then comes the bombshell, the contemporaneous e-mail which indicated 
that as a matter of fact Mr. Rove indicated to Mr. Cooper that Joe 
Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA on weapons of mass 
destruction issues.
  It is not good enough to parse words on a matter that is this 
serious. It is not good enough to say, as both Mr. Rove and his lawyer 
have said, well, there was no reference to a specific name.
  On July 3, Mr. Rove's lawyer said his client did not disclose the 
identity of the CIA person. A little over a week later, after the 
release of the Cooper e-mail, Mr. Rove's lawyer parsed the words and 
said Mr. Rove did not disclose the name.
  Well, whether it is the name of a CIA employee or the identity of a 
CIA employee, that is wrong. It has to be stopped, and the only way to 
stop it is to adopt a statute which says either it is a criminal 
offense in case of specific intent, which we already have on the books, 
but even if one cannot prove a specific intent, even if one identifies 
a CIA employee, period, without the higher level of proof that is 
required for a criminal law, the identification of

[[Page 16067]]

a CIA employee is enough to lose their security clearance. That is what 
the amendment before us provides: Identify a CIA agent, put that agent 
in this Nation at risk, and they are going to lose their security 
clearance.
  Now, if someone does it intentionally, and if that can be proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond that, then they have committed a 
crime. So that is the answer to the question of my friend from 
Minnesota or the question of the Senator from Kentucky as to whether 
specific intent is required. It is not.
  In the criminal statute, it is, but we say the disclosure of the 
identity of a covert CIA employee is sufficient to lose one's security 
clearance.
  Let us be clear as to what this e-mail said. There was no doubt that 
Mr. Rove, at least according to the e-mail, knew that the wife of Joe 
Wilson was a CIA employee because she was so identified as a CIA 
employee. So there is no question in the fact situation which has 
brought this matter to such dramatic light that the facts are there to 
provide this basis that there was, indeed, knowledge. But, to answer 
the question, there is no specific intent which is required.
  I wonder if the leader will yield 2 additional minutes?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to do that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has his responsibility. The 
President has said he knows Karl Rove was not involved. Now there is 
clear information that Karl Rove identified a CIA employee to a 
reporter who had no right to that information. Now what? Now that the 
President does know Mr. Rove is involved, now what?
  That is up to the President. That is the President's responsibility; 
how he exercises it is his judgment. He will exercise it as he sees 
fit, now that he knows Mr. Rove was involved.
  We can all give him suggestions, and we have, that he ought to 
exercise that responsibility by addressing the issue. Now that you know 
there was this involvement, now what?
  But we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility in Congress to 
make sure there is no ambiguity in the law, there is no hair splitting, 
no legal loopholes, no question about--well, wait a minute, I didn't 
name a name, I only named an identity. No higher standard of proof is 
required by criminal law beyond a reasonable doubt. You identify a 
covert agent of the CIA, you lose your security clearance. It is as 
clear as that and as important as that to the security of this Nation.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I wonder if my colleague from Michigan will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. REID. He yields on your time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to. I do not control the time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is the Democratic leader aware of the executive order 
issued by President Clinton in 1995 on this issue, on security 
clearances?
  Mr. REID. My friend from Michigan is answering the question.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Because in that order--again, I am looking at the 
standard, and I appreciate my colleague's words about going beyond the 
intent. In the executive order the standard is knowingly, willfully, or 
negligently. Is that the standard that is intended by this statute? Or 
is this amendment changing that standard?
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment speaks for itself. If you identify a covert 
CIA agent, and you have a security clearance, and the person to whom 
you identify that covert CIA agent does not have the right to receive 
that information, you lose your clearance. Period. I think it is pretty 
clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
  Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have left, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 38\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Is that on both amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On both amendments.
  Mr. COLEMAN. To be split between both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 38 minutes for the majority on two 
amendments.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to the Senator from 
Alabama such time as he needs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that we would 
have such an amendment offered at this time in our American process of 
passing a Homeland Security bill.
  Karl Rove has served this country exceedingly well. One reason people 
do not want to involve themselves in public service is they go out and 
try to do something and somebody accuses them of a crime. He had no 
intent whatsoever to do anything wrong, to violate any law or out any 
undercover agent. And if the reports in the paper are so, and I assume 
they are, those are the facts.
  Victoria Toensing, the former Assistant Attorney General of the 
United States, was quoted this morning on television. I happened to 
catch it. She is a skilled lawyer and articulate person. Asked: Was 
this statement that allegedly had been made that Wilson's wife worked 
at the CIA, did that violate the law--a law she wrote; she was involved 
in writing the bill to deal with the deliberate outing of undercover 
operatives of the United States--she answered in one word, ``No.''
  So what we have on the floor of this Senate is an attempt to pass an 
ex post facto law to remove the security clearance of one of America's 
finest public servants.
  Look here. ``No Federal employee who discloses or has disclosed.'' We 
are going to change the law now? After somebody has done something that 
was not a violation of the law? What kind of principle of justice is 
that? This is a political charade. It is a game to embarrass the 
President of the United States, who is attempting to conduct a war on 
behalf of the American people, a war this Congress has voted to 
support, overwhelmingly, by three-fourths vote. And I do not appreciate 
it. I think it is beneath this Senate's dignity. It is contrary to the 
quality of debate and effort to amend the laws we ought to have in this 
country.
  I am shocked by it. I prosecuted for over 15 years in Federal court. 
You don't pass a law to go back and grab somebody who did something 
that was not a violation of the law in order to embarrass the President 
of the United States over nothing. He intended no harm here. He had no 
intention to out an undercover agent of the CIA--if these allegations 
are true, and I haven't talked to him about it.
  I say this: Mr. Rove has served in the center of this Government 
since the President took office. He has conducted himself, I believe, 
with high standards. Yes, the colleagues on the other side probably 
have not been happy with the success he has had in helping President 
Bush in his campaign and other efforts. But he has not been accused of 
corruption or deceit or dishonesty, or certainly not anybody would 
suggest he would ever do anything to intentionally harm an agent of the 
United States who is out serving our country.
  I say, this language is unacceptable. We ought to vote it down 
flatly. It is not proper and we ought not to be doing that at this 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence, I strongly support the Reid amendment. 
Senator Reid is addressing a problem that has become endemic in recent 
years. It is something of which I have become acutely aware since I was 
appointed to that position 4\1/2\ years ago, the leaking of classified 
information.
  Barely a day goes by, frankly, when you don't read or watch press 
reports that contain classified information. The country is the lesser 
for it. I tell my colleagues, these leaks do real damage to our 
national security. When individuals with access to our Nation's secrets 
disclose those secrets to the public, they are telling our enemies 
about our intelligence capabilities and

[[Page 16068]]

potentially how to defeat them. When intelligence sources and methods 
are exposed, we lose the ability to collect the information that will 
keep America safe. Good intelligence is the foundation of national 
security. We know that. It guides our foreign policy, it helps us 
determine what weapons systems to build, and how to shape and deploy 
our military forces. It is critical to our efforts to stop terrorists 
before they attack.
  Intelligence that is compromised, therefore, makes America less 
secure. There is no excuse when individuals entrusted with these 
secrets leak them. It is not just careless or unfortunate, it is 
dangerous. Among the secrets we guard the most closely are the identity 
of our spies. Revealing the identity of a covert agent not only ends 
the effectiveness of that individual, it puts that person in grave 
personal danger, and such disclosure also puts at risk all of the 
agent's colleagues and the people the agent has recruited around the 
world over the years. In other words, when you expose the name of a 
covert agent, people can die.
  The consequences of such exposure are so severe that in 1982 the 
Congress passed the Identities Protection Act, to criminalize this 
behavior. But apparently that is not enough. Last year, someone with 
access to classified information told members of the press the identity 
of a covert CIA operative. They did this not to expose some wrongdoing, 
but because they wanted to embarrass her husband. Someone calculated 
that our national security was less important than scoring points in 
the press for the administration's policy regarding Iraq. The act was 
deplorable.
  Over the past 2 years the special prosecutor appointed to investigate 
this crime has pursued it aggressively. He may now be making headway, 
we don't know, but it is unclear whether he will ever accumulate enough 
evidence to bring the guilty party or parties to justice. If he is 
unsuccessful, we should not let that be the end of this sorry episode. 
We can and should make it clear that people entrusted with classified 
information cannot carelessly disclose that information without 
consequence.
  Federal employees are bound to protect classified information. If 
they do not, the very least sanction they should face is to lose the 
privilege of holding a security clearance. We have to make clear to 
those in the Federal workforce entrusted with protecting highly 
sensitive information that there are consequences for these 
disclosures.
  The amendment by Senator Reid does exactly that. It is 
straightforward and is common sense. If you disclose classified 
information to somebody not authorized to receive it, you are no longer 
allowed to hold a security clearance. The FBI and the Justice 
Department may not be able to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute 
leakers, but the Director of National Intelligence should be able to 
use this administrative tool to help stem the tide of unauthorized 
disclosures. We need to get serious about this problem and this is a 
good place to start.
  The Frist amendment attempts to equate the unauthorized disclosure of 
classified information with unclassified remarks regarding an FBI 
report that some object to on political grounds. There is nothing 
inherently improper or illegal about making ``reference'' to an FBI 
report, or making a ``statement'' based on some unidentified FBI 
agent's comments. The law is clear about the importance of protecting 
highly sensitive national security secrets, including the identity of a 
covert agent. The Frist amendment makes a mockery of the gravity 
associated with leaking classified information by suggesting that any 
unclassified reference to any FBI report anyone believes is being used 
as propaganda is somehow as serious an offense.
  Under the twisted logic contained in the Frist amendment, the remarks 
of FBI Director Mueller himself, if used by a purported terrorist group 
to discredit the United States, would cause the Director to lose access 
to classified information. It is absurd. This is absurd. The Frist 
amendment seeks to rewrite the freedom of speech clause of the 
Constitution and should be dismissed by this body out of hand.
  The Reid amendment, on the other hand, is clear and measured. If you 
disclose classified information without authorization, your security 
clearance should be revoked.
  I end by asking my colleagues, what is wrong with this?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am still a little unclear in regard to 
the Reid amendment. I understand from three Senators--Senator Levin, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Reid--that this also applies to public 
employees, i.e., Senators. If that is the case, if Members are 
included, one of the things we have to determine is that `` . . . to a 
person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to 
hold a security clearance for access to such information''--well, we 
don't have security clearances.
  By our election, we are deemed to be cleared for all security, and so 
we are not losing anything. If in fact somebody unintentionally came to 
the floor and in a public statement basically said or disclosed or has 
disclosed classified information including the identity of a covert 
agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, the answer to this is 
meaningless because we don't have a security clearance. They don't 
exist for Members. We are deemed to have a total clearance. And so I 
don't know what the remedy is.
  Again, if you do it unintentionally, I can tell you that is a 
slippery slope. There have been Members basically inadvertently saying 
things in the Chamber and in the public that could match this 
amendment. I am not going to get into names, but I think that has 
happened in the past without question. I know it happened in the 
Intelligence Committee, probably the Armed Services Committee, probably 
many other committees.
  This is just not very clear, and what we have here is a Special 
Prosecutor with a lot of leaks; we have a reporter in jail for a story 
she did not write; we have a steady stream of leaks about every aspect 
of this case; we have the Washington press corps in full attack mode; 
and, finally, before we have all the facts known, we have my colleagues 
across the aisle calling for Karl Rove's resignation, if not 
incarceration. So much for the presumption of innocence.
  Don't get me wrong; we must protect the identities without any 
question, as my distinguished vice chairman of the committee, Senator 
Rockefeller, has said, but that obligation also extends to the Agency 
for which they work. I just think here we have a tempest, to 
characterize the newest revelations in the Valerie Plame case as a 
stunning turn of events demanding immediate action by the President, 
the special prosecutor, and now the Congress of the United States. I am 
not a big advocate of the ``shoot now, ask questions later'' approach. 
I certainly prefer to know the facts and then make a judgment.
  My preference notwithstanding, the judgment of the current deluge of 
media coverage seems to be based on the premise that the White House--
i.e., Karl Rove--was trying to discredit Ambassador Wilson for his 
much-publicized opposition to the war. It is important to remember that 
there is already a record on this point, and I urge Members to really 
pay attention to the record.
  More than a year ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its 
unanimous report on prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. We have a 
511-page report explaining in detail how our intelligence agencies got 
it wrong.
  Now to the subject at hand, this so-called tempest. Included in that 
report was a recitation of the facts that surround the now infamous 
travels of the former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who can best be described 
as a bit player in the Iraq story, notwithstanding his

[[Page 16069]]

substantial efforts to embellish the significance of his role.
  Mr. Wilson became quite a celebrity and questioned the President's 
veracity as he carefully crafted his public persona as a 
``truthteller.'' He went on a media blitz, Mr. President. He appeared 
on more than 30 television shows including, ironically, ``The Daily 
Show,'' a fake news show. Time and time again, he told anybody who 
would listen that the President had lied to the American people, the 
Vice President had lied, and that he had debunked the claim that Iraq 
was seeking uranium from Africa.
  However, the committee found not only did he not debunk the claim, he 
actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe it 
may be true. In an interview with committee staff, the same committee 
staff that interviewed over 250 analysts to prove that we had systemic 
problems in the intelligence community, he was asked how he knew some 
of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least 
two occasions, he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support 
some of his claims and he was drawing on either unrelated past 
experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he 
knew that the intelligence community had rejected the possibility of a 
Niger-Iraq uranium deal as he wrote in his book, he told committee 
staff that his assertion may have involved ``a little literary flair.''
  I urge my colleagues to read the 511-page report that was voted out 
17 to nothing.
  The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave 
the American people or, for that matter, the world, a version of events 
that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. What is more 
disturbing, he continues to do so today.
  Now that the Washington press corps is in a full-attack mode over the 
recent revelations in the Valerie Plame case, Ambassador Wilson is back 
on the circuit. He is continuing his self-proclaimed quest to have Karl 
Rove, in his words, ``frog marched in handcuffs'' out of the White 
House. And basically that is what we are trying to do with this 
amendment, if you follow the partisan line of thinking as put forth by 
Ambassador Joe Wilson. And before all the facts are known, he has been 
joined by a chorus of colleagues and liberal action groups calling for 
Karl Rove's resignation and in some cases even incarceration. So much 
for the presumption of innocence.
  Now, don't get me wrong. If someone willfully or knowingly outs an 
undercover intelligence officer, they should be punished. Senator 
Rockefeller is exactly right about that. Punishment should be reserved, 
however, for those who have actually committed a crime. The law 
requires knowledge. And if Mr. Rove didn't know and no one told him 
that Valerie Plame was undercover, then, pardon me, he did not break 
any laws. The mere fact that one works for the CIA is not in and of 
itself classified.
  As important, the law presumes the Government is taking ``affirmative 
measures to conceal'' the officer's intelligence relationship to the 
United States. I am just not convinced that a serious effort to conceal 
an undercover officer's intelligence relationship includes driving to 
CIA headquarters every day for work.
  The Intelligence Committee has examined with staff the issue of cover 
before and identified a number of serious problems, and we are 
currently examining the issue of cover once again because some of these 
problems do persist. While we should leave the criminal investigation 
to the Special Prosecutor, we will continue our work to ensure that 
those who are actually undercover get the protection they need and 
deserve.
  Again, as for the former Ambassador, no one needed to discredit him. 
He took care of that himself.
  Now, before I close, I would like to say something in response to the 
gray picture painted by the distinguished minority leader. Much has 
been said about the grave damage that was done to our Nation's security 
when Valerie Plame's name was revealed to the press. There has also 
been speculation that Ms. Plame, although nominally undercover, really 
wasn't undercover at all. So as part of the Intelligence Committee's 
ongoing oversight of the issue of cover, we will examine this case and 
see where the truth lies.
  Basically, I think we are on the wrong track here, and again I urge 
my colleagues, if you put in law that if anybody reveals classified 
information unintentionally, including the Members of this Senate, that 
is a slippery road we will go down where current Members who I see 
sitting in the Chamber would fit into that category, and it is 
unwarranted, unneeded. It is not the way to do it according to the act 
that was cited by my distinguished colleague from Minnesota.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and leader, Senator 
Reid. Let me respond to a couple of points. I had not intended to get 
involved deeply in this debate, but a couple things strike me, Mr. 
President, as this debate evolves.
  First of all, this is an appropriate discussion on this bill. On what 
more appropriate piece of legislation could you have discussion than 
this one regarding intelligence matters that deal with the very issue 
of homeland security. So I don't understand the objection. You may 
object to the amendment, but the idea that on the Homeland Security 
bill where security plays a critical role, it seems to me discussing 
this matter has relevancy.
  Secondly, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to draft 
legislation to try to deal with these matters. Certainly what the 
Senator from Nevada has raised is responding to what is a national 
story, one that has been around now for the last several years, a 
matter, I might add, that could have been resolved probably a couple of 
years ago had Mr. Rove at the time said, Look, I am the person who 
spoke to Matt Cooper. I am the one who used Mr. Wilson's wife, 
describing her in those terms, and maybe explained at the time he 
didn't intend to do it. We might not be talking about this matter as 
extensively as we are today. But the fact is they covered it up for the 
last 2 years rather than coming clean and saying, I had that 
conversation.
  I am perplexed at what the response of this is. Are my colleagues on 
the other side suggesting as the alternative to what Senator Reid 
proposes a better suggestion that people who do reveal highly 
classified information, the names of covert agents, should be allowed 
to continue to keep their secret classification? I don't think so.
  That is really what the point of this is, to make the case that when 
anyone reveals, including Members of this body, highly classified 
information, the names of covert agents, you lose the privilege of 
having a security clearance. It is not a criminal indictment. It just 
says if you do that, you don't have the privilege of having that kind 
of a classification. I don't know why there is such a protest. This 
ought to be adopted unanimously.
  Where is the objection? This does not mention Karl Rove, although 
certainly his actions have provoked this discussion. If in fact it 
turns out that he is indicted, then he will have to face those 
allegations. But to suggest that somehow we should do nothing about 
this, despite the fact that everyone is talking about it across the 
country--it has been a serious problem, it needs to be addressed, an 
investigation is ongoing--that should not deprive this body of 
responding to a situation where classified information, the name of a 
CIA agent, has been revealed and we ought to say something about it.
  So, Mr. President, I think what Senator Reid has proposed is 
eminently reasonable. It is applying to everyone here. And Senator 
Rockefeller, our friend from West Virginia, is absolutely correct. It 
is an ongoing problem, almost on a daily basis, and we need to speak 
loudly and clearly, it has got to stop. If we are going to be more

[[Page 16070]]

secure as a people, then we need to stop revealing important 
information and the identities of people who we depend upon to make us 
more secure. That is what the Reid amendment does.
  My hope is we would have 100 Members supporting this amendment 
instead of a divisive debate over whether this is about an employee at 
the White House who, in my opinion, probably ought to voluntarily step 
aside pending the investigation and voluntarily give up his security 
clearance.
  If he were a police officer in any department in the United States 
who had been accused of such a transgression, the chief of police would 
ask him to step aside temporarily, not to resign, not to retire but to 
step aside pending the investigation to determine whether the 
allegations were true.
  That is what ought to happen here. But Mr. Rove is not directly the 
subject of this amendment. It is simply a response to a problem that 
exists in our country and one that needs to be addressed. Senator Reid 
is right, and if our colleagues were smart, they would endorse this 
amendment and support it unanimously at the appropriate time when the 
vote occurs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, once again, let's be very clear. It is 
about politics. That is all this is about--politics. We have an 
Executive order that has been in place for 10 years that talks about 
dealing with classified information, talks about what happens when 
classified information is revealed. An Executive order, by the way, has 
a standard, deals with a situation: knowingly, willfully or 
negligently. We have a standard.
  My colleagues on the other side talk about a coverup. We have a 
matter that is being investigated by special counsel. The President of 
the United States says: I have confidence in the special counsel. Let's 
see what he does. We have Karl Rove, who is cooperating with the 
special counsel, who openly said: Whoever I talked to, talk to them.
  There is no cover. This is about politics. I just came from a press 
conference a little while ago with the head of the campaign committee 
of the Democratic Party about this issue with Joe Wilson.
  It is about politics. We have an amendment in which on the first 
blush it talks about Federal employees, and then after questioning they 
say: Well, yes, it means public officials. It is not in there.
  But what happened to the greatest deliberative body in the world?
  This is about politics. We have an amendment crafted as an ex post 
facto. Will that pass muster? I don't know. I have questions about it.
  Again, I go back to the Executive order. It is very clear. It talks 
about knowingly, willfully, negligently. That makes sense. If you are 
an individual with your wallet stolen with a piece of information in 
there that led to the agent being uncovered, you are impacted by this. 
What about if your office is in a secure facility, somehow it was 
burglarized; are you covered? There is a reason you have an Executive 
order that has been in place 10 years that provides a knowing standard, 
a logical standard, an effective standard.
  This is a poorly crafted piece of political propaganda. That is all 
it is.
  Listen to the facts. They are based on what I read in Newsweek.
  Instead of doing what you would think we do in this deliberative 
body, we wait to see what the special counsel has to say. We wait to 
get the facts before the Senate. If, in fact, we find this Executive 
order is lacking in scope, is lacking in effect, is somehow not doing 
the job it needs to do, we can provide some legislation to deal with 
it.
  We have none of that. What we have is ``gotcha politics'' in 
Washington in 2005. So we are dealing with something that is hastily 
crafted, poorly crafted, that does not explicitly say who it covers, 
that does not have a clear standard of intent, that is simply 
unnecessary--unnecessary when the conduct that was supposed to be 
concerned about, or should be concerned about is already covered by 
Executive order.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Minnesota is an experienced prosecutor 
and understands these things.
  It also, as I read it, says, if you reveal the identity of a covert 
agent without an intent--you might not even know that person was a 
covert agent, isn't that right?--you would be in violation of the 
statute.
  Mr. COLEMAN. The Senator from Alabama, based on my reading of this, 
is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is another example of the poor drafting of this 
statute, to hold somebody accountable for a perfectly innocent 
mistake--a strict liability statute that requires only the revealing of 
information that somebody happened to be a covert agent when the person 
did not even know it.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I suggest to my friend from Alabama that is the reason, 
in the Executive order, we have a standard of knowing. In fact, if you 
do something negligently, there is a standard and you can be held 
accountable. But there is no such standard, whatever, in this hastily 
crafted political amendment and, as such, my colleagues should reject 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. This amendment is an amendment that deals with the 
following:

       No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, 
     classified information, including the identity of a covert 
     agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not 
     authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to 
     hold a security clearance for access to such information.

  How in the world can anyone in this Senate vote against this? The 
only reason I can figure out is that there is an attempt to divert 
attention, an attempt to cover up. It is an abuse of power. This is 
absolutely something that everyone should vote for.
  There have been wails of concern from the other side but very little 
discussion of this amendment. I simply say, when they talk about the 
Executive order, I learned in law school that a Federal law would 
supersede any Executive order.
  I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there are some who may disagree with 
the proposition at the heart of Senator Reid's amendment; that is, that 
U.S. Government officials who violate the laws governing safeguarding 
sources should not be permitted to have continued access to that 
information. I happen to agree with that. I happen to think it is a 
fair point to discuss. As the Senator from Connecticut said, it is 
appropriate for this discussion.
  In fact, there is a document that every employee signs. It is 
entitled ``Department of Defense Secrecy Agreement.'' The second part 
of it reads:

       I agree that I will never divulge, publish or reveal, 
     either by word, conduct, or by any other means, any 
     classified information, intelligence, or knowledge, except in 
     the performance of my official duties and in accordance with 
     the laws of the United States, unless specifically authorized 
     in writing in each case by the Secretary of Defense.

  It is my understanding Senators do not sign it, Members of Congress 
do not sign it, but members of the administration and staff do sign 
this document.
  All the Reid amendment does, essentially, is codify what has been 
carried out informally by regulation.
  The second-degree amendment is not fair or honorable. It is clearly 
designed to threaten a Member's unquestionably lawful conduct. It is 
venal. I believe it is unprecedented.
  We have asked the historian of the Senate if this has ever been done 
before. He said, no, never in the Senate. Once, in the House of 
Representatives, from 1836 to 1844, the House had a gag rule on all 
motions pertaining to abolition of slavery. They were immediately 
tabled. Otherwise, there never has been an effort like this.
  The problem with the substitute amendment, and let me read it, is 
this.
  It says strike all that follows and add the following:

       Any federal office holder who makes reference to a 
     classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the 
     floor of the Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a 
     statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as 
     propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our

[[Page 16071]]

     servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access 
     to such information or to hold a security clearance for 
     access to this information.

  Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Director of the FBI. We discussed 
many aspects of the PATRIOT Act. Supposing I had come to the Senate and 
discussed those aspects and Al-Jazeera picked it up and used it as 
propaganda. I am within my rights to discuss that. It is unclassified. 
I know of no Senator that has come to the Senate and used any 
information that was classified.
  Now, there have been accusations. I got that FBI report. I have it 
right here. It has a big X through secret and has written on it:

       All information contained herein is unclassified except 
     where shown otherwise.

  What this amendment aims to get at is clearly a venal retribution. 
Candidly, I object to it. It has never happened in the Senate before. 
And it should not happen today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from 
California. No one works harder in the Senate than this Senator. She 
serves on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, Judiciary, Rules and Administration, and 
Intelligence. She has served honorably on the Intelligence Committee 
and spent days of her life in the Intelligence Committee. I very much 
appreciate her statement.
  How much time remains with the majority and the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20\1/2\ minutes and the 
minority has 20\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REID. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Reid-Levin Rockefeller-Biden amendment 
is very clear. I will read it again so that, hopefully, the American 
people know what we are debating. This is what we are debating:

       No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, 
     classified information, including the identity of a covert 
     agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not 
     authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to 
     hold a security clearance for access to such information.

  Why is this important? It is important because when this story broke, 
CIA agents and folks at the CIA were absolutely horrified that the name 
of a covert agent had been leaked, putting that covert agent in grave 
danger.
  Now who could vote against this? I don't know. We are going to find 
out. But let me state what I think it is about. Either you stand on the 
side of these brave undercover operatives who risk their lives every 
day, without people with a political agenda going after them to reveal 
them, or you stand on the side of those who would play politics and 
have played politics with their identity.
  Why did it happen in this particular case? Because this particular 
administration did not like what they heard from a particular 
gentleman, and to punish him, they went after his wife. And they didn't 
care. You cannot tell me because you didn't use her everyday name that 
it was hard to find out who she was.
  If somebody says Senator Boxer's husband did thus and so, even if he 
had a different last name, it would not be too hard to find out who my 
husband is.
  So here we had a political agenda and Senator Coleman talks about how 
horrible it is to play politics on the floor of the Senate. Publishing 
an ``enemy's list'' is the worst form, and the lowest form, of politics 
you can have. This took it to a whole other level when it involved 
someone who was an undercover agent.
  I want to say a word about the second-degree amendment, which is 
unbelievable. Under the second-degree amendment, if this passes, every 
single Member in the Senate will lose their security clearance. Anyone 
in this Senate who ever came down to the floor and said anything about 
the pictures at Abu Ghraib will lose their clearance. Anyone who ever 
came to the floor and said, I think it is important, when the President 
makes a nomination, we get all the information, including reading an 
FBI report. Let me say, and I guess I will lose my clearance, but I 
will say it right now, up against this amendment, this ridiculous 
second-degree amendment--I say right now, whenever the President 
nominates someone for a high position and there is an FBI file, I say 
to my friends, you are not doing your job if you do not read it.
  Under this, I guess I lose my security clearance.
  So be it. But I think everyone in this Senate has lost their security 
clearance because every one of us has spoken about the Iraqi war.
  Now my colleague says we don't have a security clearance. You have 
read this. You have written this. So there you go.
  Your side wrote, can't have a security clearance. So all I can say 
is, one side can say you are playing politics, the other side can. Put 
that aside. Read this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Either 
you stand on the side of the brave men and women who risk their lives 
undercover every day or you stand on the side of politics. You make up 
your mind.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the record, my good friend, my 
colleague from California, does not have a security clearance. None of 
us do. We are deemed by the electorate to be cleared from the lowest to 
the highest. We do not have a security clearance to lose.
  So that is not accurate. And I don't court the venal part of this.
  In terms of the second-degree amendment, unless I was hearing 
something different and somebody raised the issue, as Congress included 
in this--the Senate--along with Federal employees who either 
intentionally or unintentionally reveal classified information, Senator 
Levin, Senator Durbin, Senator Reid said ``yes.'' So that is reflective 
of the second-degree amendment.
  If that is not the case, we have a double standard for Members of 
Congress or other public officials as opposed to Federal employees. We 
ought to get that straight, which is why I think the suggestion from 
the Senator from----
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. ROBERTS. No. I only have 2 minutes. But perhaps on down the road.
  That is why I think the suggestion of the Senator from Minnesota is a 
good one, that we ought to go into a quorum call to try to figure out 
what this means.
  Read the language in detail. Intentionally or unintentionally reveal 
classified information--I have news for you, we have people in the 
intelligence community who make mistakes, inadvertently make mistakes. 
This is going to end the career of many young people who will make 
mistakes down the road and lose their security clearance.
  Security clearances are an administrative process, not a statutory 
process. The Reid amendment strips all distinction from employees in 
regard to their home agency and in regard to any discretion.
  Mr. President, could I have one more minute?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield another minute to the Senator 
from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for one 
additional minute.
  Mr. ROBERTS. So in your zeal to hang Karl Rove--and that is what this 
is about--you are going to put a stake in the careers of national 
security professionals from here on in.
  During the administrative procedure by that home agency or that 
person's superior officer, they can be counseled, they can be 
admonished, but they do not lose their security clearances. They do 
make mistakes. I don't know how many that is going to be, but that is 
going to be a bunch.
  That is going to send a chilling effect throughout our entire 
intelligence community. This is poorly written. We ought to go into a 
quorum call and work it together so we at least know what the outcome 
is going to be.
  Mrs. BOXER. Could you yield now on your time?

[[Page 16072]]


  Mr. ROBERTS. I don't have any time. It is his time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to compliment my 
friend from Kansas for his remarks. While I am not sure he is right, he 
is doing what we should be doing on this floor. We presented an 
amendment on a serious issue, and he is debating that amendment. He is 
saying: Here is a place in the amendment that I think is wrong, and 
maybe you ought to change it.
  That is how a debate ought to go. But the response of my colleagues 
who have cosponsored the other amendment is not that at all. It is not 
to debate a serious issue that involves national security. It is, 
rather, to create a smokescreen--``You stick it to us, we will stick it 
to you''--when we all know that the issue of who leaked this 
information is a serious issue. We did not say it is a serious issue. 
President Bush did. George Tenet did. The original investigation I was 
involved in creating because I called George Tenet and said: This is an 
affront to all CIA agents. He agreed, and called the Justice Department 
and said: Do an investigation. It is serious stuff.
  What do we get in response? A smokescreen. It is almost sort of the 
childish sticking out your tongue back at somebody. Debate the issue. I 
can understand why you do not want to debate the issue. Somebody in the 
White House did something seriously wrong. Does anyone have any doubt 
that if this occurred under a Democratic President that you would want 
to debate it, as you should? The opposition party is intended in this 
Republic to be a check.
  As I said, I originally called for this investigation. I worked with 
Deputy Attorney General Comey to get an independent counsel who was 
above reproach. I never mentioned a word about any individual. Because 
there was none. There was all this swirl about Karl Rove. You did not 
hear the senior Senator from New York talking about it. You, rather, 
heard me say: Let's get to the bottom of this.
  But in the last 2 or 3 weeks, we have seen some serious and 
indisputable evidence. We do not know if it meets the criminal 
standard. That is why I have not called for Karl Rove to step down. But 
we do know, without any doubt, that security was compromised. You 
cannot hide behind the argument: Well, I mentioned the husband and not 
the wife and, therefore, I didn't breach some kind of security.
  While the criminal law standard says you had to know whether that 
wife was classified, whether Ms. Plame, Agent Plame was classified, 
that is not the standard in terms of entitling someone with the 
privilege of hearing national security secrets.
  If you cannot keep those secrets, if you disclose those secrets, for 
whatever motivation, and particularly a venal one, if that was the 
case, political retribution, you do not deserve to continue to hear 
those secrets. That is what the amendment offered by my colleagues from 
Nevada and Michigan and West Virginia simply says. It is the right 
thing to do.
  The President should have done it without any amendment. If someone 
leaks a name--and it looks more and more as though it was Karl Rove; 
and we know for an undisputed fact--his lawyer admitted it--he stepped 
right up to the line--we don't know if criminally he stepped over it or 
not; that will be for Mr. Fitzgerald to determine, not for us--then he 
should not have that security clearance.
  You are right, my colleagues, we should not have to be here today. 
The President should have done this on his own. And if you think the 
amendment is poorly drafted, as my good friend from Kansas does, that 
is what this place is all about. Come and tell us why and how we can 
change it and make it better.
  But if the response is simply to say, ``Oh, we're going to try to 
create a smokescreen or maybe intimidate you on the other side,'' that 
is not worthy of what this body is about, at least in its better and 
finer moments.
  So, my colleagues, I would hope we could have a 100-to-nothing vote 
on the amendment by the Senator from Nevada. Yes, it is embarrassing 
that it happened in the White House, and they are Members of your 
party. But it happened. No one disputes it happened. I do not think a 
single American thinks that nothing should be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I urge support of the Reid amendment and rejection of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. REID. What time remains on both sides, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17\1/2\ minutes. The minority 
has 10 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask, under the usual status here, 
under the usual procedure, that I would have the close here. But we 
have more time than you have, as I understand it--17\1/2\ minutes--and 
you have 10; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17\1/2\ minutes. The minority 
has 10 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. REID. I was just thinking we were in the majority, but I guess we 
are not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield such time to the majority whip as 
he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Frist amendment, 
which is one of the two votes we will have shortly.
  First, let me say, I regret we are spending an hour and a half of the 
Senate's time, when we should be debating and completing the Homeland 
Security bill, engaged in extensive political sparring.
  The Karl Rove amendment--and that is exactly what it is--richly 
deserves to be defeated. I certainly would encourage all of our 
colleagues to vote against that amendment when it is before us shortly.
  But with regard to the Frist amendment, Senators ought to be 
especially careful when they repeat unproven allegations about the 
conduct of our troops, particularly during a time of war. Our enemies 
can make use of such statements. And their propaganda puts at risk our 
service men and women who are, of course, out there protecting us every 
day.
  Unfortunately, this very thing happened last month when one of our 
colleagues repeated unproven allegations about our service men and 
women who were interrogating suspected terrorists. It was reported in 
the Middle East. It would be hard to believe that it did not do damage 
to our troops while we continue to fight in the war on terror in that 
region.
  It seems to me if we are going to impose strict liability on Federal 
employees who act indiscreetly, then we should not have a different 
standard for ourselves. I know our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have indicated that the Reid amendment intends to include 
Senators, but it seems not to be drafted that way. If Senators disclose 
classified information or repeat unproven allegations that endanger our 
troops, then it seems to me we ought to lose our access to classified 
information as well.
  The Reid amendment does not do that because it talks about Federal 
employees, which seems to mean only civil servants. Again, I 
acknowledge and recognize that those on the other side of the aisle 
have said it means to include us. However, it does not seem to in the 
plain meaning of the amendment.
  The Frist amendment makes it clear that we, as Federal officeholders, 
also lose our access to confidential information if we act rashly, 
intemperately, and thereby put our troops at risk. What the Frist 
amendment is about is the security of our servicemen and our 
servicewomen.
  Statements on the Senate floor--out here on the Senate floor--
comparing our service men and women to tyrannical regimes that result 
in risking their safety must not and should not stand. I hope when the 
Senate has an

[[Page 16073]]

opportunity to address both of these amendments shortly, the Reid 
amendment will be defeated and the Frist amendment will be adopted.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Reid amendment. 
It is something we have to do, given the White House inaction on Mr. 
Rove's behavior. We hear nitpicking about words. What was the 
intention? Is it ex post facto law? No, it is not ex post facto law. We 
are not just writing a law here. What we are doing is trying to curtail 
a situation that enables someone at the White House level to make a 
statement that, frankly, sounds as if it is traitorous, as defined in 
April of 1999, when former President George H. W. Bush said, speaking 
about the outing of a CIA agent and sources: ``I have nothing but 
contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name 
of our sources. They are in my view the most insidious of traitors.'' 
That is right: traitors.
  So now we know who leaked the information, revealed publicly, Mr. 
Rove. Where is the appropriate action? Well, here is a quote from a 
White House press briefing with Scott McClellan on September 29, 2003.

       Q: You said this morning, quote, ``The President knows that 
     Karl Rove wasn't involved.'' How does he know that?
       A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous 
     suggestion in the first place. . . . I've said that it's not 
     true. . . . And I have spoken with Karl Rove. . . .
       Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, ``Did you 
     ever have this information?''
       A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that 
     there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

  We go to the next episode. This is Scott McClellan on September 29, 
2003:

       If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they 
     would no longer be in this administration.

  I guess it takes a long time to terminate somebody. That was over a 
year and a half ago.
  President George W. Bush said on September 30, 2003:

       If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to 
     know it, and will take appropriate action.

  It is pretty clear what is intended here. He violated the rules of 
the White House here. Why shouldn't the public be aware of the fact 
that, as they try to distribute guilt all over the place, it comes from 
the President's very senior assistant? That is what we are talking 
about. The rest of this is trivial. It is getting even. It is 
recrimination: I will get you if you get me.
  So we ought to move on positively on the Reid vote. Let's see how 
everybody stands on this, whether they want the public to know the 
truth; and that is: Karl Rove, did he violate the rules? Did he violate 
the regulations when he went ahead and revealed something that never 
should have been made public, the identification of a CIA employee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, last week we saw the terrorist attack on 
an ally. Our country faces very important homeland security challenges. 
We have been in the midst of debating important public policy issues--
how best to secure mass transit or to prepare our first responders. I 
cannot believe the Senate has diverted from that important debate--a 
debate important to Americans all across this country--and instead of 
finishing up the Homeland Security bill, we have diverted to debate 
these issues.
  We should not be doing this. This is exactly why the American public 
holds Congress in such low esteem right now.
  We should be focusing on the national security and homeland security 
challenges facing this Nation. We should not be engaging in this 
debate. I, for one, am going to vote no on both of the amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I understand the frustration of my 
colleague from Maine. I urge that we lower the rhetoric here and go 
about doing our business. There is a special counsel looking at this. 
Contrary to what my colleague from New Jersey said--he said we are not 
writing the law here--that is what we are doing. We are writing a law 
here. I have worked with my colleagues across the aisle. I have worked 
with them on the permanent subcommittee, on the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I know how studious they are. I know how focused they are in 
doing the right thing. I know how when they want to do something, they 
want to make sure it is complete. They want to make sure they have 
examined it.
  They can all see what we are doing here. It is about politics. We are 
writing a law here. We are writing it on the run. We are writing it 
without clarifying the definition of who is covered. We are writing it 
without clarifying what the standard of intent is, whether it is beyond 
negligent conduct. We are writing it without reflection on an existing 
Executive order that covers the conduct we all want to deal with.
  My colleague from California was right. Whose side are you on? Are 
you on the side of the agents who risk their lives to protect the 
American dream and the American ideal, things this body is supposed to 
stand for, or are you for politics? Today we are about politics. Today 
we are diverting from a $31 billion bill to protect America's security, 
and we are debating politics.
  We don't know the facts. We have a special counsel whose job it is to 
get the facts. The President is committed to act on that. Instead we 
are playing politics. This is not a shining moment for the Senate. I 
have to believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat the Reid amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I have two quick points. First, the 
current law which has been referred to by my good friend from Minnesota 
is a discretionary law. Whether someone does this intentionally or 
negligently, the violation may or may not lead to the loss of one's 
clearance. That is simply too loose. It is too discretionary. It has 
resulted in leak after leak after leak. It is long overdue that we 
tighten this law, and that is the effort of the amendment before us. It 
relates directly to the national security of the United States.
  I agree with my dear friend from Maine when she says we have to 
address national security issues. Protection of the classified identity 
of CIA agents is essential to the national security of the United 
States. If one identifies an agent, a CIA agent, it seems to me that 
person should lose their clearance, no ifs, no ands, no buts. That is 
not something which should be left to a ``may'' lose one's clearance. 
It should be a ``shall'' lose one's clearance.
  On the second-degree amendment, the amendment of the majority leader, 
when it states that . . . ``Any Federal officerholder that makes a 
statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as 
propaganda'' shall lead to the loss of clearance, we had a whole 
hearing yesterday about FBI agents' statements. Those statements were 
highly critical of the Department of Defense employees at Guantanamo. 
These included a number of FBI agents' e-mails that were critical. 
Those were the subject of a hearing of the Armed Services Committee 
yesterday. Many members of the Armed Services Committee were highly 
critical of the conduct of some of the people at Guantanamo as 
reflected in those FBI e-mails.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the minority leader.

[[Page 16074]]

  Madam President, I want to raise this point: If you can't discuss the 
issue of intelligence and security on a bill about homeland security, 
where would you raise the issue? What we are talking about here are men 
and women who are the first line of defense against terrorism. These 
are intelligence agents who literally, many of them, risk their lives 
every day to protect Americans.
  What happened here? There was a decision made by some people in the 
White House--that is what Mr. Novak said--to disclose the identity of a 
covert CIA agent, the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, for the 
purpose of political retribution. That is what it was all about. They 
were angry with Ambassador Wilson, and so they were going to disclose 
his wife's identity, a woman who had put her life on the line for the 
United States. That disclosure endangered her life and the lives of 
everyone she worked with. It was political.
  The Senator from Minnesota is right. At the heart of this is 
politics: a decision by someone in the White House at the highest level 
for political revenge to go after the identity of this woman.
  Let me tell you what other CIA officers had to say about it. They all 
happen to be Republicans. After this happened, this is what they said, 
those who were contemporaries of hers:

       My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have 
     kept the secret of each other's identities for over 18 years. 
     . . . This issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about 
     the destruction of the very essence, the core, of human 
     intelligence collection activities--plausible deniability--
     apparently for partisan domestic reasons.

  We have heard people come to the floor on the Republican side who 
have said this is all political and it is not that important and why 
don't we get back to the bill. It is important. What Senator Reid has 
offered--an amendment which I am proud to cosponsor--basically says, if 
you disclose the identity of a covert CIA agent, you lose your security 
clearance. Why? Because why should we continue to give information to 
people about those who are risking their lives for America if they are 
going to misuse it, in this case, for political purposes? That is what 
this is all about. It is fundamental and basic.
  For those who say: I am going to vote against that, think about what 
you are saying. You are saying a person can disclose the identity of a 
CIA agent and still keep their security clearance, gathering more 
information and the identity of more agents. How can that give the men 
and women in our intelligence community any confidence that we stand 
behind them? I don't believe it can.
  There is a second-degree amendment that has been offered and referred 
to by the Senator from Kentucky. In the time I have been on Capitol 
Hill, it may be the worst drawn amendment I have ever seen. I don't 
think those who put it together sat down and read it very carefully. 
Because if they did, they would understand that the language they put 
in it is so broad and so expansive that it draws together many innocent 
people and many people they didn't intend.
  Listen to this: Any Federal officeholder who makes reference to a 
classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the 
Senate shall lose their security clearance.
  We did a quick check. I am sorry to say to the Senator from Kentucky, 
you are going to be stunned to know that many chairmen and former 
chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee have done just that. They 
have disclosed a classified reference to a classified Federal Bureau of 
Investigation report on the floor of the Senate. I won't read all the 
names of my colleagues into the Record--I guess I could--who have come 
to the floor and have already violated this provision in the second-
degree amendment.
  One of my colleagues was on the floor. I went to him and said: I am 
not going to read your name into the Record. You did it. You may not 
have known you did it, but you did.
  This amendment was so poorly drafted that it has brought all of them 
under this prohibition where they can't have a security clearance.
  Let me tell you the second part on which the Senator from Kentucky 
continues to make reference. If the standard is, whatever we say on the 
floor may be used by an organization such as Al-Jazeera against the 
United States, we are in trouble. These are the clippings from Al-
Jazeera's Internet site where they have cited Senator after Senator for 
things they have said on the floor. Be careful on the second-degree 
amendment. It goes far beyond what they intended.
  Mr. REID. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senate Armed Services Committee had a meeting 
yesterday. They discussed FBI reports about Abu Ghraib, about 
Guantanamo. They have no control--the members of that committee--about 
how those reports will be used by others. Here is the Al-Jazeera Web 
site which referred to Senators on that committee who were using those 
reports. Under the language of the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from Kentucky and the majority leader, these Senators, who 
believed they were doing their job, would lose their security 
clearance. I know they are trying to come back and attack us and say, 
if you are going to say something negative about Karl Rove, we are 
going to say something negative about you. But this amendment was so 
poorly drawn that they have drawn into their net of suspicion and 
accusation many of their own colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there might be a contest between which 
of these amendments is most poorly drafted. The Reid amendment that 
kicked off this event, that surprised me when it came up in this last 
minute, says that ``No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed 
classified information . . . '' And goodness, that has already been 
disclosed. It is something that has already happened. Apparently, it is 
not a violation of the law. Now we are going to reach back and make it 
a violation of law. That is ex post facto law. It would come back from 
the Supreme Court, if anybody were ever charged and convicted under it, 
like a rubber ball off the wall.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will my friend yield for a question on that?
  Mr. SESSIONS. No, 2 minutes is all I have.
  It also says ``no Federal employee,'' and the Senator says that 
includes Senators. He can say it includes turnips, but it doesn't 
include Senators. It says Federal employees, and that does not cover 
Senators. It also says a covert agent, and there is no intent or 
knowledge required. So a person could mention a name not knowing they 
were a covert agent and be subject to this punishment. Frankly, I don't 
think the other amendment is much better. Both should be voted down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes 31 seconds remaining.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Minnesota.
  While we are talking about poorly drafted amendments, listen to this. 
Under the Reid amendment, it imposes a standard of strict liability so 
that a civil servant who loses his wallet would lose his security 
clearance. A civil servant who loses his wallet under the Reid 
amendment would lose his security clearance. What is the point of all 
this? We ought not to be, as Senator Collins pointed out, having these 
political debates on this bill. But if our colleagues on the other side 
insist on trying to offer these kinds of amendments, I think the point 
needs to be made clearly that there will be amendments offered on this 
side. In other words, this kind of political gamesmanship on the Senate 
floor will not stand, will not be yielded to, will not succeed. In the 
end, the public will only get the impression that we are

[[Page 16075]]

playing games here when we should be dealing with their business. Their 
business, the underlying bill, is the Homeland Security bill, of 
extraordinary importance to our country. Hopefully, shortly the time 
will run out, and we will get back to doing the people's business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, before we close, I do want to get back 
to perhaps some of the underlying facts that motivated this amendment. 
By the way, we don't know the facts. We just know what we have read. 
The Democratic leader cited a poll that appeared in the Wall Street 
Journal. I have an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal 
yesterday, July 13. I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2005]

                        Karl Rove, Whistleblower

       Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying 
     for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA 
     nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On 
     the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru 
     deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the ``Truth-
     Telling'' award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. 
     Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him 
     as a fraud.
       For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real 
     ``whistleblower'' in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's 
     the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters 
     to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told 
     the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for 
     the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President 
     Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In 
     short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans 
     could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but 
     was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an 
     election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
       Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke 
     any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played 
     a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to 
     investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in 
     Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence 
     Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have 
     deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that 
     she was an undercover agent and using information he'd 
     obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove 
     didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard bout her 
     work at Langley from other Journalists.
       On the ``no underlying crime'' point, moreover, no less 
     than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do 
     the 136 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in 
     March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's 
     Judith Miller out of jail.
       ``While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is 
     far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime 
     took place,'' the Post noted the other day. Granted the media 
     have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to 
     protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that 
     Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.
       The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first ``outed'' 
     himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times 
     op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly 
     debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that 
     President Bush had mentioned in his now famous ``16 words'' 
     on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
       Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert 
     Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in 
     selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as 
     adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere 
     in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's ``Meet 
     the Press'' and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.
       But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The 
     bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July 
     cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. COLEMAN. It talks about Karl Rove the ``whistleblower.'' I don't 
want to read all of it, but in part it reads:

       For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real 
     ``whistleblower'' in this whole sorry pseudoscandal. He's the 
     one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to 
     be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told 
     the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for 
     the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President 
     Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In 
     short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans 
     could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but 
     was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an 
     election campaign.

  I believe what I have read, that Mr. Rove may have said it was 
Wilson's wife who worked at the CIA. We don't know that. Did he know 
she was a covert agent. We don't know.
  It goes on and on to talk about the 1982 law:

        . . . Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and 
     maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an 
     undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an 
     official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know 
     Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley 
     from other journalists.

  We don't know what he knows, Madam President. That is why there is a 
special counsel, and we should wait to find out what he finds. Nobody 
is arguing about debating these issues, but we are arguing about 
passing legislation. Contrary to what my friend from New Jersey says, 
we are writing a law. I want to remind my colleagues that we are 
writing a law that doesn't, on its face, in the language of it, cover 
us. As my friend from Alabama said, they say it covers us, but it 
doesn't. We don't come under the definition of Federal employees. So we 
are not covered by this hastily crafted, politically motivated 
amendment. This covers inadvertent, accidental, an act of God, 
anything, and your career is going to be impacted.
  There is a reason we have an Executive order that has been in effect 
for 10 years, which has a standard of knowingly, willfully, and 
negligently. It covers the kind of conduct that you want to have 
covered.
  The bottom line is this is about politics, that we have wasted a lot 
of the time of this body--the greatest deliberative body in the world--
and this is not a shining moment. Let's get about doing our business 
and passing appropriations, shoring up homeland defense. Let's put the 
politics aside and let the special counsel do his work. Let's lower the 
level of the rhetoric and move on and keep doing the business of the 
people.
  With that, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I will use my leader time. I believe this 
is a shining moment. It is shining the spotlight on what is going on in 
this country--abuse of power, diversion, and, of course, a coverup.
  The analogy my dear friend from Kentucky used about the wallet is, 
for lack of a better description, without foundation. Anybody who 
thinks what we are doing is unimportant, I invite them to travel with 
me--as I did a number of years ago--to the CIA. When you walk into that 
facility at Langley, the first thing you see are the stars up on the 
wall for each CIA agent who has been slain, killed in the line of duty. 
I have never forgotten that. That is what this is all about.
  We have someone who has obviously disclosed a name. We read it in the 
paper. Whether it is Karl Rove, I don't know. Someone did. This 
amendment says if someone does that, they should not have a security 
clearance. My friend, who I care a great deal about, the chairman of 
the homeland security authorizing committee, came to the floor and said 
the American people are fed up with what happened. She is right about 
that, too, because not much happens on issues they care about--issues 
like this staggering deficit. There was a celebration at the White 
House yesterday because the deficit was only the third largest in the 
history of the country. Education is failing. We know we have all kinds 
of problems in health care. Those are the issues we should be dealing 
with. Gas prices--maybe people care about that. We know they do.
  So this is important. But when my friends on the other side are on 
the ropes, they attack. Just like in the Washington Post yesterday, I 
quote again:

       The emerging GOP strategy, devised by RNC Chairman Ken 
     Mehlman, is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for 
     Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role, and wait for President 
     Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the 
     controversy.


[[Page 16076]]


  This is a coverup, an abuse of power, and it is a diversion. They 
have no interest in coming clean and being honest with the American 
people. The American people are seeing through this. When I mentioned 
the Wall Street Journal, I say to my friend from Minnesota, I wasn't 
vouching for the editorial policy. I don't read them. I was vouching 
for a news story that had a poll they conducted with NBC. The poll 
showed that only 41 percent of Americans believe the President is being 
honest and straightforward. That is what this is about. It is a 
coverup, an abuse of power, and a diversion.
  It is time to quit playing partisan politics and do some legislating 
for the American people. It is time for the White House to come clean. 
Everyone should support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I will speak in leader time. For nearly 2 
weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan manner for the goal of 
passing the Homeland Security bill, which spends almost $32 billion for 
homeland security, all of which is one of our most basic 
responsibilities, and that is to keep the American people safe and 
secure.
  That is what the Senate, this body, was hard at work doing--up until 
about 2 hours ago, when the Democratic leadership chose raw, partisan 
party politics over protecting American lives. They filed their 
political amendments.
  You know, the American people want better from their leaders than 
petty politics. Through their votes, they have put their trust in us, 
and they have elected us to serve their interests and, thus, this is a 
sad and a disappointing afternoon in the Senate.
  Madam President, there is a special counsel who has been appointed to 
look at the whole issue of the CIA leak case. He is doing his job and 
he is investigating this whole matter. Do my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle think that without any of the facts, the hundreds of 
hours of manpower, and interviews, and the investigation that the 
special counsel has done, they are better equipped to judge the facts 
of this case?
  We should let the special counsel do his job, and we should focus on 
our jobs as Senators, which is, first and foremost, protecting the 
American people.
  Lastly, I want to say that I think the first speech I gave in this 
Congress was an olive branch to reach out and say let's focus on 
civility. I thought the bitterly contested elections that we saw--once 
they were behind us, I thought we could focus on doing the Nation's 
business, moving America forward, governing.
  Unfortunately, even on an issue that we should all agree on--homeland 
security--my colleagues prefer to score political points rather than 
focusing on the Nation's business. It is this kind of political stunt 
that causes many Americans watching to lose faith in this body, in 
elected officials. Let's get back to serving our constituents and get 
back to the issues that really matter to the American people, such as 
homeland security, protecting our country from terrorist attacks, 
strengthening our highways and transportation infrastructure, and 
pursuing a national energy policy.
  I urge my colleagues to let civility and duty to the American people 
prevail. Oppose the Reid amendment; support the Frist amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Frist 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Vitter

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     DeMint
     Lott
     Mikulski
  The amendment was rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1222

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     DeMint
     Lott
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 1222) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 16077]]


  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are getting close to the end here. We 
hope there will be one vote left and that will be on final passage.


             Amendments Nos. 1160, 1206, and 1110, En Bloc

  I do, however, initially ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up: No. 1160, Mr. Reid; No. 1206, Mr. Sarbanes; 
No. 1110, Ms. Landrieu; and that they be agreed to by unanimous 
consent, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mr. GREGG. We will hold off and reserve the right on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I withdraw amendment No. 1200.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1224

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk for Senators Byrd and 
Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), for Mr. Byrd, for 
     himself, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1224.

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

       On page 81, line 24, increase the first amount by 
     $50,000,000.
       On page 82, line 4, after ``tion'' insert ``Provided 
     further, That an additional $50,000,000 shall be available to 
     carry out section 33 (15 U.S.C. 2229)''.
       On page 77, line 20, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 77, line 24, after ``grants'' insert ``, and of 
     which at least $20,000,000 shall be available for 
     interoperable communications grants''.
       On page 85, line 18, after ``expended'' insert ``: 
     Provided, That the aforementioned sum shall be reduced by 
     $70,000,000''.
       On page 82, line 21, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``3,000,000''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, does anyone want to speak on this issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have to see the amendment. I object.
  Mr. President, may I be recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I tell my colleagues we are about to have final passage, 
and they are trying to run several amendments through I have haven't 
seen. I object to it. I would like to see the amendments. I think I 
have that right as a Member of this body. So I object to any amendment 
that I have not seen.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator comfortable with the three we just sent 
over?
  I would ask the Chair if the Senator has seen the three I mentioned 
for unanimous consent.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am looking at them now.
  I do not object to 1110 now that I have seen it.
  Mr. GREGG. The three that we just sent up?
  Mr. McCAIN. I haven't seen the other two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire Mr. Gregg. I 
will reserve on all three of these until the Senator--
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the permission of the Senator from 
Arizona, I would ask that a quorum be called.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that 
amendments Nos. 1206 and 1110, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Landrieu, 
and the Reid amendment, I think it is 1160, which I raised prior to 
this, be agreed to, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1206, 1110, and 1160, as modified) were agreed 
to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1206

(Purpose: To require that funds be made available for the United States 
                          Fire Administration)

       On page 83, line 26, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, $52,600,000 shall be for the 
     United States Fire Administration.''.


                           amendment no. 1110

(Purpose: To give priority for port security grants to ports with high 
 impact targets, including ports that accommodate liquified petroleum 
       vessels or are close to liquified natural gas facilities)

       On page 78, line 19, insert ``or the proximity of existing 
     or planned high impact targets, including liquified natural 
     gas facilities and liquified petroleum vessels,'' after 
     ``threat''.


                           amendment no. 1160

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 519.(a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Homeland Security Advisory System had been raised 
     to threat level Code Orange, a level which indicates a high 
     risk of terrorist attack, on six occasions since the Advisory 
     System was created in March 2002, prior to the rasing of the 
     threat level to Code Orange following the bombings that 
     occurred in London on July 7, 2005.
       (2) The Code Orange threat level remained in place for an 
     average of 13 days on each of the first five occasions that 
     it was raised to that level.
       (3) The sixth elevation of the threat level to Code Orange 
     occurred in August 2004 and ended 98 days later, making it 
     four times longer than any other such alert and constituting 
     half of the days that the United States has been under a high 
     risk of terrorist attack.
       (4) The Conference of Mayors estimates that cities in the 
     United States spend some $70,000,000 per week to implement 
     security measures associated with the Code Orange threat 
     level.
       (5) The recommendation to elevate the threat level is made 
     by the Homeland Security Council, a group of Cabinet 
     officials and senior advisors to the President and Vice 
     President, (in this section referred to as the ``Council'').
       (6) In May 2005, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge 
     revealed that there was often considerable disagreement among 
     the members of the Council as to whether or not the threat 
     level should be raised.
       (7) There remains considerable confusion among the public 
     and State and local government officials as to the decision-
     making process and criteria used by the Council in deciding 
     whether the threat level should be raised to Code Orange.
       (b) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study examining the six occasions in which 
     the Homeland Security Advisory System was raised to Code 
     Orange prior to July 2005 and submit to Congress a report on 
     such study.
       (c) The report required by subsection (b) shall include an 
     explanation and analysis of the decision-making process used 
     by the Council to raise the threat level to Code Orange in 
     each of the six instances prior to July 2005, including--
       (1) the criteria and standards used by the Council in 
     reaching its decision;
       (2) a description of deliberations and votes of the Council 
     were conducted, and whether any of the deliberations and 
     votes have been transcribed or were otherwise recorded in 
     some manner;
       (4) an explanation for the decision, on the sixth occasion, 
     for the threat level to remain elevated for 98 days, and what 
     role, if any, staff of the White House played in the decision 
     to raise the level on that occasion;
       (5) a description of the direct and indirect costs incurred 
     by cities, States, or the Federal Government after the threat 
     level was raised to Code Orange on each of the six occasions; 
     and
       (6) the recommendations of the Comptroller General of the 
     United States, if any, for improving the Homeland Security 
     Advisory System, including recommendations regarding--
       (A) measures that could be carried out to build greater 
     public awareness and confidence in the work of the Council;
       (B) whether the Council and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security could benefit from greater transparency and the 
     development of more clearly articulated public standards in 
     the threat level decision-making process;
       (C) whether the current composition of the Council should 
     be modified to include representatives from the States; and

[[Page 16078]]

       (D) the measures that could be carried out to minimize the 
     costs to States and municipalities during periods when the 
     Homeland Security Advisory System is raised to level to Code 
     Orange.
       (d) The report required by subsection (b) shall be 
     submitted in an unclassified form.


                           Amendment No. 1206

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I offered an amendment that would ensure 
the continued funding and operation of the United States Fire 
Administration. I offered this amendment on behalf of myself and the 
three other Cochairmen of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, 
Senators DeWine, Biden, and McCain, as well as Senators Mikulski, 
Murray, Feingold, Corzine, and Stabenow.
  This amendment simply designates $52.6 million in funds for the 
United States Fire Administration, USFA. This amount is equal to the 
Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request, and represents a 
slight increase of $1.3 million over last year's funding level.
  The amendment calls for no additional funding in the underlying bill, 
and thus requires no offset. USFA has traditionally been funded through 
the Department's preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery 
account. However, without a congressional allocation or line item for 
USFA in the Department's annual appropriations bill, Congress has 
failed to adequately acknowledge its continued support for the use of 
these funds. As a result, there is annual confusion and uncertainty 
regarding the level of funding USFA will ultimately receive. This 
amendment is therefore simply an exercise in good government, providing 
transparency and accountability in how we allocate our limited homeland 
security funds.
  This amendment is also quite modest. In 2003, the Senate unanimously 
approved legislation to reauthorize USFA through fiscal year 2008. This 
legislation, which was signed into law by the President on December 6, 
2003, calls for $64.85 million in the coming fiscal year for USFA's 
operations. While I believe USFA should ideally receive funding at this 
fully authorized level, this amendment is a bipartisan compromise that 
will ensure that, at a minimum, the agency will be able to maintain its 
essential functions.
  At a time when there are sharp disagreements over our homeland 
security priorities, the U.S. Fire Administration remains a proven 
investment, providing critical training and resources to our Nation's 
first responders. In this regard, I was pleased that Homeland Security 
Secretary Michael Chertoff, in his remarks yesterday unveiling the 
Department's Second Stage Review Results, affirmed USFA's important 
role in the transformed Department. In designating USFA as a 
constituent element of the Department's new Preparedness Directorate, 
Secretary Chertoff noted the Fire Administration's expertise, declaring 
that this move would ``strengthen our linkages and our preparation 
within the fire services.''
  In 1973, a landmark report entitled America Burning was produced by 
the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. Among many 
other findings and recommendations, America Burning called for the 
creation of a national agency dedicated to serving and improving the 
fire services. In response to that report, Congress created such an 
agency in 1974, which would later become what we now know as the United 
States Fire Administration. USFA provides training, guidance, and 
support to firehouses around the country from those who understand them 
best--fire service professionals themselves. USFA's current 
Administrator, R. David Paulison, is a terrific example of the agency's 
expertise. Chief Paulison, who has ably led the agency for the past 4 
years, is a 30-year veteran of the fire services and former chief of 
the Miami-Dade County Fire Department.
  Among USFA's most vital functions is its role as the Nation's premier 
training center for our fire service leaders. The National Fire Academy 
is the centerpiece of USFA's training programs and has educated an 
estimated 1.4 million fire leaders since its first class was held in 
1975. Although headquartered in Emmitsburg, Maryland, the Academy 
conducts courses all over the Nation in order to maximize the number of 
fire leaders who can benefit from its instructors' expertise. 
Significantly, the Academy now offers training and coursework in the 
National Incident Management System, NIMS, and the National Response 
Plan, NRP, two critical elements of our overall homeland security 
strategy. USFA also houses the Emergency Management Institute, EMI, 
which offers a full complement of courses and programs for state, 
local, and tribal emergency management officials from across the 
country.
  Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security 3 years 
ago, there have been grave concerns in the first responder community 
that efforts were underway in the Department to reduce the role of 
USFA, as well as its support, perhaps culminating in the agency's 
eventual demise. This past February, the International Association of 
Fire Chiefs held a summit meeting of 17 major fire service 
organizations to address concerns about USFA's funding, and its future 
within the Department of Homeland Security.
  On April 8, 2005, the findings of that summit were unanimously 
endorsed by the 45 national fire groups that comprise the National 
Advisory Committee of the Congressional Fire Services Institute. Among 
the goals in this agreement was the following:

       [T]he fire service recommends that both the President's 
     budget and the DHS's appropriations bills have a separate 
     line item for the USFA. Currently, the USFA funding is 
     included in the ``Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and 
     Recovery'' account, and it is hard to determine exactly how 
     much money has been appropriated for the USFA. Since Congress 
     specifically authorizes funding for the USFA in a separate 
     bill, there also should be a line item in the president's 
     budget and appropriations bills to hold the President and 
     Congress accountable to the authorization levels that they 
     approved.

  This amendment would achieve this reasonable and modest goal, which 
was unanimously and vigorously supported by our Nation's major fire 
service groups.
  This amendment is endorsed by the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs and the Congressional Fire Services Institute. I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter from IAFC President Bob DiPoli be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      International Association of


                                                  Fire Chiefs,

                                       Fairfax, VA, July 11, 2005.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: Thank you for offering an amendment 
     to the fiscal year (FY) 2006 homeland security appropriations 
     bill to ensure that the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) is 
     funded at $52.6 million. The International Association of 
     Fire Chiefs (IAFC) endorses this amendment. We believe that 
     specific, dedicated funding for the USFA will shine a light 
     on the agency's critical role in preparing firefighters to 
     respond to all hazards, from the everyday house fire to a 
     terrorist attack. An appropriation of $52.6 million will 
     allow the USFA to fulfill this important mission.
       Established in 1873, the IAFC is a network of more than 
     12,000 chief fire and emergency officers. Our members are the 
     nation's experts in responding to structural and wildland 
     fires, hazardous materials incidents (including chemical, 
     biological, radiological, and nuclear events), technical 
     rescues (including swiftwater rescues, confined-space 
     rescues, and auto extrication), and emergency medical 
     situations.
       In late 2004, many fire service leaders began to express 
     concern that the USFA and its training arm, the National Fire 
     Academy (NFA), were suffering a diminished role within the 
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as 
     diminished funding. On February 24, 2005, representatives of 
     17 major fire service organizations met in Washington, DC to 
     examine USFA's funding and decide upon a course of action. 
     U.S. Fire Administrator R. David Paulison and Acting FEMA 
     Director of Operations Kenneth O. Burris briefed the 
     attendees on the status of funding at USFA and NFA and 
     addressed the future of those agencies.
       With regard to USFA funding, the results of the summit can 
     be boiled down to this: America's fire and emergency services 
     are the first to respond to--and the last to leave--any 
     incident, large or small. The U.S. Fire Administration serves 
     as the lead federal agency in addressing the federal 
     government's role vis-a-vis our nation's fire and emergency 
     services, and training America's

[[Page 16079]]

     fire service leaders on everyday fire fighting as well as new 
     national preparedness requirements such as the National 
     Response Plan (NRP) and the National Incident Management 
     System (NIMS). The USFA also plays a key role in coordinating 
     critical infrastructure protection awareness and information-
     sharing activities for the emergency management and response 
     sector. Because of its unique role, USFA must have adequate 
     resources to fulfill its mandated mission.
       The fire service organizations believe that USFA is under-
     funded. In 2003, Congress passed the United States Fire 
     Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-169), 
     which authorized funding for USFA from FY 2004 through FY 
     2009. Congress authorized $63 million for USFA in FY 2005 and 
     $64.9 million in FY 2006. By contrast, the estimated USFA 
     funding for FY 2005 is $51.3 million, of which $9.6 million 
     will fund the NFA. At the February 24th summit, the U.S. Fire 
     Administrator informed the fire service representatives that 
     the president intends to fund the USFA at $52.6 million in FY 
     2006.
       If funded at $52.6 million, USFA will be able to expand its 
     training capabilities and enhance its course development, 
     ensuring that the NRP and the NIMS were included in every 
     course. It would allow the USFA to add more courses and hire 
     staff to replace retirees. USFA could streamline two-week 
     courses into one-week courses by adding a more robust and 
     interactive online component, thereby allowing more students 
     to take classes at the NFA. The USFA could use the increased 
     funding to improve and expand other online courses. Finally, 
     the USFA could expand national prevention, public education, 
     research, and data collection programs to more effectively 
     address fire and life safety challenges that threaten lives 
     and the national infrastructure.
       According to a December 30, 2004 editorial in Fire Chief 
     magazine, current USFA funding levels are putting on hold new 
     course development, course revisions and contract reviewers 
     for applied research projects. The budget for the Executive 
     Fire Officer Program, which trains senior officers and others 
     in key leadership positions with graduate-level courses in 
     transforming the fire service, has been cut from $233,000 to 
     $65,000. According to a high-ranking USFA official who 
     recently retired, the NFA's role in the prevention of fires, 
     injuries, and now terrorism is rapidly diminishing. Finally, 
     at current funding levels, it will be difficult for USFA to 
     train as many firefighters, and to incorporate the NIMS and 
     NRP into all of its courses, as it could do with higher 
     funding levels. As of FY 2006, the DHS Office of State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness will begin to 
     tie compliance with the NRP and NIMS to the receipt of 
     federal homeland security funding. Clearly, funding USFA at 
     $52.6 million will benefit America's fire service and public 
     safety generally.
       The need for a line item for the USFA budget in the 
     homeland security appropriations bill stems from the fact 
     that the USFA has suffered an unjustly diminished role within 
     DHS. Before the department was established in 2003, only the 
     director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
     stood between the U.S. Fire Administrator and the president. 
     Because FEMA was the lead federal emergency response agency, 
     the fire service could influence the development of response 
     policies and conduct training for national emergencies. Those 
     policies and that training had the benefit of real-world, on-
     the-ground experience. However, when the DHS was created, the 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) Directorate 
     absorbed both FEMA and the USFA. Now, the USFA reports 
     through FEMA, which reports through the EP&R Directorate, 
     which reports through the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     the president.
       A line item would increase the accountability that the 
     USFA, the EP&R Directorate, and the DHS have to Congress. 
     Good government principles dictate that an agency having its 
     own authorization bill should have an individual 
     appropriation. A line item would allow Congress--which deemed 
     the USFA important enough to have its own authorization--the 
     ability to judge for itself whether the USFA is using 
     appropriated funds to the maximum public benefit.
       For these reasons, the IAFC is pleased to endorse your 
     amendment. I applaud you for taking a leadership role on this 
     very important national safety issue.
           Sincerely,
                                     Chief Robert A. DiPoli, Ret.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SARBANES. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1224

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment that Senator Reid called up on behalf of Senator Byrd, 1224, 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1224) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1216, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we turn to 
the Boxer amendment and she be recognized for 2 minutes on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
a period of 2 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair so much. I call up amendment No. 1216, 
on behalf of myself and Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, since 9/11, those of us on the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, in a very bipartisan way, have attempted to 
bring legislation to the Senate to begin the process whereby we can 
protect our nuclear power plants, first by making sure that there is an 
assessment made on each power plant, what are their vulnerability 
needs, and then making sure that these plants are protected from 
terrorists.
  We know that on September 10, 2002, in a taped interview on Al-
Jazeera, it included a statement that al-Qaida initially wanted to 
include a powerplant in its attacks on the United States. And we on the 
committee passed out a bill and passed another one last month. This 
amendment says it is the sense of the Senate it should pass bipartisan 
legislation to address nuclear powerplant security prior to the August 
recess.
  Colleagues, we have a limited time. We need to move forward.
   I would accept a voice vote, if that is OK with Senator Gregg, and I 
think he would prefer that. But we would like to have a clear voice 
vote if we could at this time.
  Mr. GREGG. I believe we are ready to vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I send up a modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
amendment? Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1216), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.     . STRENGTHENING SECURITY AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) A taped interview shown on al-Jazeera television on 
     September 10, 2002, included a statement that al Qaeda 
     initially planned to include a nuclear power plant in its 
     2001 attacks on the United States.
       (2) In the 108th Congress, the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee approved bipartisan legislation to 
     improve nuclear plant security. No action was taken by the 
     full Senate.
       (3) Last month, the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee again approved bipartisan legislation to improve 
     nuclear plant security.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Congress should pass bipartisan legislation to 
     address nuclear power plant security prior to the August 
     recess.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Jeffords, Voinovich, and Carper be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues.


          Amendments Nos. 1140 and 1144, as Modified, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I call up amendments 1144 and 1140 at the 
desk. I send modifications to those amendments to the desk. I ask that 
they be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 1140, as modified.
       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Martinez, proposes an amendment numbered 1144, as modified.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent they be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are so 
modified and agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1140

       On page 66, line 17, after ``Alert;'' insert the following:

[[Page 16080]]

       ``, of which not less than $5,000,000 may be used to 
     facilitate agreements consistent with 287(g) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) and the 
     training required under those agreements;''


                           amendment no. 1144

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.    SENATE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THREAT ASSESSMENT OF 
                   MAJOR TOURIST ATTRACTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Whereas terrorists target areas of high population and 
     national significance in order to inflict the most damage to 
     a free society.
       (2) Whereas preparedness is vital in emergency planning, 
     prevention and response to a terrorist attack.
       (3) Whereas first responders in cities with nationally 
     significant tourist populations face increased strain in 
     training and preparation for terrorism.
       (4) Whereas cities with nationally significant tourist 
     populations have been previously targeted by terrorist groups 
     in an effort to disrupt the economy and spread fear and 
     anxiety.
       (5) Whereas tens of millions of Americans travel to tourist 
     destinations annually and many of those destinations lie 
     outside of major cities and therefore are not adequately 
     addressed by threat assessments that only include permanent 
     city residents.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that in the assessment of threat as it relates to the 
     dispersal of Department of Homeland Security funding the 
     Secretary should consider tourism destinations that attract 
     tens of millions of visitors annually as potentially high 
     risk targets.

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


          Amendments Nos. 1139, as modified, and 1225, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. I call up amendment 1139 and send a modification to the 
desk on behalf of Senator Sessions. I send to the desk a second degree 
to that amendment proposed by Senator Kennedy. I ask they be agreed to 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 1139.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1225 to amendment 
     numbered 1139.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1139

       On page 66, line 6, strike ``$3,050,416,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,052,416,000.''
       On page 66, line 17 after ``Alert;'' insert the following:

     ``of which no less than $1,000,000 may be used for increasing 
     the speed, accuracy and efficiency of the information 
     currently being entered into the National Crime Information 
     Center database;''


                           amendment no. 1225

       On page 1, line 8 of the amendment, after the word 
     ``database,'' insert ``of which no less than $2,000,000 may 
     be for the Legal Orientation Program.''

  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion was agreed to.


                Amendments Nos. 1150 and 1200, Withdrawn

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1150, amendment No. 1200 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
withdrawn.


                   reigning in government contractors

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
my good friend and colleague Senator Bond, the Chairman of the 
Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill today. However, I understand that Senator Bond has 
agreed to work with me on the issues contained in my amendment in order 
to address tax cheats in the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations 
bill instead. I appreciate Senator Bond's interest in this important 
issue and I also appreciate his willingness to work with me to ensure 
that this common sense, bipartisan amendment is included in his 
appropriations bill.
  This is a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that will address two 
problems the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations identified in 
separate hearings. First is the issue of Federal contractors who 
continue to get new contracts even though they owe millions of dollars 
in unpaid taxes. And second is the Government's inability to monitor 
the unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars by DOD personnel on 
first and business class airline tickets.
  I am pleased to be joined by my good friends and colleagues, Senator 
Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Senator Wyden, Senator Akaka and Senator Coburn.
  If my colleagues are concerned about the deficit, concerned about 
saving the taxpayer money, then our amendment should be an easy one to 
support. Who doesn't support making certain that those who do business, 
with the Government pay the taxes they admittedly owe? And who doesn't 
think that Government employees like those at DOD should fly coach 
rather than first or business class? This is common sense.
  Let me get into the specifics.
  On June 16, 2005, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which 
I chair, learned there are problems that prevent the Government from 
collecting unpaid taxes from Federal contractors. Even more troubling 
is the fact that these contractors who have not paid their taxes 
continue to receive new contracts from the Government.
  When the Government pays a Federal contractor, it has the option of 
paying directly from the Treasury or by using a credit card. Last year, 
the Government paid $10 billion to Federal contractors using credit 
cards. One of the problems we identified is that the Financial 
Management Service, which is responsible for collecting unpaid taxes 
from Federal contractors, cannot collect these owed taxes unless the 
contractor is paid directly from the Treasury. When the Government 
makes purchases with a credit card, the bank that issued the card acts 
as a middle man between the Treasury and the contractor. Thus, the 
contractor is only known to the bank. For the Government to collect 
unpaid taxes, we need to know which contractors are being paid.
  For example, a NASA contractor who owes nearly $200,000 in unpaid 
taxes was paid $570,000 last year. Because they were paid directly from 
the Treasury, this contractor had $6,600 withheld from their contract 
payments to reduce their tax debt. This same contractor also received 
an additional $30,000 but the Government was unable to withhold money 
from this payment for tax debt because the contractor was paid with a 
credit card.
  To fix this problem, the first section of my amendment would require 
the Government to develop procedures for collecting unpaid taxes when 
credit cards are used to pay Federal contractors. Again, this is not 
rocket science. This is commonsense, smart government that I think our 
constituents just expect from us.
  At a second hearing on November 6, 2003, the subcommittee heard 
testimony that the Department of Defense had spent $123.8 million on 
first and business class travel in 2001 and 2002 and that 73 percent of 
this travel was not properly authorized or justified. This resulted in 
a loss of millions of dollars. The Office of Management and Budget 
requires all Federal agencies to annually report their first class 
travel to the General Services Administration in order to monitor 
travel for potential abuse. However, $120.9 million of the $123.8 
million that DOD spent was for business class travel. For example, one 
DOD traveler spent $9,500 on a business class ticket which could have 
been purchased for $2,500 in coach class. Because this traveler used 
business class

[[Page 16081]]

it would not have been reported. Given that the preponderance of DOD's 
abusive travel was business class, the abuse at DOD could not have been 
identified from DOD's annual travel report. The second section of my 
amendment corrects this for all Federal agencies by requiring the 
annual travel report to include both first and business class airline 
travel and further requires that the report be furnished to the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House 
Government Reform Committee so we can more closely monitor Federal 
travel for potential abuse.
  So, we have an opportunity to do some smart savings to reduce the 
deficit and that is simply to make sure that contractors doing business 
with Uncle Sam pay the taxes they owe, and that DOD personnel travel 
coach when it is on the Government's dime rather than high on the hog 
as has been the case.
  I appreciate the strong bipartisan support we have for this 
amendment, and particularly for the good work of Senators Levin, Wyden, 
Akaka, and Coburn.
  I hope this commonsense, good Government amendment that will help 
reduce our deficit can be adopted by the Senate as part of the 
Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Bill.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator from Minnesota is correct. This is an important 
issue and I am committed on addressing with Senator Coleman on the 
Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, and I 
look forwarding to working with Senator Coleman in ensuring that this 
is done.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I am happy to work with Senator Bond on these issues 
with, a goal of including these reforms on the Transportation, Treasury 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, I will not offer the 
amendment I filed and intended to offer to the Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill. I thank Senator Bond for his strong leadership on 
the Appropriations Committee and his support of this important 
amendment.


                     explosive detection equipment

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senators from New Hampshire and West 
Virginia, respectively.
  It is my understanding the Senate Homeland Security; Appropriations 
Report includes language designating $50 million for ``Next 
Generation'' Explosive Detection Equipment, EDS, that ``have been 
tested, certified and are being piloted.''
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wholeheartedly support the need to encourage new 
technologies. However, I think it is important we further clarify the 
purpose of this funding stream.
  I ask the Chairman ``Is it true the Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA, the agency responsible for issuing Letters of 
Intent, LOIs, that provides the funding to airports for the 
installation of EDS equipment, has only made less than a dozen LOIs 
available to the major airports? And is it not also correct smaller and 
medium hub airports have not received any of the LOIs issued to date?''
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Connecticut is right. All the LOIs issued 
to date have gone to the larger hub airports.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from 
Connecticut is concerned the Committee report language could be 
interpreted to limit the $50 million, which is almost a full third of 
the funding for EDS procurement, to only technologies currently being 
piloted.
  Mr. GREGG. The committee has set aside the funding to encourage new 
technologies in the area of explosives detection systems and is not 
necessarily limited to one or two companies. TSA has assured the 
committee this language does not restrict them only to technologies 
already being piloted, and that additional technologies which may 
become certified and piloted in Fiscal Year 2006 would also be eligible 
for this funding for next-generation technologies.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Therefore, is my understanding correct that the 
objective of this set aside was to aid in the development and 
deployment of next generation explosive detection equipment?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Connecticut is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I further hope the procurement and deployment of EDS 
machines will be based on acquiring the best technology for the 
particular airport in question.
  Mr. BYRD. One of the lessons we learned from 9/11 was the aviation 
transportation system is only as strong as its weakest link. We know 
terrorists boarded planes at smaller, mid-sized airports, as well as 
larger airports. It is important the Department encourage development 
of technologies that can be used at different airports, and that are 
being made more effective and efficient.
  Mr GREGG. I think this is everyone's objective.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I applaud the leadership of both the Senator from New 
Hampshire and the Senator from West Virginia in helping to ensure TSA 
has the necessary funding to meet the critical missions of the agency 
and I appreciate their hard work on this issue.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his interest in 
this matter.
  Mr. GREGG. I also thank the Senator from Connecticut for his remarks 
and I look forward to working with him in the future on these issues.


                          illegal immigration

  Mr. HATCH. Would the gentleman from New Hampshire yield for a 
question?
  Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah for a 
question.
  Mr. HATCH. As the chairman knows, one of the greatest roles entrusted 
to the hardworking employees of the Department of Homeland Security is 
to protect our Nation's borders and curb the growing tide of illegal 
immigration in this country. I thank my friend and colleague from New 
Hampshire for doing his best to address this great need with increased 
funding for, and greater attention to, this problem. As I travel around 
the State of Utah, there is not a single place I go where I do not have 
citizens come up to me and ask me to do something about the illegal 
immigration problems in their area. They are upset that our country 
continues to be unable to enforce our immigration laws and I do not 
blame them. I feel the same frustration.
  For example, Mayor Toni Turk of Blanding recently informed me that 
his police department has made several arrests of illegal aliens and 
seized nearly 7 kilos of cocaine in the process. It would seem drug 
smugglers--most of whom are in the country illegally--are taking 
advantage of the de minimis level of immigration enforcement in remote 
areas of southeastern Utah. Incidents such as this one formed the basis 
of my request for the creation of an ICE/CBP office in Blanding, UT and 
I am grateful to the chairman for addressing my request in his 
committee report.
  I have heard it said many times that the objective of illegal 
immigrants coming through the southern border of the country is to get 
as far north as possible as fast as he or she can. This comes from the 
either perceived or real concern that immigration enforcement is much 
tougher in the southern portion of the U.S. than it is in the northern 
portion. For a State located directly above some of the most porous 
borders in the country, this is a real concern. U.S. Interstate 70 and 
U.S. Interstate 15 in Utah have become large conduits for the smuggling 
of illegal immigrants and illegal substances as these foreigners flee 
from the southern states as fast as possible in order to get north 
where they believe enforcement is less stringent.
  With two major arteries for illegal immigration running through the 
southern portion of Utah, citizens in that beautiful area have grown 
tired of the strain and difficulties presented by the flood of illegal 
immigrants.
  Is the distinguished Senator aware of the significant immigration-
related problems facing Utah, especially in the southern portion of the 
state including St. George and Blanding, UT.

[[Page 16082]]


  Mr. GREGG. I assure you, I understand problems such as those being 
faced by the citizens of southern Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chairman for recognizing what so many people 
do not; namely, that immigration problems are not limited to the border 
States.
  One of the greatest concerns we Utahns have with the immigration 
enforcement in our State is the fact that the field office director 
overseeing Utah is located in San Francisco, CA. I hope my colleague 
will agree with me that having the oversight for a major illegal 
immigration artery located over 650 miles away from the area is 
disconcerting.
  The immigration problems facing San Francisco are very different from 
the problems facing St. George, Blanding, Richfield, Cedar City, Provo, 
and Salt Lake and that is precisely why I would like to see a new field 
officer director located in Utah. It is my hope that the chairman will 
work with me to remedy these issues.
  GREGG. I thank the Senator for his comments. I am pleased to say that 
we have included significant increases in immigration funding in this 
bill. It is my desire to see those funds spent in the most crucial 
areas of concern to this Nation and I believe they will help us make 
significant progress in the fight against illegal immigration.
  While the issue of establishing new field office directors is 
properly that of the Secretary of Homeland Security, I will work with 
my colleague from Utah to address the issues troubling his State as I 
have done with all of my colleagues. I recognize that Utah faces 
certain unique challenges and I am confident they can be addressed.
  I thank my colleague from Utah for his support in our efforts to 
secure the homeland, and I appreciate his bringing the problems facing 
southern Utah to the attention of the Senate.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over 
comments made by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. 
As several of my colleagues have already noted, Secretary Chertoff 
today made some very unfortunate comments about who is responsible for 
the safety of the tens of millions of people who use our mass transit 
systems every day. Secretary Chertoff said, and I quote, ``The truth of 
the matter is, a fully loaded airplane with jet fuel, a commercial 
airliner, has the capacity to kill 3,000 people. A bomb in a subway car 
may kill 30 people. When you start to think about your priorities, 
you're going to think about making sure you don't have a catastrophic 
thing first.'' He further added that he believes that States and 
localities should bear primary responsibility in ensuring the safety of 
their mass transit systems.
  The millions of New Yorkers who use the subways, buses, and ferries 
each day would be shocked and angered to hear that their Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Secretary Michael Chertoff, has declared that local 
governments are left to fend for themselves when it comes to paying for 
improved subway, train, and bus security.
  The reality is that Americans should not be forced to choose between 
a safe airplane trip or a safe subway ride. They should both be 
priorities. Unfortunately, this administration has presented us with a 
false choice they would like us to believe that resources are so scarce 
that we can't afford to fully protect all of our transportation 
systems. For the last few days, my colleagues and I have been on the 
Senate floor, forced to debate whether we should fund rail safety or 
bus safety, secure our borders or fund more airline screeners. This 
debate is necessary because this administration has made the judgment 
that cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans is more important than 
fully meeting our Nation's security needs. This administration's 
priorities are clear: $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and only $30 billion 
for homeland security.
  So while I am outraged by Secretary Chertoff's comments belittling 
the threats posed to our subways and buses, I am not surprised. He is 
simply giving voice to this administration's misguided and indefensible 
priorities. If the London bombings didn't serve as a wakeup call to 
this administration that they need to reevaluate their priorities, I am 
hard pressed to understand what will make them understand the gravity 
of the threat millions and millions of Americans face every single day 
when they step onto a bus or a subway or a ferry to go about their 
daily lives.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before discussing the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill, I would like to take a moment to express my 
deepest condolences to our British friends as they deal with the 
aftermath of the terrorist bombings in London. Once again the world has 
seen the stark contrast between brutal terrorism, with its lust for 
violence, and liberal democracy, with its love for freedom. The British 
people knew, after September 11, 2001, that there could be no 
accommodation with this brand of fanaticism, and under the visionary 
leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Britain stood with America in 
our time of need. Now, in Britain's time of need, we stand with our 
brothers and sisters across the Atlantic. Our bond, always strong, is 
even firmer.
  I believe I can speak for many Americans when I say that I felt the 
attack in London as if it were an attack on the United States; the hurt 
of our British friends is like that of our own countrymen. The 
relationship between American and the United Kingdom is unlike any 
other, and the world is better off for it. At this tragic time, all 
people in that great country must know that America is with them, as 
allies, as friends, as brothers and sisters. They are not alone, for 
they must know that they remain in our hearts, in our minds, and in our 
prayers, as we have experienced a similar sense of loss and pain on 
September 11, 2001. Together we will not allow terrorists to destroy 
the way of life that our two great nations have endeavored over 
centuries to build.
  The four bombings in London have now lead many of us to take a second 
look at the Homeland Security appropriations bill to ensure that we are 
adequately securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. In addition 
to appropriating funds, however, we must also act on authorizing 
measures to promote the security of our nation's transportation system. 
Earlier this week, I introduced the Rail Security Act of 2005, which is 
nearly identical to legislation passed unanimously by the Senate last 
year. I hope that the bombings in Madrid and London will spur this 
Congress to take needed action and pass this important authorizing 
legislation.
  I commend the chairman and subcommittee chairman, and the ranking 
members, on their efforts to produce a funding measure that best meets 
our Nation's security objectives. For the third consecutive year, the 
committee has reported out a Homeland Security bill with minimal 
earmarks. As evidenced by the recent bombings in London, this bill is 
too important to the security of the American people to be bogged down 
with unreasonable earmarks and no essential policy changes and 
directives.
  The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in our 
Nation's defense, particularly during these uncertain times as our 
country continues to be engaged in fighting a war against terror. We 
must be vigilant in ensuring that the Department has the right tools to 
protect our Nation's air space, borders, ports of entry, and travel 
infrastructure. We also must ensure that our first responders are 
adequately funded to protect citizens in the event of a national 
emergency. At the same time, resources are limited and this bill 
recognizes that and seeks to ensure that the Department optimizes all 
received funds.
  The Department of Homeland Security's most vital function is 
protecting our Nation's borders. The committee's bill does provide for 
an increased focus on border security efforts and I commend them for 
their attention to these critical funding needs. However, more remains 
to be done. While I strongly believe this bill needs to provide for the 
level of border patrol agents and detention beds as we authorized in 
the Intelligence Reform Act just 7 months ago, our amendments on these 
critical needs were unsuccessful.

[[Page 16083]]

  Another area of concern is the committee's decision to not fund the 
President's request for accelerated deployment of the United States 
Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, US VISIT, Program, 
which was a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Although US 
VISIT has much room for improvement, funding to expedite the full 
implementation of the program will be essential to our ability to 
adequately monitor the flow of individuals into and out of our country. 
I hope that this issue will be carefully reconsidered as this measure 
continues through the legislative process.
  As encouraged as I am to see additional resources directed to the 
border, enforcement alone will never fully secure our border. Over the 
last 12 years, the Federal Government has tripled spending on 
technology and infrastructure to secure the border and tripled the 
number of border patrol personnel. Yet during that same time, illegal 
immigration is estimated to have doubled. The lesson here is important: 
as long as there is a need for workers in this country that goes unmet 
by the domestic workforce, and as long as there are workers in other 
countries willing to risk their lives for the opportunity to take those 
jobs, they will find a way in.
  The simple fact is this: our Nation's borders are extremely porous. 
For the last several years the volatile conditions at our Nation's 
southwestern border have grown unsustainable. The cost of our broken 
immigration system is increasingly borne by local communities and State 
governments through uncompensated health care, unreimbursed law 
enforcement costs, environmental degradation, and an increased sense of 
lawlessness. As these conditions have worsened, several Members of this 
body, including myself, have put forth proposals to reform our Nation's 
immigration laws and improve security along the border and in the 
interior. Immigration reform is one of the most critical issues facing 
our Nation today, and I hope the Senate will soon turn to this issue. 
Funding for additional manpower and technology improvements must 
continue, but our borders will never be fully secure without 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  I support provisions in the bill and accompanying report which 
encourage the Department, specifically the Transportation Security 
Administration, TSA, and ICE, to invest in improved technology. The 
report finds that the Department, ``should not be operating on 
stovepipped, disconnected, inherited information technology systems,'' 
but rather the Department should be equipped with the best technology 
systems available in order to reduce reliance on personnel and improve 
security. In particular, I am encouraged to see funding for the 
deployment of new equipment and technology to the border, including to 
Arizona, which in recent years has become a leading gateway for illegal 
immigration.
  Additionally, I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has 
encouraged the TSA to consistently implement a risk management approach 
to decisionmaking to prioritize security improvements as recommended by 
the General Accountability Office earlier this year. The GAO report 
stated that ``TSA has not consistently implemented a risk management 
approach or conducted the systematic analysis needed to inform its 
decision-making processes and to prioritize security improvements . . . 
a risk management approach can help inform decision makers in 
allocating finite resources to the areas of greatest need.''
  Although I find a great deal to support in this bill, I would be 
remiss if I did not point out the serious unrequested spending and the 
few earmarks contained in this bill and the report. There is over $2 
billion in unauthorized and unrequested spending in the bill and the 
report. Examples include: $47 million above the President's request for 
the acquisition and maintenance of facilities for the Federal law 
enforcement and training centers; $68 million for two maritime patrol 
aircraft under the Coast Guard's integrated deepwater system; $65 
million to fund the Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act; and $59 
million for critical infrastructure outreach and partnerships. Since 
such spending was not requested or isn't authorized, I have no way of 
knowing if such expenditures are needed. Needless expenditures are 
unacceptable, particularly while our country is running a deficit of 
$368 billion this year and a 10-year projected deficit of $1.35 
trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. When are we 
going to tighten the belt? While I concede that it is very difficult to 
reduce spending while attempting to protect the Nation's homeland, I 
can only hope that Congress's belt tightens elsewhere.
  Examples of earmarks and directive language include: language 
limiting overtime pay to $35,000 for Customs and Border Patrol and 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, $55 million for the 
completion of the Tucson tactical infrastructure around the border and 
$15 million for the Coast Guard's bridge alteration program. Although 
many of these are important programs and worthy of funding, they were 
not specifically authorized by Congress and not requested by the 
President, and they should be.
  Lastly, I am also disappointed that the bill once again this year 
contains a Departmentwide ``Buy America'' requirement, and specific 
language directing the Secret Service to purchase American-made 
motorcycles. I firmly object to all ``Buy America'' restrictions, as 
they represent gross examples of protectionist trade policy. From a 
philosophical point of view, I oppose such policies because free trade 
is an important element in improving relations among all nations, which 
then improves the security of our Nation. Furthermore, as a fiscal 
conservative, I want to ensure our Government gets the best deal for 
taxpayers and with a ``Buy American'' restriction that cannot be 
guaranteed. Such provisions cost the Department of Defense over $5.5 
billion each year and I am fearful that we will see the same 
unnecessary expense arise at the Department of Homeland Security, a new 
agency.
  Once again, I thank the appropriators for their diligence in passing 
a relatively clean Homeland Security appropriations bill devoid of 
numerous earmarks. While much work remains to be done to secure our 
homeland, including comprehensive immigration reform and further action 
on 9/11 Commission recommendations, specifically more spectrum for 
first responders, we can take another important step by passing this 
legislation and providing the Department with adequate resources to 
protect our Nation's air space, borders, ports of entry, and travel 
infrastructure.


                           amendment no. 1161

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last evening, an amendment proposed by 
Senator Reid, which calls on the Secretary of Defense to stop delaying 
the report required to be submitted to Congress on the progress being 
made to train the Iraqi security forces, was approved unanimously by 
the Senate. I was pleased to cosponsor the amendment, along with 
Senators Durbin and Biden.
  The report was required in the recent Iraq Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, Public Law 109-13, which became law on May 11. The 
first report was to have been provided by July 11. Additional reports 
are due every 90 days after that until the end of fiscal year 2006.
  This is not a bureaucratic dispute. The information requested in the 
report goes to the heart of our ability to succeed in Iraq. It is vital 
to identifying when the Iraqi forces will be able to assume 
responsibility for security. It is essential to estimating of the level 
of U.S.troops that will be necessary in Iraq in the future.
  Twice in the last month, President Bush has assured us that training 
Iraqi security forces is central to our strategy for success.
  On June 28, President Bush said:

       Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand 
     up, we will stand down.

  On July 11, President Bush again said:

       Our plan can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, 
     we will stand down.

  Unfortunately, the administration has not been willing to give the 
American people a straight answer about the

[[Page 16084]]

number of Iraqi security forces, who are adequately trained and 
equipped. We are obviously making some progress, but it is far from 
clear how much. The American people deserve an honest assessment that 
provides the basic facts.
  But that is not what we are being given. According to a GAO report in 
March, ``U.S. government agencies do not report reliable data on the 
extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped.''
  The report goes on to say:

       The Departments of State and Defense no longer report on 
     the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with 
     their required weapons, vehicles, communications, equipment, 
     and body armor.

  It is clear from the administration's own statements that they are 
using the notorious ``fuzzy math'' tactic to avoid an honest appraisal.
  In February 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld said:

       We have accelerated the training of Iraqi security forces, 
     now more than 200,000 strong.

  In January 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said:

       We think the number right now is somewhere over 120,000.

  Yet, on February 3, 2005, in response to questions from Senator Levin 
at a Senate Armed Services Committee GEJJ Hearing, GEN Richard Myers, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that only 40,000 Iraqi 
security forces are actually capable. He said:

       Forty-eight deployable (battalions) around the country, 
     equals about 40,000, which is the number that can go anywhere 
     and do anything.

  Obviously, we need a better accounting of how much progress is being 
made to train and equip effective and capable Iraqi security forces.
  The American people want to know. Our men and women in uniform want 
to know.
  Congress has been seeking information on this issue for a long time.
  Section 1204 of last year's Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 
108-375, required the President to submit an unclassified report on a 
stabilization strategy for Iraq and an effective plan to train the 
Iraqi security forces. The report was due 120 days after enactment. The 
law was enacted on October 28, 2004, and the report should have been 
provided by the end of February.
  We have still not received it from the White House. The 
administration has been AWOL on the report.
  Given the high priority the President has placed on the training of 
Iraqi security forces, it is unconscionable that the administration has 
failed to give the American people a straight answer about how many 
Iraqi security forces are adequately trained and equipped and able to 
defend Iraq's security on their own. It is time to put facts behind our 
policy.
  President Bush has not leveled with our troops and the American 
people and offered an effective strategy for success.
  He has spoken about the importance of training Iraqi security forces, 
but he has failed to outline a clear strategy to achieve their training 
and improve their capability.
  The American people and our soldiers deserve to know what progress is 
being made in training Iraqis to protect their own security.
  We all hope for the best in Iraq. We all want democracy to take root 
firmly and irrevocably. We need to train the Iraqis for the stability 
of Iraq. But we also need to train them because our current level of 
deployment is not sustainable. Our military has been stretched to the 
breaking point. Threats in other parts of the world are ever present. 
Our men and women in uniform and the American people deserve this 
report, because they deserve to know when the President has a strategy 
for success.
  The President says our troops in Iraq will stand down as Iraqi 
security forces stand up, but the administration has failed to provide 
a realistic assessment of the progress being made in training the Iraqi 
forces.
  The American people deserve to know when the Iraqis will be able to 
take over responsibility for their own security, and what impact it 
will have on our military presence in Iraq.
  It is time for the stonewalling to end and for accountability to 
begin.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending 
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and my 
grave concern that it does not provide the tools we need to meet the 
threat of terrorism. This is not to criticize the appropriators who, as 
always, have done a thoughtful job in sorting through the many 
competing needs of the Department. But I feel strongly that neither the 
President nor the congressional leadership was willing to allocate 
sufficient funds for homeland security at the outset of this process 
and that, as a consequence, this bill comes up short on too many 
critical homeland programs.
  I speak with a sense of caution in the wake of last week's terrorist 
attacks on London. I agree with Secretary Chertoff's statement that we 
can't base our national homeland defense policies on a single attack 
especially since the specifics of the London attack are not known.
  Yet experts in and out of government keep warning us that nearly 4 
years after 9/11 we are still vulnerable and will remain vulnerable 
unless we begin to seriously and strategically start investing in our 
own security.
  CIA Director Porter Goss this year told the Senate Intelligence 
Committee that ``it may only be a matter of time'' before terrorists 
try to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
  At the same hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller also warned of 
possible terrorist operations within the United States, and called 
finding such terrorists ``one of the most difficult challenges'' his 
organization faces.
  Experts have identified billions of dollars in urgent homeland 
security needs, ranging from communications equipment for first 
responders, to transportation security, to securing our borders.
  Yet this year, the President proposed only modest increases for the 
Department of Homeland Security. And even those proposed increases were 
illusory based on a controversial proposed airline ticket fee that 
congressional budget leaders and appropriators have rejected.
  In letters to the Appropriations and Budget Committees earlier this 
year, I identified about $8.4 billion in critical homeland security 
needs above and beyond the President's proposed budget, with more than 
$6 billion of that for programs within the Department of Homeland 
Security. Yet the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have both 
approved bills that actually provide even less for DHS programs than 
the President proposed.
  It may be tempting to think we do not need to make these investments 
because we have already increased spending on homeland security since
9/11, and because we face difficult budget constraints. But when we 
focus on the new threat confronting us, it becomes clear that these 
investments are an urgent necessity.
  Let me highlight some of the most serious shortfalls, starting with 
transportation and mass transit.
  We know from last week's attack on London and last year's attacks in 
Moscow and Madrid that transit and rail systems are appealing targets 
for terrorists. And we also know we have far to go in making this 
country's transit and rail systems as secure as they should be. Experts 
have identified billions in unmet security needs for this array of 
critical assets.
  For mass transit alone, the American Public Transportation 
Association has identified more than $6 billion in security needs, and 
a committee-approved Senate bill last Congress would have authorized 
$5.2 billion for transit security over 3 years.
  These funds are needed to conduct security assessments, install 
sensors and other surveillance equipment, and train transit employees 
to cope with a terror attack.
  In the area of rail security, the Senate last session passed 
legislation authorizing $1.2 billion in Federal spending over 4 years, 
nearly half of it in the first year, for measures such as upgrading 
aging rail tunnels and other security measures, and increased R&D to

[[Page 16085]]

reduce the vulnerability of passenger and freight trains.
  Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in 
funding rail or transit security measures and our systems remain 
dangerously exposed.
  Last year, Congress provided $150 million for rail and transit 
grants--and only because lawmakers pushed for this dedicated funding. 
This year, the President proposed no dedicated funding for rail and 
transit--just an unspecified share of an overall infrastructure 
protection grant fund--and the Senate Appropriations bill proposes only 
$100 million. We simply cannot make the progress we need at this rate. 
Rather, a dramatic new infusion is needed to harden these potential 
targets for terrorist mayhem.
  But mass transit and transportation security is just one example of 
the critical security needs that not receiving the investments they 
need to make the American homeland more secure.
  Under this legislation, terrorism preparedness funding for first 
responders would drop for the second straight year.
  In June 2003, a nonpartisan, independent task force sponsored by the 
Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by our former colleague 
Senator Warren Rudman, issued a report entitled ``Emergency Responders: 
Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''
  The report listed a number of urgent needs left unmet due to a lack 
of funding--including obtaining interoperable communications equipment, 
enhancing urban search and rescue capabilities, and providing 
protective gear and weapons of mass destruction remediation.
  The task force concluded that, at then-current funding levels, our 
Nation, over the course of 5 years, would fall nearly $100 billion 
short of meeting the needs of our first responders.
  Incredibly, though, the administration's response to this sobering 
analysis has been to cut funding for first responders--2 years running.
  Even taking into account proposed increases in two grant programs, 
the administration's proposed budget would slash overall DHS grants to 
first responders by $565 million.
  To my dismay, the Senate's DHS funding bill goes even further and 
cuts $587 million below last year's appropriation. This marks the 
second year these programs have been decreased, following a massive 32-
percent reduction in the core homeland security grant programs in 
fiscal year 2005.
  None of these proposed cuts make sense given our pressing homeland 
security needs and the Senate voted 63 to 37 on a bipartisan basis for 
a Collins-Lieberman amendment to the budget resolution to restore the 
administration's proposed cuts to first responder programs at DHS.
  Unfortunately, that consensus was not reflected in the final budget 
resolution, nor in the pending appropriations bill does not reflect 
that consensus.
  To hold these programs at current levels is the very least we can and 
should do.
  In truth, we need significantly more funds to dramatically improve 
our abilities to prevent and respond to possible terror attacks. We 
especially need an infusion of new funds to help State and local 
communities develop interoperable communications systems that will 
allow officials and first responders to speak to one another during a 
crisis. Senator Collins and I have introduced legislation that would 
provide dedicated funding for interoperability, strengthen Federal 
leadership on this issue, fortify outreach and technical assistance to 
state and local first responders, promote greater regional cooperation 
and ensure research and development to achieve interoperability for 
first responders. The legislation would authorize $3.3 billion over 5 
years for short and long-term interoperability initiatives.
  Another key concern is critical infrastructure protection.
  Damage to one or more key ports could wreak economic havoc, while the 
tens of thousands of containers streaming through those ports could 
also serve as conduits for a weapon of mass destruction.
  We have made important first steps toward securing our ports--
including through the Marine Transportation Security Act--but we know 
that much more remains to be done.
  We must also devote more resources and attention to safeguarding 
critical infrastructure sites such as chemical plants. As security 
expert Stephen Flynn testified before the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee earlier this year, ``the 
[A]dministration must acknowledge that its assumption that the private 
sector would invest in meaningful security for the 85 percent of the 
nation's critical infrastructure that it owns--and upon which our way 
of life and quality of life depends--has not been borne out.''
  Even in the area of aviation security, where the government has 
invested significant resources since 9/11, pressing needs remain.
  Many have pointed out the glaring weakness regarding air cargo. 
Passengers may be subject to exhaustive searches of their luggage and 
persons, yet air cargo loaded into the belly of the very same plane may 
undergo little or no scrutiny.
  Following a 9/11 Commission recommendation that steps be taken to 
improve air cargo security, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act included several provisions to enhance and augment 
existing programs. It authorized $2 million for the development of a 
pilot program to develop blast resistant cargo containers, which could 
be used on passenger planes to provide an additional layer of security. 
The bill also authorized an additional $300 million for fiscal year 
2006 for ongoing air cargo security programs and additional air cargo 
research and development programs.
  Yet the President's budget request only included $40 million for air 
cargo security, and the Senate bill raises this amount just $10 
million. Where is the sense of urgency this problem deserves?
  We also must move more quickly to install efficient and effective 
systems to screen passenger bags. I am concerned that the Senate bill 
holds funding for the installation of in-line explosives detection 
equipment at this year's level of about $400 million when it is 
estimated that more than $5 billion is needed to install the explosives 
detection equipment at approximately 60 major airports. The 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act authorized an 
additional money for this program, and according to investing in the 
up-front costs associated with installing this equipment could not only 
boost security but also provide significant savings to DHS in labor 
costs.
  We are also shortchanging the U.S. Coast Guard and its leadership 
role in homeland defense. Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has been asked to 
dramatically increase these security functions even as it continues to 
perform critical nonsecurity roles in areas such as search and rescue 
and fisheries enforcement.
  Unfortunately, resources have not kept pace with the extraordinary 
demands being placed upon this service. I am particularly concerned 
about the deepwater program to modernize the Coast Guard's aged and 
fast deteriorating fleet--which includes cutters commissioned during 
World War II and aircraft as much as 30 years old.
  Although the Senate bill does provide a modest increase for the 
deepwater program, it is less than the President's budget and will not 
speed up the modernization program. Indeed, the Coast Guard has 
estimated that $240 million--virtually the entire proposed increase for 
the program--will be needed in fiscal year 2006 just to maintain its 
legacy assets. At the current rate, it will take more than 20 years to 
finish the fleet and systems overhaul--hardly the pace associated with 
true ``modernization.''
  Accelerating the deepwater project is not only good for our security, 
it makes good financial sense. Last year, a RAND report concluded that 
accelerating the deepwater program to 10 years would provide the Coast 
Guard with almost one million additional mission hours which could be 
used for homeland security, saving the Federal Government approximately 
$4 billion in the long term.
  This is hardly an exhaustive list of the unmet homeland security 
needs,

[[Page 16086]]

but it should serve to illustrate that we are not doing all that we 
could or should to meet the homeland threat.
  At a January 26, 2005 hearing before the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, homeland security expert Flynn stated: 
``Any honest appraisal of the department as it approaches its 2nd 
anniversary would acknowledge that while there have been significant 
accomplishments in some areas, we are a very long ways from where we 
need to be.'' Flynn describes our predicament well in his recent book, 
America the Vulnerable:
  ``Homeland security has entered our post-9/11 lexicon, but homeland 
insecurity remains the abiding reality. With the exception of airports, 
much of what is critical to our way of life remains unprotected . . . 
From water and food supplies, refineries, energy grids and pipelines; 
bridges, tunnels, trains, trucks and cargo containers; to the cyber 
backbone that underpins the information age in which we live, the 
measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit to deter amateur 
thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined terrorists. Worse 
still, small improvements are often oversold as giant steps forward, 
lowering the guard of average citizens as they carry on their daily 
routine with an unwarranted sense of confidence.''
  Flynn also rightly points out that homeland security spending is 
still minuscule in comparison to the overall Pentagon budget, revealing 
the extent to which our government continues to perceive that the 
country's primary threats will be found only outside our borders. We 
must remember how exposed we rightly felt on September 11, 2001, and 
listen to the security experts who tell us that this threat is one we 
must live with--and prepare for--for the indefinite future.
  I hope we can step back and take stock of what we are doing with 
respect to homeland security. Experts have warned that, in the absence 
of new attacks, there is a danger of complacency.
  I fear we are losing the urgency and determination we shared 
immediately after the 9/11 attacks, to do whatever we could to thwart 
another such assault. The threat is still there--and so must be our 
commitment to meet it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support final passage of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill today not only because it 
provides funding for many programs that I support, but also because it 
contains many provisions that I worked to have included.
  I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly supported, by a vote of 
71 to 26, an amendment that I cosponsored with Senators Collins and 
Lieberman that provides a fairer approach to allocating homeland 
security grants than was provided in the current law and which the 
underlying bill would have continued. For the past 3 years, the State 
homeland security grant program has distributed funds using a funding 
formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of the funds to be 
divided equally among the States, regardless of size or need. This 
``small state formula'' severely disadvantages states with high 
populations. Many Federal grant programs provide a minimum State 
funding level. But the state minimum formula used to allocate state 
homeland security funds is unusually high as was the base funding level 
in the underlying homeland security appropriations bill prior to the 
adoption of our amendment--.75 percent.
  This amendment would reduce that guarantee to .55 percent of the 
total amount appropriated for the threat-based homeland security grant 
program and added an option for the larger States of selecting a 
minimum amount based on a State's relative population and population 
density. This option for the States will provide additional guaranteed 
funds to the largest and most densely populated States, which also are 
probably the most at risk of an attack. For instance, Michigan would 
receive $17.55 million in guaranteed funding under the Collins/
Lieberman amendment, but only $10.86 million in guaranteed funding in 
the underlying appropriations bill.
  I was pleased to be the author of this option, which was added in the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The remainder of 
the total funds, approximately 60 percent, would go to the States and 
regions based purely on risk and threat assessment by the Department of 
Homeland Security using factors set forth in the amendment, with up to 
half of the remaining funds to be allocated by the Department to 
metropolitan areas through the Urban Area Security Initiative. The 
amendment also provides guidance on the factors to be considered in 
allocating risk-based funding. For example, in prioritizing among State 
applications for risk-based funds, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
will now consider whether the State is on an international border. The 
underlying appropriations bill, on the other hand, would have left all 
funds above the state base to be allocated without guidance, at the 
discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  This legislation also includes language that I offered that will 
assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our 
northern and southern borders. The amendment provides that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish at least six 
international border community interoperable communications 
demonstration Projects--no fewer than three of these demonstration 
projects shall be on the northern border, and no fewer than three of 
these demonstration projects shall be on the southern border. These 
interoperable communications demonstrations will address the 
interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, 
emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency 
response providers at our borders because of the location at those 
borders where there is such a great threat of terrorists entering.
  Finally, the bill contains language I proposed that requires the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to deny entry of any commercial motor 
vehicle carrying municipal solid waste from Canada until the Secretary 
certifies that the methods and technology used to inspect the vehicles 
for potential weapons of mass destruction as well as biological, 
chemical and nuclear materials are as efficient as the methods and 
technology used to inspect other commercial vehicles.
  I do not think that the funding levels provided in this bill go far 
enough to strengthen the programs that fund our domestic preparedness 
and response capabilities, protect our borders and ports and improve 
our transportation security. We cannot expect our first responders to 
be well-trained, properly equipped, and fully staffed to protect us if 
we cut their funding sources. I am hopeful that funding levels will be 
increased in conference.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I 
regularly comment on appropriations bills that are brought to this 
Senate for consideration and present the financial comparisons and 
budgetary data. In this instance, I am in the unique position of 
commenting on my own bill, as I also serve as chairman of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee. So it will not surprise my 
colleagues that I note this is a very good bill and that it is in 
compliance with the 2006 Budget Resolution.
  The pending Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2006, H.R. 2360, as reported by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, provides $31.777 billion in budget authority and 
$33.899 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2006 for the Department of 
Homeland Security and related agencies. Of these totals, $931 million 
in budget authority and $924 million in outlays are for mandatory 
programs in fiscal year 2006.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 
2006 of $30.846 billion. This amount is $1.285 billion more than the 
President's request, and is equal to the 302(b) allocation adopted by 
the Senate, and identical to the level in the House-passed bill. The 
2006 budget authority provided in this bill is $1.09 billion less than 
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level because the 2005 level included a 
one-time $2.528 billion appropriation for bioshield. After adjusting 
for bioshield

[[Page 16087]]

this bill is $1.438 billion above the 2005 enacted level.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 2360, 2006 HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS: SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          Purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority...................     30,846        931     31,777
    Outlays............................     32,975        924     33,899
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...................     30,846        931     31,777
    Outlays............................     33,233        924     34,157
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority...................  \1\31,936      1,085     33,021
    Outlays............................     29,821        892     30,713
President's request:
    Budget authority...................     29,561        931     30,492
    Outlays............................     29,404        924     30,328
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority...................     30,846        931     31,777
    Outlays............................     33,158        924     34,082
 
   SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...................          0          0          0
    Outlays............................       -258          0       -258
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority...................     -1,090       -154     -1,244
    Outlays............................      3,154         32      3,186
President's request:
    Budget authority...................      1,285          0      1,285
    Outlays............................      3,571          0      3,571
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority...................          0          0          0
    Outlays............................       -183          0       -183
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes $2.528 billion advance appropriation for Bioshield.
 
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. President, I thank my staff. They have done an incredible job, 
Rebecca Davis. And I also thank Senator Byrd's staff, Charles Kieffer. 
I appreciate the courtesy of the membership in moving this bill along. 
It is good to get it done.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third 
time, the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 1260, as 
amended. I further ask unanimous consent that following passage the 
Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House 
and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on engrossment of the amendments and third reading of 
the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are going to start the last vote in a 
few minutes. The managers faced a few roadblocks this afternoon, but we 
are going to complete this bill. This will be the last vote of the 
evening. Tomorrow we are going to begin foreign ops. The two managers 
will be here for opening statements. We will be voting on Monday, and I 
anticipate that vote would be in relation to an amendment on the 
foreign ops bill.
  I thank all Senators for the progress during the course of the week; 
foreign ops tomorrow.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before we proceed to the vote, I do want to 
once again express my deep appreciation and thanks to the senior 
Senator in the Senate, the Senator from West Virginia, who has been 
exceptionally helpful as the ranking member of this committee and we 
could not have gotten this far without his help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill, as 
amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will please 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Coburn
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     DeMint
     Lott
     Mikulski
  The bill (H.R. 2360), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________