[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14108-14151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5441, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2007, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Feinstein amendment No. 4556, to amend chapter 27 of title 
     18, United States Code, to prohibit the unauthorized 
     construction, financing, or, with reckless disregard, 
     permitting the construction or use on one's land, of a tunnel 
     or subterranean passageway between the United States and 
     another country and to direct the United States Sentencing 
     Commission to modify the sentencing guidelines to account for 
     such prohibition.

[[Page 14109]]

       Cornyn amendment No. 4577 (to amendment No. 4556), to 
     provide for immigration injunction reform.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there was an understanding that the Senator 
from New Mexico would offer the first amendment this morning, and then 
we can go to the Senator from Oklahoma. He has five amendments.
  How much time will that take to offer?
  Mr. COBURN. I will get through them fairly quickly.
  Mr. GREGG. We presume that after the Senator from New Mexico 
proceeds, we will go to the Senator from Oklahoma for his five 
amendments. If other Members have amendments they wish to offer, we 
would like to have them bring them to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4591

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
courtesy. I call up amendment No. 4591 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Domenici, Mr. Cornyn, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4591.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 provide financial aid to local law enforcement officials 
          along the Nation's borders, and for other purposes)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

              TITLE VI--BORDER LAW ENFORCEMENT RELIEF ACT

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Border Law Enforcement 
     Relief Act of 2006''

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is the obligation of the Federal Government of the 
     United States to adequately secure the Nation's borders and 
     prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs 
     into the United States.
       (2) Despite the fact that the United States Border Patrol 
     apprehends over 1,000,000 people each year trying to 
     illegally enter the United States, according to the 
     Congressional Research Service, the net growth in the number 
     of unauthorized aliens has increased by approximately 500,000 
     each year. The Southwest border accounts for approximately 94 
     percent of all migrant apprehensions each year. Currently, 
     there are an estimated 11,000,000 unauthorized aliens in the 
     United States.
       (3) The border region is also a major corridor for the 
     shipment of drugs. According to the El Paso Intelligence 
     Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the 
     markets of the United States enter the country through the 
     Southwest Border.
       (4) Border communities continue to incur significant costs 
     due to the lack of adequate border security. A 2001 study by 
     the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition found that 
     law enforcement and criminal justice expenses associated with 
     illegal immigration exceed $89,000,000 annually for the 
     Southwest border counties.
       (5) In August 2005, the States of New Mexico and Arizona 
     declared states of emergency in order to provide local law 
     enforcement immediate assistance in addressing criminal 
     activity along the Southwest border.
       (6) While the Federal Government provides States and 
     localities assistance in covering costs related to the 
     detention of certain criminal aliens and the prosecution of 
     Federal drug cases, local law enforcement along the border 
     are provided no assistance in covering such expenses and must 
     use their limited resources to combat drug trafficking, human 
     smuggling, kidnappings, the destruction of private property, 
     and other border-related crimes.
       (7) The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with 
     Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law 
     enforcement agencies located along the border are small, 
     rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of 
     land. Counties along the Southwest United States-Mexico 
     border are some of the poorest in the country and lack the 
     financial resources to cover the additional costs associated 
     with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-
     related crimes.
       (8) Federal assistance is required to help local law 
     enforcement operating along the border address the unique 
     challenges that arise as a result of their proximity to an 
     international border and the lack of overall border security 
     in the region

     SEC. 603. BORDER RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants, subject to the availability of appropriations, to an 
     eligible law enforcement agency to provide assistance to such 
     agency to address--
       (A) criminal activity that occurs in the jurisdiction of 
     such agency by virtue of such agency's proximity to the 
     United States border; and
       (B) the impact of any lack of security along the United 
     States border.
       (2) Duration.--Grants may be awarded under this subsection 
     during fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (3) Competitive basis.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     under this subsection on a competitive basis, except that the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applications from any 
     eligible law enforcement agency serving a community--
       (A) with a population of less than 50,000; and
       (B) located no more than 100 miles from a United States 
     border with--
       (i) Canada; or
       (ii) Mexico.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded pursuant to subsection 
     (a) may only be used to provide additional resources for an 
     eligible law enforcement agency to address criminal activity 
     occurring along any such border, including--
       (1) to obtain equipment;
       (2) to hire additional personnel;
       (3) to upgrade and maintain law enforcement technology;
       (4) to cover operational costs, including overtime and 
     transportation costs; and
       (5) such other resources as are available to assist that 
     agency.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible law enforcement agency 
     seeking a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) describe the activities for which assistance under this 
     section is sought; and
       (B) provide such additional assurances as the Secretary 
     determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       (d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Eligible law enforcement agency.--The term ``eligible 
     law enforcement agency'' means a tribal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency--
       (A) located in a county no more than 100 miles from a 
     United States border with--
       (i) Canada; or
       (ii) Mexico; or
       (B) located in a county more than 100 miles from any such 
     border, but where such county has been certified by the 
     Secretary as a High Impact Area.
       (2) High impact area.--The term ``High Impact Area'' means 
     any county designated by the Secretary as such, taking into 
     consideration--
       (A) whether local law enforcement agencies in that county 
     have the resources to protect the lives, property, safety, or 
     welfare of the residents of that county;
       (B) the relationship between any lack of security along the 
     United States border and the rise, if any, of criminal 
     activity in that county; and
       (C) any other unique challenges that local law enforcement 
     face due to a lack of security along the United States 
     border.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of Homeland Security.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.
       (2) Division of authorized funds.--Of the amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1)--
       (A) \2/3\ shall be set aside for eligible law enforcement 
     agencies located in the 6 States with the largest number of 
     undocumented alien apprehensions; and
       (B) \1/3\ shall be set aside for areas designated as a High 
     Impact Area under subsection (d).
       (f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts appropriated for 
     grants under this section shall be used to supplement and not 
     supplant other State and local public funds obligated for the 
     purposes provided under this title.

     SEC. 604. ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize State 
     or local law enforcement agencies or their officers to 
     exercise Federal immigration law enforcement authority.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is the Border Law 
Enforcement Relief Act which I have introduced before, along with 
Senators Domenici, Cornyn, and Hutchison. I offer this amendment on 
behalf of all of us again. It provides local law enforcement agencies 
in border communities with much-needed assistance in combatting border-
related criminal activity.

[[Page 14110]]

  During the debate on the immigration bill, this same legislation was 
proposed and agreed to by the Senate with a vote of 84 in favor and 6 
against.
  For far too long, law enforcement agencies that operate along the 
border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the 
Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time the 
Federal Government recognize that border communities should not have to 
bear that burden alone.
  Specifically, the amendment establishes a competitive grant program 
within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law 
enforcement agencies that are situated along the borders cover some of 
the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, 
drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes.
  The amendment authorizes $50 million a year and enables law 
enforcement within 100 miles of the border to hire additional 
personnel, to obtain necessary equipment, and to cover the cost of 
overtime and transportation costs. Law enforcement outside of this 
geographic limit, this 100-mile limit, would be eligible if the 
Secretary of Homeland Security certified they were located in what we 
designate as a ``high impact area.''
  The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 
miles of border with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies 
that are located along the border are small. They are rural departments 
charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and with 
very limited resources. According to a 2001 study of the U.S.-Mexico 
Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice costs associated with 
illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. Counties along the 
southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in 
a good position to cover these additional costs.
  The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of 
emergency in order to provide local law enforcement with immediate 
assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is 
time, in my view, that the Federal Government step up and share some of 
that burden. So I urge my colleagues to support this important measure 
and to give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these 
challenges.
  Mr. President, I met last week with sheriffs and local police chiefs 
in communities along the southern New Mexico border with Mexico and 
talked to them about the challenges they face and the need for 
additional personnel, the need for modern equipment. Clearly, they are 
faced with a very significant challenge because of the increased 
illegal activity going on along our U.S.-Mexico border. The assistance 
provided in this amendment is assistance that would be very important 
to them in carrying out their responsibilities to the citizens of those 
communities.
  So I urge my colleagues again to support this amendment. I am 
informed this is an amendment the chairman has indicated might be 
acceptable. I am hoping we can have a vote, but I will at this point 
yield the floor until my colleague who is managing the bill can respond 
to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object for just a minute. My 
understanding is we were going to dispose of my amendment before we--
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I apologize.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4591) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 4562

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if there is a pending amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent it be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4562.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4562.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 require that any limitation, directive, or earmarking 
   contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
 accompanying this bill be included in the conference report or joint 
  statement accompanying the bill in order to be considered as having 
               been approved by both Houses of Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained 
     in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
     accompanying H.R. 5441 shall also be included in the 
     conference report or joint statement accompanying H.R. 5441 
     in order to be considered as having been approved by both 
     Houses of Congress.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment we have had several 
times on appropriations bills. It is about sunshine, pure and simple. 
What most Americans do not realize is that when conference reports come 
on appropriations bills, there are things that are added in the House 
that we in the Senate do not have any idea of what they are. They are 
not printed except in the report language. When we vote on the bill, we 
have no awareness whatsoever of what those things are.
  This is a fairly simple amendment that just ensures that every 
earmark or directive must be included in the final Homeland Security 
appropriations bill that is approved by both Chambers. The American 
people ought to get to see that, and we ought to be able to know, as 
Senators, what is in the bill.
  This amendment is for transparency. It adds to the debate, and it 
provides the American taxpayers an additional safeguard that their 
money is not wasted on unnecessary projects that might jeopardize the 
Nation's fiscal health or lessen the impact of the Homeland Security 
bill.
  The first time I offered this amendment, it was defeated. The second 
time I offered it, last year, we won it, and the third time we won it 
on separate appropriations bills. Thereafter, it was agreed to. That is 
all good and fine. But after it was done on every appropriations bill, 
it was dropped in conference, saying: We don't need to know what we are 
voting on. We don't need to have the information that we are having. 
The American people shouldn't know what we are voting on, and we 
shouldn't know what we are voting on.
  I believe this is something that we ought to put into every 
appropriations bill. We ought to know what we are voting on. We ought 
to know who is responsible for what is in there. And we ought to be 
able to go home and defend it or object to it here on the floor. But 
nobody can make a case for us not knowing what is in the bill.
  So my hope would be that the secrecy of the appropriations process or 
the sleight of hand in how things are written, so nobody can know where 
it is going or who put it there, would be eliminated. All this is is a 
sunshine amendment saying: We ought to know. My hope is we will accept 
this amendment, one, and then we will keep it in in conference so that 
when a conference bill comes back out, we can know what the House did 
on earmarks and directives, as well as knowing what we did.
  I think it is a commonsense amendment. My hope would be the chairman 
and ranking member of this committee would accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the Senator 
from Oklahoma in the area of making sure the taxpayers know where their 
money is being spent. I think it has been constructive, and I will be 
happy to accept

[[Page 14111]]

the amendment. But I do believe that at least relative to this 
appropriations bill there ought to be some recognition of the fact that 
this is probably the cleanest bill brought to the Senate in the history 
of the Senate relative to what would be deemed earmarks in the 
pejorative sense.
  I am not one of these people who subscribes to the view that the 
Congress should not earmark. I happen to believe there are a lot of 
instances where the congressional prerogative of spending the money 
requires that we do earmark in order to make the case against the 
executive branch, which can earmark unilaterally, and basically in true 
secrecy, by simply spending the money however they want to spend it 
once we give it to them. Often their direction is incorrect, and the 
purpose of the Congress should be to redirect it.
  Now, there are other earmarks, particularly like the famous ``bridge 
to nowhere,'' and other things, that may and do have serious issues. I 
would take the entire highway bill that passed the Senate--of which I 
was one of four people who voted against it, which had $24 billion of 
earmarks--as the most egregious example of when Congress got carried 
away with directing money inappropriately.
  But there is a purpose for earmarks. And this bill is a classic 
example of that, quite honestly. The amendment, for example, that was 
offered yesterday by the Senator from West Virginia could be deemed an 
earmark amendment, I suppose, because he said specifically: Coast 
Guard, you shall purchase this plane; Customs, you shall refurbish this 
plane. You shall buy armament for these Coast Guard helicopters--all of 
which benefited some district in this country. And some Member of the 
Senate benefited from that by putting out a press release, I suspect, 
that we just bought an airplane for the Coast Guard, and it is going to 
be produced in someplace or other.
  But the reason we had to do that was because the administration had 
not sent up the necessary capital improvements to make sure the Coast 
Guard had the aircraft, to make sure they had the armament on their 
helicopters, to make sure the helicopters were replaced, to make sure 
the vehicles were replaced because, for whatever reason, the Department 
of Homeland Security had not determined that those were priorities. We 
think they are priorities.
  In this bill there are no, what you would call, district earmarks to 
speak of. There are a few probably in there somewhere, but nothing of 
any significance compared to what the average bill that comes through 
this place has. I do believe when we do our job right--which is the way 
I think this bill was done--when we do not use earmarks for the 
purposes of basically addressing an individual need that is maybe not 
within the context of the basic goal of the agency--although many 
things are that are deemed earmarks, that we rather use the earmark 
structure as a way of getting agencies to do what has to be done in 
order to complete their missions appropriately--that we should get 
credit for that.
  This bill should be acknowledged as a bill that is a pretty good 
example of how this should be done right. So I appreciate the vigilance 
of the Senator from Oklahoma. He has become the watchdog of earmarks. 
And he is doing the Lord's work in many ways. I am perfectly happy to 
have sunshine on this bill because I think this bill is a classic 
example of the way it should be done.
  So has the amendment been reported, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be agreed to.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object for one 
moment, I want to make a point. The example used of the Senator from 
West Virginia is exactly the way it ought to be done. It is out in the 
open. There is direction. His name is tied to an amendment. And 
everybody in America who is watching this place knows who is doing what 
they are doing.
  This amendment is to make sure that happens. The point is not what we 
are doing. This amendment is as to what the House is doing. And I would 
confirm with the Senator, the chairman, that this is a great bill in 
terms of earmarks. There are very few in it. We study every bill to see 
where it is and what the direction is. My hope is that an example will 
be set. There are a couple of earmarks, directives in this bill we will 
be talking about in amendments, but I will tell the Senator that I 
agree and I appreciate the fact that we are seeing a little bit of a 
change in culture in that regard.
  My hope would be, also--I might ask the Senator--if he would agree to 
hold this in conference so we can see what the House does when we come 
to the conference report.
  With that, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4562) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. In response to the Senator's request that I hold this in 
conference, I have no problem in trying to hold this in conference. As 
the Senator knows, the House has a different approach to some of these 
issues. But I think this is a very reasonable request. People should 
tie their names to what they are willing to spend taxpayer dollars on. 
It should be public, as the Senator said. That is the way we should do 
it. I am perfectly happy to support that aggressively.
  Mr. COBURN. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 4561

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 4561 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4561.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 require that reports required in the bill to be submitted 
  to the Committees on Appropriations and the Department of Homeland 
  Security's annual justifications of the President's budget request 
shall be posted on the Department of Homeland Security's public website 
not later than 48 hours after such submission unless information in the 
                 report compromises national security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Any reports required in this Act and accompanying 
     reports to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     and the Department of Homeland Security's annual 
     justifications of the President's budget request shall be 
     posted on the Department of Homeland Security's public 
     website not later than 48 hours after such submission unless 
     information in the report compromises national security.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this requires public disclosure of all 
reports delivered to the Appropriations Committee, including the 
President's justification on his budget, with the exception of national 
security issues by the Department of Homeland Security, so that 
everybody can see what the request is, what the justification for the 
request is, and what the reports are.
  Unfortunately, in this bill, there is a section that requires the 
opposite. There is a directive that says they are not to release it to 
the American public, that they are only to release it to the 
Appropriations Committee. A little bit of experience: This year, when 
the President's budget request came up, and the justifications for it, 
as a U.S. Senator it was unavailable to me. It was unavailable to my 
staff. It was unavailable to any staff except Appropriations staff. 
They do a good job. But as to the justifications for the request, just 
like the Senator from New Hampshire said--we have the right of the 
purse strings. The House and the Senate have the right to say where the 
money goes. If we cannot have the justifications for why the 
President's

[[Page 14112]]

budget is so numbered and divided, then we will not have the ability to 
defend that--and that is those people outside of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  In the committee report is this sentence:

       The committee is deeply disappointed in the actions taken 
     by the Department to combine the reporting requirements of 
     this committee with other reports and then releasing the 
     results of those reports publicly prior to submission to the 
     committee. Reports to the committee are not expected to be 
     turned into publicity events again in the future.

  Well, whose business is this? It is the American people's business; 
it is not just the Appropriations Committee's business. And it is the 
other Senators' business. And it is the other Congressmen's business. 
It is not just one committee's business. They have the authority and 
the obligation to bring it to the floor, but the knowledge of what the 
President requests and the knowledge of the reports required by bills 
that we all vote on coming back to the Congress should be shared with 
the American people.
  All this amendment says is that 48 hours after they report it to the 
committee--and they should get it first; I adamantly agree they should 
see those reports first, since they are the ones who asked for them--it 
becomes on line and available to the rest of the Senators, the rest of 
the Congressmen, and, beyond that, the rest of the American people.
  Why should they not see the President's budgetary request?
  As a matter of fact, Josh Bolton, before becoming Chief of Staff for 
the President, was head of the OMB, and he agreed last year that this 
year they would put that all on line at the time they give it to the 
Appropriations Committee. This is simply another sunshine amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator, in the spirit of full 
disclosure, when we considered the asbestos bill, which the Senator 
supported, there was one corporation that would have benefited to the 
tune of more than $1 billion by that asbestos bill. In the interest of 
full disclosure of special interest groups and who is pushing 
legislation, would the Senator from Oklahoma also demand that kind of 
disclosure so we know if there is a change of a word or two, and one 
corporation, one lobbyist, or one special interest group is a big 
winner in a bill that is not an appropriations bill? Is the Senator 
from Oklahoma going to demand the same disclosure?
  Mr. COBURN. Certainly, in answer to the Senator's question. On the 
trust fund, we never got to know who was going to give the money. It 
was same thing. So there are big problems everywhere. I believe in 
sunshine everywhere. You won't see me fighting sunshine. The people of 
this country deserve to know what is in the bills, what is in the 
reports, and what is in the requests and the justifications.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I only have 45 minutes to get through three other 
amendments. I don't want to put this into a political game. What I want 
to do is talk about what the American people ought to be getting from 
us. This language ought to be changed so that we accept the 
Appropriations Committee getting the reports early, but then the 
Department of Homeland Security making it available to the rest of the 
American public, provided it doesn't have a security implication within 
it. It is a very straightforward amendment. I hope the committee will 
accept it and keep it in in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have no problem with this proposal. The 
Department will have a problem with it simply because if the Senator 
has followed the activities of this Department, their ability to 
produce the reports requested is limited or at least their efforts have 
not been stellar. In any event, it is a reasonable request. I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4561) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4585

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 4585 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4585.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 the use of funds available to the Coast Guard for 
  operating expenses for the continuation of operations of Long Range 
                Aids to Navigation stations nationwide)

       After section 539, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. None of the amounts available or otherwise 
     available to the Coast Guard under title II of this Act under 
     the heading ``United States Coast Guard'' under the heading 
     ``operating expenses'' may be obligated or expended for the 
     continuation of operations at Long Range Aids to Navigation 
     (LORAN) stations nationwide.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I know there is going to be a radical 
difference of opinion on this amendment. Let me explain. This is about 
the LORAN stations nationwide. This is an old-time aid to navigation 
that this bill has requested another study of. This has been studied. 
There are volumes of reports from every agency of the Federal 
Government that has anything to do with this. All of them say we don't 
need this system anymore.
  LORAN stands for long-range aids to navigation. The original LORAN-A 
system was developed during World War II. LORAN-C, where we are today, 
was developed during the 1950s and 1960s. There are 24 LORAN stations 
across the United States. One of them is actually in my State.
  These stations send out radio signals and LORAN receivers on board 
vessels and aircraft measure the differences in the time that it takes 
for a signal to come back and determine both the longitudinal and 
latitudinal positions. It is used rarely for some civilian navigation, 
but it is no longer a primary source for civilian navigation needs 
because it has been replaced with a far superior system called global 
positioning or a satellite-based system. That has been totally 
functioning since 1994.
  The plan was released February 10, 2006. It was prepared by the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the 
Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard requested to terminate 
this program. There is no longer a need for the Coast Guard for either 
primary or secondary. If GPS fails, there are other systems that back 
it up besides LORAN. And it is not needed for the Department of 
Transportation. The Department of Defense said they don't need it. The 
Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and the FAA said they 
do not need it. In this bill, it calls for DHS and DOT to submit a 
report to the Senate Appropriations Committee that requires them to 
come up with excuses to continue the LORAN operation. Here is the 
report.
  I would like to submit for the Record the report and also the 
statement of administration policy on this.
  The administration objects to this provision because it is going to 
postpone the inevitable. This is a program that we don't need. Every 
agency of the Federal Government that uses this program or has been 
involved with it says they don't need it anymore. There are special 
interests that might want it, but the country doesn't need it. The 
Government doesn't need it. You don't need it for navigational 
purposes.
  I am quoting now:

       The Department of Transportation has conducted numerous 
     studies that make clear that the benefits of terminating the 
     LORAN system far outweigh the costs. Furthermore, as 
     discussed in the Subcommittee Report, the Global Positioning 
     System is a far superior navigational aid, with sufficient 
     backup capabilities in place to meet the Coast Guard's needs 
     for the Maritime Transportation System [and to meet the FAA's 
     need

[[Page 14113]]

     for air travel, and the Department of Homeland Security, as 
     well as the Department of Transportation].

  I ask unanimous consent to print that in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Statement of Administration Policy, July 12, 2006


H.R. 5441--department of homeland security appropriations bill, fy 2007

       The Administration supports Senate passage of the FY 2007 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, as 
     reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
       The President's FY 2007 Budget holds total discretionary 
     spending to $872.8 billion and cuts non-security 
     discretionary spending below last year's level. The Budget 
     funds priorities and meets these limits by proposing to 
     reform, reduce, or terminate 141 lower-priority programs. The 
     Administration urges Congress to fund priority needs while 
     holding spending to these limits, and objects to the use of 
     gimmicks to meet those limits. The Administration looks 
     forward to working with Congress to adopt the President's 
     proposals to cut wasteful spending in order to maintain 
     fiscal discipline to protect the American taxpayer and 
     sustain a strong economy.
       Although the bill is largely supportive of the President's 
     request, the Administration would like to take this 
     opportunity to share additional views regarding the 
     Committee's version of the bill.
     Border and Transportation Security
       The Administration appreciates the funding provided by the 
     Committee for border and immigration enforcement and strongly 
     urges the Senate to fully fund 1,500 new Border Patrol agents 
     and 6,700 additional detention beds and associated costs, as 
     requested. On May 15th, the President outlined his five-part 
     plan for comprehensive immigration reform. The Administration 
     is committed to securing the resources necessary to gain 
     control of the border through deployment of additional Border 
     Patrol agents, as well as adding infrastructure and 
     technology, such as access roads, fences, vehicle barriers, 
     tactical communications, and aerial surveillance. These 
     resources, coupled with additional legal authority from 
     Congress, will end the practice of ``catch and release'' 
     along the southern border by increasing detention and removal 
     capabilities. The Administration is committed to working with 
     Congress to implement an immigration enforcement strategy 
     that will give our law enforcement authorities operational 
     control of our Nation's borders as a part of the 
     Administration's comprehensive immigration reform initiative.
       The Administration is concerned that the Committee did not 
     include the requested increase for aviation security 
     passenger fees. The Senate is urged to include this provision 
     to ensure that the direct beneficiaries of aviation security 
     measures bear a greater share of the cost of implementing and 
     maintaining a secure screening system.
       The Administration strongly supports the provision to 
     provide the Department with the flexibility to employ a risk-
     based strategy for focusing aviation screening resources on 
     significant and emerging threats to aviation security. The 
     Administration supports section 524 of the Committee's 
     proposed bill that will provide additional direction to the 
     Department and information to Congress on protection of 
     Sensitive Security Information without compromising security.
     State and Local Programs
       While the Administration appreciates the Committee's 
     commitment to State and local grant and training programs, 
     the funding provided does not effectively target Department 
     of Homeland Security (DHS) resources. Overall funding for 
     programs administered by the Office of Grants and Training is 
     $504 million above the President's request, providing 
     resources to lower priority programs that support individual 
     infrastructure sectors or organizations and emphasize basic 
     response equipment for local agencies. Resources should be 
     shifted to fully fund programs that target high-risk targets 
     and combine security efforts across the Nation's 
     infrastructure sectors such as the Urban Areas Security 
     Initiative and the proposed Targeted Infrastructure 
     Protection Program. The Administration also urges the Senate 
     to fully fund the Citizens Corps initiative, which helps to 
     encourage greater citizen participation in local preparedness 
     efforts.
     Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
       The Administration appreciates the Committee's support of 
     FEMA's core operating expenses, flood map modernization, and 
     the pre-disaster mitigation grant program. The funding 
     provided for the pre-disaster mitigation grant program will 
     protect people and buildings from flood damage, earthquakes, 
     and wind damage from hurricanes and tornados. The 
     Administration also strongly supports the transfer of the 
     National Disaster Medical System to the Department of Health 
     and Human Services, consistent with the recommendations of 
     the White House Katrina `Lessons Learned' report.
       The Administration strongly urges the Senate to provide the 
     full request level for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The 
     amount provided for the DRF is $316 million below the 
     President's request. The requested funding is based on the 
     five-year average of total disaster costs, excluding large 
     one-time events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Full 
     funding of the DRF is important to ensure that DHS is able to 
     respond appropriately to the Nation's unforeseen events and 
     natural disasters.
     Management
       The Administration strongly opposes any effort to reduce or 
     eliminate funding for the DHS MAX HR initiative. This human 
     resource management system is designed to meet the diverse 
     personnel pay and benefit requirements of DHS.
       The Administration is concerned that funding for the design 
     and buildout of a new Coast Guard Headquarters at the St. 
     Elizabeth's campus was not included in the bill and urges 
     that it be restored. This facility has been identified by the 
     General Services Administration as the only Federally-owned 
     secure campus readily available in Washington, D.C. It is 
     critical that the Coast Guard headquarters be constructed in 
     a timely manner and these funds are needed to ensure the 
     facility is constructed on schedule, address serious spatial 
     needs of the agency, and support infrastructure development 
     for eventual tenancy by other DHS components.
     Coast Guard
       The Administration strongly objects to the provision that 
     would postpone decommissioning of the LORAN system and would 
     require additional cost-benefit analysis. The Department of 
     Transportation has conducted numerous studies that make clear 
     that the benefits of terminating the LORAN system far 
     outweigh the costs. Furthermore, as discussed in the 
     Subcommittee Report, the Global Positioning System is a far 
     superior navigational aid, with sufficient backup 
     capabilities in place to meet the Coast Guard's needs for the 
     Maritime Transportation System.
     Secret Service
       The Administration urges the Senate to include the 
     establishment of a Special Event Fund to meet the unique 
     security needs of the Secret Service to be prepared for 
     special events. These funds have been requested in a separate 
     account to ensure that resources are dedicated to meet 
     special events overtime and travel needs.
     Citizenship and Immigration Services
       The Administration appreciates the funding provided for 
     expansion and improvements to immigration verification 
     systems to more effectively verify employment eligibility and 
     benefit records. These resources support the Administration's 
     comprehensive immigration reform initiative, and the 
     Administration urges the Senate to fully fund efforts to 
     automate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business 
     processes and systems, which will improve its ability to 
     collect, process, and provide immigration-related benefits.
     Science and Technology
       The Administration appreciates the funding provided by the 
     Senate supporting the Department's research, development, 
     test and evaluation (RDTE) requirements. However, the 
     Administration strongly urges the Senate to restore the 
     Management and Administration appropriation funding needed to 
     ensure the necessary resources for the proper planning, 
     prioritization, management, execution, and oversight of the 
     RDTE programs.
       The Administration is opposed to the transfer of the 
     Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) and explosives 
     threat funding from Science and Technology (S&T) to the 
     Transportation Security Administration. S&T is best 
     positioned to prioritize, develop, and execute the innovative 
     research programs necessary to achieve significant results 
     against explosive threats. S&T is also best suited to foster 
     the research and development capabilities of the TSL and 
     leverage these capabilities to support the entire Department.
     Preparedness
       The reduction in funding for the National Preparedness 
     Integration Plan will limit the ability of the Preparedness 
     Directorate to implement initiatives based on Katrina 
     `Lessons Learned' recommendations. At the funding level 
     proposed by the Senate, the program will not be able to 
     support needed improvements in telecommunications 
     capabilities. DHS will work with Congress to better define 
     the role of the proposed Federal Preparedness Coordinators, 
     and avoid duplication of other DHS functions.
       The Administration is also concerned about the aggregate 
     reduction of $24 million from the request for funding of 
     Infrastructure Protection and Information Security 
     activities. The $20 million reduction in the National 
     Security/Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications program 
     will diminish the ability to provide priority wireless 
     connectivity in disaster-affected areas and implement 
     recommended improvements from the Administration and Congress 
     to emergency communications infrastructure.

[[Page 14114]]


     Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
       The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for 
     the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), but strongly 
     recommends that the full funding requested be provided. This 
     initiative is a priority of the Administration and failure to 
     fully fund DNDO research and development programs will 
     appreciably delay the availability of new technologies for 
     detecting radiological and nuclear materials in cargo, at our 
     borders, and elsewhere. Specific reductions in funding will 
     delay the deployment of next-generation equipment for 
     detecting nuclear devices; hinder efforts to leverage the 
     research capabilities of our Nation's universities; and delay 
     efforts to track the source of radioactive materials.
     Competitive Sourcing
       The Administration strongly opposes provisions that limit 
     competitive sourcing. Section 516 imposes a legislative 
     restriction on the use of competitive sourcing for work 
     performed by the Immigration Information Officers at the U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services, and section 537 
     overrides Executive Branch discretion to consider public-
     private competition by dictating that commercial classroom 
     training performed at the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center is an inherently governmental activity. Precluding 
     public-private competition for performance of these 
     activities deprives the Department of the operational 
     efficiencies to be gained by competition, and limits its 
     ability to direct Federal resources to other priorities.
       Management decisions about public-private competition, and 
     accountability for results, should be vested with the 
     Department. On a Government-wide basis, the improvements set 
     in motion by competitions completed between FY 2003 and FY 
     2005 will generate an estimated savings that will grow to 
     over $5 billion over the next 10 years. The Senate is urged 
     to strike these restrictions.
     Reports and Penalties
       While the Administration understands the need for prompt 
     delivery of reports to Congress and makes every effort to do 
     so, the Committee's requirement to deliver reports on 
     complicated matters before receiving funding could inhibit 
     the Department's efforts to carry out its mission.
     Constitutional Concerns
       Several provisions of the bill purport to require approval 
     of the Committees prior to Executive Branch action. These 
     provisions are found under the following headings: ``United 
     States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology''; 
     ``Automation Modernization,'' ``Technology Modernization,'' 
     and ``Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, 
     and Procurement,'' within Customs and Border Protection; 
     ``Automation Modernization'' Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement; ``Protection, Administration, and Training,'' 
     United States Secret Service; ``Management and 
     Administration,'' Preparedness and Recovery Preparedness; 
     ``Management and Administration,'' Science and Technology; 
     and section 509. Since these provisions would contradict the 
     Supreme Court's ruling in INS v. Chadha, they should be 
     changed to require only notification of Congress.
       Section 521 of the bill, relating to privacy officer 
     reports, should be stricken as inconsistent with the 
     President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary 
     executive branch.

  Mr. COBURN. I draw the attention of my colleagues to the formal 
report on the LORAN system as put forward by the three agencies.
  We are going to hear debate that there is not sufficient backup. Let 
me answer that first. The 2005 Federal Radio Navigational Plan reported 
that the U.S. Coast Guard has determined that there are backups. LORAN 
is not needed for it. In case there is a GPS failure, conventional 
navigation is used, using all available equipment which includes GPS, 
DGPS, radar, lights, buoys, celestial navigation, daymarks, and dead 
reckoning. There are seven backups besides this.
  Coast Guard Congressional Affairs has indicated that LORAN is one of 
many backups. It is not needed for aviation backup. They have very 
high-frequency omnidirectional beacons that give the same backup. 
Distance measuring equipment, the ILS systems, a backup to GPS, it is 
not going to be long when we won't even have ILS systems at airports. 
We will probably have somebody who wants to keep those in. The fact is, 
we need to recognize the technology. These dollars would be better 
spent somewhere else.
  The Coast Guard is going to spend $35 million in 2007 on operations 
and the maintenance of the LORAN system. The Federal Aviation 
Administration will spend between $15 and $25 million on 
recapitalization. The Coast Guard tried to start getting rid of this in 
2000. The FAA at that time said they still needed it. They now no 
longer need it. It will take another 6 to 10 years and another $300 
million to complete the recapitalization that was mandated since 2000 
for a program this isn't needed.
  Here are the savings: $500 million over the next 7 years if we go on 
and terminate a program that we don't need and nobody needs as a 
backup.
  The Senate report on this bill and the proponents of LORAN will claim 
that GPS used along with LORAN provides the most accurate positioning. 
That is one of the claims. They aren't even used in tandem anymore. If 
you are looking at GPS, you don't use the LORAN system. And GPS is far 
superior to anything that LORAN could give us. One of the claims will 
be that shutting down will adversely affect other Federal agencies that 
use LORAN. The navigational plan asked for by this Congress indicated 
that it is no longer a mission-essential device. It is not needed for 
either a primary or secondary source for positioning, navigation, or 
timing for the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, 
or the Department of Homeland Security. Who is that? That is the FAA, 
the Maritime Commission, the Coast Guard, all of them saying: We don't 
need this. Yet we are going to spend another $500 million over the next 
7 years if we don't get rid of it.
  So it is simple. Somebody wants it, yes. Why? There are special 
interests that will want this to continue. But the fact is, a half a 
billion dollars is a lot of money that we don't have. We ought to 
eliminate this program. I know there are others who disagree with that. 
I look forward to the debate.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. 
Certainly, I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to 
terminate the LORAN program. This is a program that affects a lot of 
our small airplanes, maritime safety, their ability to communicate in 
the Pacific Northwest waters. I know Senator Stevens from Alaska has a 
deep concern about this as well.
  We know that at some point the LORAN system is going to be changed. 
The problem is that the Coast Guard alone, which I have tremendous 
respect for, made a decision to terminate the LORAN system without 
talking to the FAA, without talking to DOD, and without talking to many 
of the other users of the LORAN system. This bill makes sure that as we 
move toward a new structure within the waters in the area of the 
Pacific Northwest and up into Alaska and other places along the coast, 
we do it in a way that makes sure that all of the users of the system 
are not impacted in a way that makes them unsafe or their travels 
unsafe.
  It is unwise for us to terminate this program without the consent and 
the understanding of these other organizations. We had a debate about 
this in the Appropriations Committee. The committee agreed with us that 
as we move forward on the termination of the LORAN program, we need to 
make sure that the Department of Defense, the FAA, small maritime 
users, and everybody who relies on this for safety in the waters along 
coastal regions is on board and we move forward in a way that doesn't 
cause any harm to any of the users of the system.
  I respect the Senator in trying to eliminate funding and trying to 
make sure that we are making the best use of public resources. But it 
has to be done in a way that doesn't impact the safety of our many 
maritime and airline users.
  I will oppose the amendment. I know Senator Stevens from Alaska has 
been very involved in the debate. I believe he is on his way to the 
floor as well. I urge our colleagues to listen carefully to the safety 
and the use of many people in our coastal waters as we move forward on 
the matter of closure of the LORAN system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this language was added to the bill in 
committee. It did not arise out of the original mark. I opposed the 
addition of this

[[Page 14115]]

language because I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. I have a lot 
of confidence in the Coast Guard. In fact, within this agency, the 
Coast Guard is clearly one of the best run, most efficient and most 
professional groups in our entire Government. The Coast Guard has come 
to the conclusion they don't need the system, that it is ancillary to 
the basic needs of navigation.
  It is a lot like maintaining a black-and-white television when 
everybody has gone to color--or high definition now. Hand-held GPSs are 
like little telephones. You can carry them anywhere. The accuracy and 
instantaneous locating of those devices is extraordinary, especially 
compared to LORAN.
  There is no need to keep this black-and-white technology. We should 
phase it out. The Coast Guard has come up with a plan for doing that. 
We can save some money, and with that money we can put it into other 
things the Coast Guard does need. I support the amendment.
  There are other Members who wish to speak. I don't think we should go 
to a vote until we have given people the time to come and put their 2 
cents in. I support the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a couple of comments to the Senator 
from Washington State. LORAN won't go away if this instruction for this 
study is taken out. There are still 4 years that LORAN will be there 
under the Coast Guard's plan. I also remind the Senator that the FAA 
has already said they don't need it. The Maritime Commission has said 
they don't need it. The Coast Guard has said they don't need it. Who 
needs it when we have other backups? It is true that in 2000 the FAA 
said we don't have sufficient backup to eliminate LORAN. They have 
since, in the report--the study that has already been made--said they 
don't need it. So this is a report to extend the life of LORAN, 
something that we don't need.
  I know the Senator from Alaska will oppose this. I look forward to a 
vigorous debate with him.
  I will soon ask unanimous consent again to submit the 2005 Federal 
radio navigational plan into the Record so everybody can see all the 
claims that have been made by the groups that supposedly don't need it. 
The plan has already been done. It is not required as a navigational 
backup.
  Now, will some people somewhere want to get a better navigational 
system? Yes. You can buy a GPS system for a boat now for about $300 and 
you can have something far superior than LORAN ever was or you can use 
the VOR system or one of the myriad--seven other backups for maritime 
without using LORAN.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside, 
and I will call up another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. COBURN. 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. 4589

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4589 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4589.

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

  (Purpose: To reduce appropriations available for certain training, 
          exercises, technical assistance, and other programs)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Nothwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amount made available in title III of this Act under the 
     heading ``Office for Domestic Preparedness, State and Local 
     Programs'' is reduced by $25,000,000 and the amount made 
     available under such heading for ``training, exercises, 
     technical assistance, and other programs'' is reduced by 
     $25,000,000

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. The 
Improper Payment Information Act was enacted in 2002. It was very 
specific, and Congress was very wise to do it. What it said is that the 
agencies have to make an assessment of improper payments.
  Now, what the American people don't know is that at least $65 billion 
in improper payments--payments made by the Federal Government to people 
who don't deserve to get them--are made every year. Think about that: 
$1.6 billion in food stamps; $20-some billion at the Pentagon; $42 
billion in Medicare improper payments; $30 billion in Medicaid improper 
payments. So the $60 billion number I quote is a very conservative 
estimate.
  What we saw with Katrina is that tons of improper payments were made. 
But we had the Department of Homeland Security say they didn't have any 
improper payments. That is what they asserted to this Congress in 2005. 
The fact is that they didn't do the studies which were necessary to 
assess whether they were at risk. The $65 billion that I quote 
represents only 18 of 70 entities of the Federal Government, and it is 
only 18 out of 70 that are reporting.
  The Department of Homeland Security, in its fiscal year 2004 
performance and accountability report, said none of its programs or 
activities were deemed to be at significant risk for making improper 
payments. The OMB put some special definitions on what that is. It is 
$10 million or 2.5 percent. We know of at least a billion dollars that 
has been wasted in Katrina that we can document right now. The 
Department has since admitted they are finding and reporting improper 
payments for 2005 that were not in full compliance with the law.
  We are seeing that everywhere in my Subcommittee on Federal Financial 
Management, where we look at these agencies. They actually ignore the 
law and don't make a concerted effort. Senator Obama and I asked in 
September that a chief financial officer be set up in terms of the 
response in September of last year to Katrina. We never got that 
through, but had we gotten that through, we would be a billion dollars 
ahead of where we are today, just in terms of the funds for Katrina.
  The price tag is going to be over $200 billion in Federal money by 
the time we finish. If you take the rate of improper payments within 
DHS just in terms of Katrina, we are probably going to have $2 billion 
or $3 billion in improper payments.
  For the record, I believe it is important that the American public 
know why we ought to be having an assessment of how we spend our money. 
Sixteen percent of the dollars and assistance initially spent after 
Katrina and Rita was spent on divorce, sex changes--bogus things--and 
$1.5 million went to credit card waste, a 1-week Caribbean vacation, 
five season tickets to the New Orleans Saints, and Dom Perignon in San 
Antonio. A thousand credit cards were given to people with Social 
Security numbers belonging to State and Federal prisoners, and $14,000 
was given to an inmate in a Louisiana jail. Subcontracting--we were to 
pay, on average, $32 per cubic yard for debris removal, but the actual 
cost was $68. We had the rest taken up in layers of subcontractors. I 
could go on and on, but I will not.
  This amendment gives a million dollars to the Chief Financial Officer 
of the Department of Homeland Security and says: Do improper payments 
reporting. I ask that this be accepted by the committee because it 
makes common sense and we have a real problem in Homeland Security with 
waste, fraud, and abuse. To start fixing that, we must know what the 
problem is.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I could not agree more. As far as the 
million dollars, I am happy to reallocate it toward this activity. This 
is a huge amount, but I don't think it should be understated how much 
effort is being made to try to figure out how much in the way of funds 
has been either mishandled, fraudulently handled, wasted, and the first 
cut just on the individual side is $1.8 billion. As a result of 
Katrina, the number is going to be

[[Page 14116]]

much higher when they get into the public area of rebuilding roads, 
schools, and hospitals. However, the Department is trying, and 
certainly the inspector general of the Department is trying very hard. 
He has a very highly structured task force--a series of them--to try to 
manage these dollars. The results are not too complete. We are starting 
to get hard information, but dollars have been wasted, and it is 
inexcusable. If this technical accounting process is something that 
should be followed, I have no problem with proceeding in this way.
  I don't want to imply that this is going to resolve the problem. The 
problem is much bigger than this. The issue is whether the inspector 
general can get his arms around everything that has happened down 
there. You are not only dealing necessarily with the Federal folks who 
are giving us the issues; there are a lot of local and State issues 
about how Federal money is being spent here that is very questionable. 
Unfortunately, people took advantage of the American taxpayers' 
compassion for folks who have been devastated in that part of the 
country. Some people saw that as an opportunity to take advantage of 
the American taxpayers. We are very creative people sometimes in that 
area, and unfortunately it happened.
  There is a genuine effort to try to make sure the money is spent 
effectively, and there is an equally genuine effort by the inspector 
general to follow up on money that has not been spent correctly. So I 
welcome this effort as part of the fight to make sure tax dollars are 
spent effectively.
  I ask that the amendment be agreed to.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I made an error in the number of the 
amendment I called up. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
set aside and the true number be 4590 instead of 4589 and that the 
debate be considered with regard to No. 4590 rather than 4589.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the chairman for a 
minute. I know this isn't going to solve the problem. This takes away 
the excuse for not doing proper payment analysis at the Department of 
Homeland Security. I know they are working hard in that regard.
  Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Alaska is here. I wonder 
if we might recall amendment No. 4585.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to report 4590 first?


                           Amendment No. 4590

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4590 be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4590.

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

  (Purpose: To make appropriations available for the Chief Financial 
  Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure compliance 
  with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 
                                 note)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     $1,000,000 shall be made available from appropriations for 
     training, exercises, technical assistance, and other programs 
     under paragraph (4) under the subheading ``state and local 
     programs'' under the heading ``Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness'' under title III, for the Chief Financial 
     Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure 
     compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 
     (31 U.S.C. 3321 note).

  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, is that the pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the amendment that was just brought 
up. That was the amendment that was the subject of the previous 
discussion.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, can I clarify? It is very confusing. The 
Senator from Oklahoma called up the wrong amendment. Would the Chair 
explain exactly what is the pending amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. The pending amendment is exactly as I described. It is an 
amendment that moves $1 million to the chief financial officer of 
Homeland Security so they will do the improper payments report.
  Mr. GREGG. I believe that amendment has been agreed to and disposed 
of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think the problem is the Senator mentioned 
the wrong number. It is not 4589; it is 4590, and the Senate agreed to 
4590.
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed 
to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Has that amendment been agreed to or set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sent up amendment No. 4589. It was 
his intent to send up amendment No. 4590. He asked that amendment No. 
4589 be set aside, and we now reported amendment No. 4590.
  Mr. GREGG. Has it been reported yet?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been reported as the pending amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what is this amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. This deals with the transfer of $1 million to the finance 
officer.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, simply to 
clarify, so we are all on the same page, the chairman of the committee 
is asking that we agree to the amendment that was just debated, that 
was called up, that the Senator had the wrong number; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Right.
  Mr. GREGG. And this is the amendment dealing with the transfer of $1 
million to the finance officer.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is asking us to agree to that amendment that 
was debated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
  Mr. GREGG. Now the pending amendment is the amendment on LORAN.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to amendment No. 4590 being 
agreed to, the $1 million amendment? Without objection, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4590) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4585

  Mr. GREGG. And the pending business is the LORAN amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now the pending question is amendment No. 
4589.
  Mr. GREGG. That is not the LORAN amendment. We set that one aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Apparently amendment No. 4589 and amendment 
No. 4585 are both pending.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
4585 be called up at this time, which is, as I understand, the LORAN 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The clerk will report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, may I clarify then that amendment No. 
4585 is pending? From what I understand from the Chair, both amendments 
are pending. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4589 be laid 
aside and that the pending amendment be amendment No. 4585.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Just for the clarification of the Senate, we are now back 
on the LORAN amendment; is that correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As far as I can tell.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there a time limit on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma will delete an amendment I offered in committee. This is what 
it says:

       The committee denies the request to terminate operations at 
     LORAN stations nationwide and directs the Secretary to 
     refrain

[[Page 14117]]

     from taking any steps to reduce operations at such stations. 
     The committee further directs the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Transportation, to submit a report to 
     the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce Committee 
     regarding the future of the LORAN system. The report shall 
     include the cost benefits, the merits of maintaining the 
     LORAN system as a backup navigational aid, and the benefits 
     of using the LORAN system in conjunction with the global 
     positions system. The report shall be submitted to the 
     committee within 180 days of enactment of this act.

  I did hear my good friend from Oklahoma indicate he would like to 
have some vigorous debate. I don't know how vigorous it is going to be. 
I do want to tell the Senate that this amendment means a great deal to 
my State, obviously, with half the coastline of the United States, with 
a number of areas that are affected by this LORAN system.
  The LORAN system has not been modernized in my State, although it has 
been in all the rest of the country. In recent years, we have 
appropriated approximately $160 million to the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Coast Guard to modernize the LORAN structure 
through an existing interagency memorandum of agreement that existed 
between the two agencies. The recapitalization primarily came through 
the FAA budget, while the Coast Guard has provided resources to operate 
and maintain this system.
  The proposal to terminate LORAN was not coordinated with the 
Department of Transportation or the FAA and certainly was not 
coordinated with my State. The decision to terminate this system should 
not unilaterally be controlled by the Coast Guard.
  I am constrained to tell the Senate, this is just another example of 
the problems of representing the largest State in the Union with 
agencies that are not properly represented in our State.
  The LORAN system was originally developed as a radio navigational 
service for coastal waters and was later expanded to include complete 
coverage of the Continental U.S., as well as all of Alaska. Originally, 
it really was designed for an area like the coastal waters off our 
State.
  LORAN-C provides coverage for maritime navigation in the U.S. coastal 
areas, particularly in Alaska, and provides navigation, location, and 
timing services for civil and military air, land, and marine users.
  We welcome the advent of the global positioning system. It is an 
invaluable navigational aid. The LORAN system uses a very strong 
wavelength and signal strength which enables it to penetrate areas 
where GPS has difficulty and will not work because of line-of-sight 
blockage.
  The LORAN system is an independent system. It can serve as a backup 
for GPS. Until the people who have equipment to use LORAN are able to 
switch to GPS and have it be shown that GPS will work in every area 
where it is necessary to navigate--I remind the Senate, 70 percent of 
the cities in my State can be reached only by air. We have the largest 
area and the largest involvement in fishing in the Nation. Over half of 
the fish consumed in the United States comes from Alaska.
  This is an independent system and really it ought to be maintained as 
a backup to the GPS, in our opinion, at least until the complete 
modernization of the older vessels and the older airplanes that were 
designed to use LORAN.
  The modernization of LORAN is almost complete. As I said, we spent 
$160 million in the past few years to do that. It can be used as a 
backup to GPS to better produce an estimate of location than either 
system acting alone.
  The LORAN system is a national asset. Again I say, it was not 
coordinated with the Department of Transportation, particularly the 
FAA, in terms of making this recommendation.
  It just so happens that the first weekend of the last recess, just 10 
days ago, I had occasion to travel with my son down one river and up 
another in Alaska in a vessel that had GPS. He is a qualified pilot for 
any vessel in the United States. At one point, at around 11 o'clock at 
night, we were traveling through a fog. We were talking about the 
navigational systems. The difficulty people have is they don't 
understand what it means to live in an area where it can be dark for 
several months and operating in a fog at night--all day long, as a 
matter of fact, in darkness in some instances.
  The fisheries vessels and the systems off our State depend on LORAN 
for accurate positioning. It is true that GPS is a better system where 
it works better, but it has not had the findings and analysis that this 
committee amendment asks be prepared. That is, the Secretary of 
Commerce is asked to make a study, along with the Secretary of 
Transportation, and report to us the analysis of the cost-benefits of 
this LORAN system, the merits of maintaining it as a backup 
navigational aid, and give us that within 180 days.
  In other words, for 180 days, we have a hiatus to determine whether 
we should follow the report made by the Coast Guard or whether we 
should listen to those involved in the fishing systems and in the 
aviation systems in a State such as mine.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for a 
question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska just made a point 
that I think is critical that we understand. During the debate prior to 
the Senator coming to the floor, the point was made by the Senator from 
Oklahoma that there are a number of other backup systems that are 
available to users of the system in the coastal waters off Alaska and 
other States.
  From what I just heard from the Senator from Alaska--and I want to 
clarify this--because of the mountainous regions, because of the 
inaccessibility and a lot of the difficult geographic locations that 
exist within his State, we are not positive that many of those backup 
systems work; is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are 
areas in our State where GPS does not provide the accuracy it does in 
other places because of the line-of-sight problem, whereas because of 
the very strong wavelength and signal strength LORAN puts out, 
particularly the modernized LORAN-C, it is an absolute necessity right 
now.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator then, what he is saying 
to us is it could, indeed, put many people at risk because we do not 
know yet whether those systems are working in many of the geographic 
locations within his State?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is absolutely right. We just cannot 
terminate this system all at once. It is true it can be phased out in 
many places in the country without any harm to anybody. But the people 
who rely on the system right now as the sole source of their navigation 
should not be abandoned.
  As a matter of fact, I have prepared a second-degree amendment which 
I will be glad to offer if the Senator from Oklahoma does not 
understand our situation. It is a second-degree amendment which would 
delete the amendment, as the Senator wishes, but substitute for it a 
complete indemnity by the United States of any harm that comes to any 
person who presently is relying on LORAN because they cannot have 
navigation capability.
  We believe there is going to be substantial harm to a lot of people 
if this is not done right. The current system just says ``terminate.'' 
If they did so by cost-benefit analysis on a nationwide basis, they did 
not do it on a cost-benefit analysis in the area where it is needed. 
``Where it is needed'' is what makes a difference.
  We do not say this program should exist forever. We believe in the 
final analysis that it probably will be terminated. But when it is 
terminated, it should be phased out on a geographical basis so it stays 
in effect in the areas where it is absolutely needed until it can be 
replaced by a system which would have to upgrade GPS, and that is not 
in the plan of the Department of Commerce at all.
  I think this is wrong to take out our amendment. I believe the 
amendment is a reasonable one. All it says is we postpone the 
termination operations.

[[Page 14118]]

We refrain from taking steps to reduce operations at these stations 
where they are needed. If that is not acceptable to the Senate, then I 
say, all right. If the Senate, in its wisdom, is going to take a total 
cost and benefit analysis on a nationwide basis and leave people who 
depend on this system now completely without a navigation system they 
can rely on, then they should be indemnified for any harm that comes to 
them as a result of the premature termination of this system.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. I want 
to clarify something which is just my understanding, and please correct 
me if I am wrong.
  The GPS is never limited by line of sight. It is a satellite. It is 
the LORAN system that is limited by line of sight. The mountainous 
structures in Alaska limit the LORAN system. GPS is far superior to the 
LORAN system. That is accurate. Both as a pilot I know that and from 
what we have said.
  The other point that I would make--
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I could just answer that.
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right, but at the same time, he is wrong. 
Satellites don't work everywhere in Alaska because of problems in 
updating their signal. The same is true for GPS. You must have a 
satellite signal that can reach for GPS.
  Mr. COBURN. I would concede that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Many places in our State did not have access to GPS 
because the satellite is not ubiquitous for the world. It does not come 
down in some places of our State.
  Mr. COBURN. I would concede to the Senator that there are occasional 
times that the GPS cannot be utilized. I would concede that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want to make certain, Mr. President, that the Senator 
understands what I am saying. There are places where GPS cannot be 
accessed in Alaska.
  Mr. COBURN. There are also places where LORAN cannot be accessed in 
Alaska today.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is true, in some places. But where it has been 
operating, LORAN is relied upon in places where GPS cannot reach.
  Mr. COBURN. I would concede to the Senator that LORAN can be used in 
places where GPS cannot be utilized. But I would also concede that the 
study that asked for this has already been done. Everything that this 
study asked for has already been put forward. The 2005 Federal 
Radionavigation Plan answers every question you have asked in this 
amendment.
  What the Department of Transportation says, what the FAA says, what 
the Maritime Commission says, what the U.S. Coast Guard says is LORAN 
is not needed for a backup for a navigational system anywhere in this 
country. That is what they say, and that is what you are asking for. 
They have also done a cost-benefit analysis, and they have said, 
without question, the cost-benefit is on the side of eliminating LORAN.
  Let's talk about what it will cost. The Government estimates it will 
cost $300 million to upgrade the LORAN system in Alaska over the next 6 
to 7 years. And what they are certifying--and I understand the concern 
of the Senator from Alaska because some people might not have a system 
they are used to today. But when these agencies certified that LORAN is 
not needed as a secondary backup, that is what you are asking them for 
in the study, and they have already said it is not needed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? That is not what I am asking 
for.
  Mr. COBURN. I will finish my point, and then I will turn the time 
over to the Senator.
  Mr. President, the Federal Radionavigation Plan is a 120-page report. 
Let me just go through it real quickly.
  FAA has said: Sufficient alternative navigational aids exist in the 
event of a loss of GPS-based services. They have VOR, which they have 
in Alaska.
  The Maritime Administration determined that there would not be 
significant disruption in the movement of vessels in and out of U.S. 
ports or affect commercial enterprises as traditional aids to 
navigation are still in use and capable.
  The Department of Homeland Security has determined that LORAN-C is 
not needed as a backup for timing users, as adequate alternatives are 
already in place.
  The Federal Railroad Administration said they have no need for LORAN.
  The bottom line: The accuracy of LORAN in these areas can be equally 
degraded and compromised, and therefore, there would be no material 
degradation in navigational safety should GPS be the only RNAV source 
for Alaska. Traditional backups for maritime navigation would still be 
in place: VTSs, buoys, ranges, radar, lighthouses, and fathometers. 
Since 1997, $160 million has been appropriated to recapitalize LORAN. 
$117.5 million of that has been transferred to the Coast Guard. It is 
estimated that it will take another 6 to 10 years and $300-plus million 
to recapitalize that.
  The point is, even without the amendment of the Senator from Alaska, 
his addition in committee, it is 4 years before this is decommissioned. 
So it gives 4 years for anybody who has any problem with it a chance to 
adjust to that problem.
  I would offer to the Senator from Alaska that there might be a 
compromise that we could discuss in keeping LORAN working just for 
Alaska where there is a problem, rather than keeping LORAN working 
everywhere else there is not a problem. I would suggest there may be a 
compromise to address the issues of concern that the Senator from 
Alaska has, that would also save us a considerable amount of money and 
solve his problems with those who feel at risk without elimination of 
LORAN. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is quite generous in his 
suggestion, but I have to say that we heard on April 18 of this year 
from the Department of Transportation the following:

       The Department of Transportation has not formulated a 
     position regarding the future of LORAN. It is our hope, 
     however, that it will be possible, consistent with the 
     Federal Radionavigation Plan, for the administration to 
     announce a final, fully considered decision before the end of 
     the calendar year. That decision should be made 
     collaboratively with due regard for the mandates in NSPD 39 
     relating the identification of a backup for GPS.

  In terms of where we live on the Pacific, the problem is we 
appropriated the money for modernization of LORAN but, unfortunately, 
it was improved in areas where it wasn't needed anymore, and in the 
area where it is still needed, it was not.
  We are in a situation now where our people still rely upon LORAN. We 
were told that the Department of Transportation did not participate in 
this study. We now know that the Department of Transportation says that 
from a cost-benefit analysis, the whole system is not justified. That 
may well be. That may well be. All we are asking for is this analysis 
now to be made of the system, and the merits of maintaining LORAN as a 
backup navigational aid and the benefits of using it in conjunction 
with the Global Positioning System.
  We believe that in areas where it doesn't work continually, GPS ought 
to be backed up by LORAN and vice versa. But particularly in terms of 
the long coastline of the Pacific coast--and we are part of the Pacific 
coast--we were not included in the study. This benefit-to-cost ratio is 
a national conclusion and not a conclusion based upon the areas where 
LORAN is currently used. In many areas of the country, it has been 
totally abandoned, and it ought to be abandoned. We don't have any 
problem with that. But steps to reduce operation at stations where this 
LORAN is still in use and is relied upon today is wrong. If there is to 
be some decision along that line, we will be happy to try and work that 
out in conference with the Senator. But maybe we should say the 
Secretary should refrain from taking any steps to reduce LORAN at 
certain stations but nationwide.
  I will be happy to change that, so he should not be prevented from 
taking steps to reduce operations at any station where it is not 
currently relied

[[Page 14119]]

upon for navigation, either directly or as a backup to GPS.
  Now, that means the Pacific coast. I am led to believe the same thing 
exists off California, off Oregon, and Washington to a lesser extent 
than it does off my State. You have to remember that half of the 
coastline is off our State, as I said, and in the areas where small 
boats, small planes currently rely upon LORAN as a backup, or in some 
instances as the total system, it should not be eliminated without a 
study of that area.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just add that I support the 
recommendation that Senator Stevens has just made, and if we are able 
to work that agreement out, I think that would be good.
  I do want to amplify something quickly that I stated earlier in the 
debate, and it was repeated by my colleague from Alaska, and that is 
that DHS came to this decision without adequate consultation with other 
impacted Federal agencies. If there is any confusion over that 
question, I would like to put in the Record and ask unanimous consent 
to insert a letter from the Honorable Jeff Shane, Under Secretary of 
Transportation, to the Honorable Stewart Baker, the Assistant Secretary 
of Policy at DHS.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Department of Transportation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2006.
     Hon. Stewart Baker,
     Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland 
         Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Stewart: The future of the Long Range Navigation 
     (LORAN) system has been the subject of debate for many years. 
     In 1994, the Clinton Administration announced plans to 
     terminate the LORAN system based on its expectation that 
     emerging Global Positioning System (GPS) technology would 
     fully respond to the needs of LORAN users. In response to 
     strong support from industry and the public as well as 
     analyses showing key GPS vulnerabilities, however, Congress 
     has continued to fund LORAN. That funding has gone to the 
     United States Coast Guard for LORAN operations and to the 
     Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for LORAN 
     modernization.
       According to the 2005 Federal Radionavigation Plan, signed 
     by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, and 
     Transportation, ``DOT, in coordination with DHS, will make a 
     decision regarding the future of LORAN by the end of 2006.'' 
     Related mandates are set forth in National Security 
     Presidential Directive 39, establishing a U.S. space-based 
     positioning, navigation, and timing policy. According to the 
     unclassified fact sheet accompanying NSPD 39, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall, ``[i]n coordination with the 
     Secretaries of Defense, Transportation, and Commerce, develop 
     and maintain capabilities, procedures, and techniques, and 
     routinely exercise civil contingency responses to ensure 
     continuity of operations in the event that access to the 
     Global Positioning System is disrupted or denied. . . .'' 
     Elsewhere, the fact-sheet says that the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall, ``[i]n coordination with the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, develop, acquire, operate, and maintain 
     backup position, navigation, and timing capabilities that can 
     support critical transportation, homeland security, and other 
     critical civil and commercial infrastructure applications 
     within the United States, in the event of a disruption of the 
     Global Positioning System. . . .'' (Emphasis added.)
       For some time now, the Coast Guard has indicated its desire 
     to decommission the LORAN system. The FAA is similarly 
     interested in being divested of LORAN responsibilities. 
     Neither agency believes that LORAN is necessary today to 
     support its respective mission. From the perspective of the 
     two agencies, those assessments are undoubtedly correct. But 
     the future of LORAN should be determined by reference to the 
     broader national interest. Might LORAN serve as the backup to 
     GPS contemplated by the mandates of NSPD 39? Apart from its 
     potential as a backup to GPS, does its robust, low-frequency, 
     penetrating signal offer potential value in our effort to 
     secure the international supply chain? Are there other 
     possible backups to GPS that offer clear advantages over 
     LORAN? If we decide that LORAN should be maintained, which 
     agency should shoulder responsibility for maintaining it? If 
     we decide that LORAN should not be maintained, what should we 
     do to persuade Congress that continued funding of the system 
     is no longer in the national interest?
       DOT has not formulated a position regarding the future of 
     LORAN. It is our hope, however, that it will be possible, 
     consistent with the Federal Radionavigation Plan. for the 
     Administration to announce a final, fully considered decision 
     before the end of this calendar year. That decision should be 
     made collaborativeIy with due regard for the mandates in NSPD 
     39 relating to the identification of a backup for GPS.
       DOT looks forward to working together with DHS and with 
     other interested agencies in the interest of bringing this 
     issue to closure. I will be in further touch to discuss the 
     best process for pursuing this important objective.
       With best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jeffrey N. Shane,
                                       Under Secretary for Policy.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what this letter simply does is make it 
clear that DOT is willing and ready to discuss this matter, but it also 
makes clear that there are other issues, especially in aviation, as the 
Senator from Alaska has said, that really have to be worked through as 
we move toward this, and I ask that we have those considerations.
  Again, I hope the language that Senator Stevens has proposed is 
something that can be worked out because I think that would be amenable 
to all of us.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would just make a couple of points.
  Norm Mineta of the Department of Transportation signed this report on 
October 21, 2005--the Secretary of the Department of Transportation--
the Federal Radionavigation Plan. So for the Department of 
Transportation to claim now that they didn't agree with this report, 
when their Secretary and his staff signed off on the report, there is 
something amiss. There is some miscommunication.
  What I would like to do is note the absence of a quorum in the hopes 
that I could work with the Senators from Alaska and Washington to come 
to a compromise on this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I would 
like to make one point with a letter I am quoting from, dated April 18, 
2006. It was addressed to Assistant Secretary of Policy at Homeland 
Security, and it says:

       The future of LORAN should be determined by reference to 
     the broader national interest. Might LORAN serve as the 
     backup to GPS contemplated by the mandates of NSPD 39? Apart 
     from its potential as a backup to GPS, does its robust, low-
     frequency, penetrating signal offer potential value in our 
     effort to secure the international supply chain? Are there 
     other possible backups to GPS that offer clear advantages 
     over LORAN?

  None of that has been answered.
  Now, certainly, this is after the Secretary signed off on that plan, 
but the idea of abandoning LORAN prematurely was not signed off on by 
the Department, to my knowledge.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would note that in the report, the 
considerations for backups are very well and very explicitly listed, 
including Alaska's backup system. So I agree that there is some 
confusion and there certainly is some difference in what was signed off 
on the report and what we are hearing now.
  I would ask to note the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I would 
suggest that we move on to another amendment. Senator Biden is here, he 
could proceed with his amendment, and during that time Senators could 
perhaps work something out.
  Mr. COBURN. I have no objection.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4553

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4553.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4553.

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

 (Purpose: To increase amounts for the rail and transit security grant 
                   programs, and for other purposes)

       On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,493,500,000''.

[[Page 14120]]

       On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,272,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 13, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,250,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 16, before the semicolon, insert the 
     following: ``, of which--
       (i) $670,000,000 shall be for tunnel upgrades along the 
     Northeast corridor;
       (ii) $250,000,000 shall be for passenger and freight rail 
     security grants;
       (iii) $100,000,000 shall be for research and development of 
     bomb detection technology; and
       (iv) $65,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail 
     security upgrades, of which $25,000,000 shall be used--

       (I) to provide a 25 percent salary increase for existing 
     Amtrak Police personnel; and
       (II) to expand the Amtrak police force by 200 officers

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize that particularly the Presiding 
Officer and my friends from New Hampshire and Washington State are 
probably tired of hearing me stand up year after year since 9/11 and 
talk about rail security or the lack thereof in the United States of 
America. This amendment is about rail security.
  The funding made available in this amendment is, unfortunately, 
something that I have, with others, fought for without success since 9/
11. In fact, immediately after 9/11, I introduced legislation that is 
very similar to the amendment I am offering today that would provide 
critical resources to enhance rail security and rail infrastructure. 
Almost 5 years later, after introducing the legislation in the 108th 
Congress and the 109th Congress, we have done virtually nothing.
  In March of 2004, our allies in Spain suffered an attack on their 
rail system that killed 191 people. We did nothing. We did nothing at 
home. Just over 1 year ago, terrorists in London killed 52 people and 
injured over 700, mostly on rail. We did virtually nothing. The attack 
in London occurred just 1 week before we had a debate on the 2006 
Homeland Security budget. Unbelievably, we approved only $150 million 
for rail and transit, with only $7 million going to Amtrak, which 
carries, by the way, 64,000 passengers per day--hardly, I would say, a 
serious effort.
  Just yesterday, in Mumbai, India, there was another attack on rail. 
So far there are 190 confirmed dead, 714 people injured. To state the 
obvious, I am sure every one of my colleagues feels as I do, but our 
thoughts and prayers are with those who were harmed in yesterday's 
attack. As they described in today's New York Times and I am sure every 
other paper in the Nation, there was baggage and body parts strewn for 
hundreds and hundreds of yards around the site of the explosion. 
Coincidentally, here at home we are debating again the appropriations 
bill for Homeland Security.
  I wonder how long we can dodge the bullet. I wonder how long it will 
be that we can avoid accountability for what we are not doing to 
protect our rail and transit system. I don't know what it is going to 
take for us to wake up and take this threat seriously. Certainly 
everyone understands here at home that the threat is real and it is at 
home. The FBI has warned us of the threat to our rails. In fact, the 
Central Intelligence Agency has found photos of rail stations and rail 
crossings in safe houses in Afghanistan. I am sure they weren't doing 
that for a geography project for their kids. It was about looking at 
targets in America.
  Remember when we saw that they had taken photos of American 
buildings, what we did? We immediately mobilized our security forces 
around those buildings here in the United States, because we knew if 
they had photos of those buildings tacked up on the walls they must be 
thinking of them as targets. What do we need? Do we need someone from 
al-Qaida to write us a note and say: ``By the way, folks, we are 
planning on attacking your rail system''? ``We are not going to tell 
you when, but we are going to attack your rail system.'' What do we 
need? What do we need to be able to jog the--not ``conscience,'' that 
may be the wrong word--jog this body into a sense of reality?
  We have still done virtually nothing. Since 9/11 the administration 
invested over $25 billion in aviation security, primarily to screen 
passengers. I voted for that, I agree with that--$25 billion. During 
the same period, less than $600 million has been allocated for rail and 
transit systems that carry a whole heck of a lot more passengers. This 
year's budget includes an additional $6 billion for aviation security, 
which I support. Only $150 million has been allocated for rail and 
transit security. Out of the $150 million allocated for rail and 
transit funding this year, $7 million went to Amtrak. I don't think 
that is a serious effort--again, 64,000 people a day.
  I understand you can't protect every single inch of our vast rail 
structure but we can do some pretty commonsense things, some block-and-
tackle things that we know will make us a lot safer. I can't stop 
anyone, nor are we likely to be able to stop anyone, from putting an 
IED that is fashioned in America on a track somewhere between here and 
Wilmington, DE, when I take the train every day. I am not asking for 
that. But I will tell you what we can do. What we can do is go to those 
areas we know are prime targets, where hundreds if not thousands of 
people could die if al-Qaida or any of their copycat organizations 
decided to move on rail and were successful.
  Take a walk over to Union Station. Union Station is just down the 
street in that direction. I walk to it or drive to it every single 
night the Senate is in session. I come from it every day. It is the 
single most visited place in Washington. Do you hear me? The single 
most visited place in Washington, DC. More people are in and out of 
that station than are at any museum, than visit the Congress, the White 
House, the FBI. It is the single most visited place in Washington, DC.
  Take a look. As I say to security people, get with me on an Amfleet 
train. Not an Acela, because they don't have the old kind of caboose on 
it. Stand in the last car and look out the window as you pull out of 
the train station. Tell me how many cameras you observe. Tell me how 
many cops you see. Tell me how many bits of protection--whether it is 
fencing or alarm systems--that are on the switching devices that are in 
that yard. Tell me how many folks you see wandering the yard where you 
see trains stacked up, where people can cross around just a plain old 
chain-link fence and put some C2 up underneath an existing train.
  Or travel from Washington south. You go underneath the Supreme Court. 
You go underneath one of the House office buildings. Tell me what you 
see. Are there any guards patrolling that area? I am not going to say, 
because people will say to me, You are just giving terrorists 
information. I promise you, they already know it. You would be stunned 
how few law enforcement officers are on duty at any one time in that 
entire infrastructure.
  My amendment simply makes the investment that the experts who have 
testified have repeatedly told us is needed. It would provide an 
additional $1.1 billion for rail security upgrades. Out of this amount 
we would provide $670 million to upgrade the tunnels along the 
Northeast corridor to add ventilation, lighting, escape routes, in some 
cases cameras, and the ability to be able to patrol those tunnels.
  I will not take the time because my colleagues have heard me do it 
1,000 times. The tunnel that goes from here heading to Boston--in fact, 
it goes through the State of Maryland, through Baltimore--it was built, 
I think, in 1869. Next time you ride through it, look and see if you 
see any ventilation. Tell me what you see in terms of lighting. Tell me 
what you see about any prospect of someone being able to escape from 
that tunnel. Tell me if you see any security going in and out of that 
tunnel.
  It seems like a long time ago, I have been doing it so long, there 
was a fire in a tunnel. It was just a plain old fire, not a rail 
tunnel, another tunnel going into Baltimore. The fire shut down all the 
harbor, and it shut down all of south Baltimore.
  If you go up into New York, you have six tunnels sitting under New 
York City without any appreciable work being done on any of them since, 
roughly, 1918. Ask any expert about ventilation. Why am I talking about 
ventilation? Drop sarin gas in that tunnel, drop another chemical in 
that tunnel, and tell me what happens without

[[Page 14121]]

any ventilation to suck it out. Tell me what you see in those tunnels. 
Ask those experts what chance there is of escape. I will go back to 
that in a minute.
  There is $250 million to be allocated to general security upgrades 
for freight rail operations, including transport of hazardous material. 
I had an amendment here on another bill not long ago because I asked 
the Naval Research Institute, NRI, to answer a question for me. Again, 
I apologize to my colleagues from Washington and New Hampshire for 
continuing to repeat this, but I asked the question: What would happen 
if a chlorine gas tanker exploded in a metropolitan area?
  Remember, I guess it was a year or year and a half ago, one exploded 
up in the Dakotas--not near any big city. They had to evacuate several 
towns in the region. I said, What would happen?
  The standard chlorine gas tanker on rails is about 90 tons. What 
happens if one of those were exploded? They said it would kill or 
injure up to 100,000 people.
  I had an amendment. Why don't we allow the cities to be able to 
divert these hazardous cars around the cities. It got voted down--I 
actually did get a vote on it--because it would somehow increase the 
cost of doing business. It would increase the cost of doing business.
  Maybe I am missing something here. The only thing I can believe is 
that most of my colleagues also think that this is not likely to 
happen, that these guys aren't going to go after transit, they are not 
going to go after freight rail, they are not going to go after 
passenger rail. They really don't mean it so we don't really have to 
worry.
  It reminds me of that Calypso song that was popular about a decade 
go, ``Don't worry, be happy.''
  Yet if we look around the world, bombings and attacks on rail systems 
are becoming increasingly sophisticated. They are carried out by 
terrorist groups. Before 9/11 when we saw these terrorist activities 
happening in Europe and other parts of the world, we just seemed 
impervious to it. ``It can't happen here. It won't happen here.''
  I made a speech on September 10. I ask unanimous consent that a copy 
of it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 U.S. Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Defining Our Interests in a 
                             Changing World

       My mother wanted me to be a priest or a politician, and for 
     the longest time I didn't think you could do both. But you 
     can. Any rate, obviously not a lot of Irish-Catholics in this 
     room.
       Well, what I want to know before we begin is--Chestnut Hill 
     Academy is here, I'm told, from Philadelphia. And what I want 
     to know is, when I went to a Catholic boys' school in 
     Claymont, Delaware, called Archmere, Chestnut Hill Academy 
     used to occasionally beat us--more occasionally than was 
     necessary. And I want to know, are you guys here in support 
     or opposition? What's the deal?
       Welcome, fellas. I don't know why you're here, but it's 
     nice to see you all here. Thank you for being here.
       It is true, I am now the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
     Committee--through no fault of my own. My dad has an 
     expression: It's better to be lucky than good. I am chairman 
     because one man in Vermont decided he was going to leave one 
     political party and giving my party the ability to organize 
     the Senate. For that, I am grateful, but I want you to know I 
     understand that this could change any day.
       By the way, the president and I agree on a lot of things, 
     and we sincerely do. I thought the president's first trip to 
     Europe quelled a lot of concerns and nerves on the part of 
     our European friends, who are always upset and always nervous 
     with any transition in power in the United States. I think 
     the president did an extremely good job in the incident 
     relating to our, quote, ``spy plane'' being down. I think the 
     president has done some very, very good things.
       I do have a profound disagreement with the president's view 
     of national missile defense and whether or not, at the end of 
     the day, it would make us more or less secure.
       At the end of the Cold War, when the wall came down, we 
     found ourselves on the brink of extraordinary changes. All of 
     us were wondering what it would mean and where this would 
     lead. Was it the beginning of something or the end of 
     something? And if it was the beginning, were we, the United 
     States, the only remaining superpower, going to get it right?
       On that night, we were all idealists, but a new day dawned 
     and a harsh reality came into focus. It became clear that 
     long-standing ethnic, religious, tribunal and nationalistic 
     divisions had not changed, while America's place in the world 
     had changed profoundly.
       From that day on, we inherited a profound obligation of 
     leadership, and an even more profound obligation to get it 
     right in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in Europe and Asia, 
     in our hemisphere, in our commitments, our treaties and in 
     our defense policy--missile or otherwise.
       Now, the spotlight remains on us and is brighter than ever. 
     We're at a pivotal moment when American values and principles 
     have taken center stage like no other time in our history in 
     the global theater. How we perform on that stage is as much 
     about our honor, our decency, our pride, as it is about our 
     strategic policy.
       So before we go raising the starting gun that will begin a 
     new arm's race in the world, before we dip into the Social 
     Security trust fund to satisfy the administration's almost 
     theological allegiance to missile defense at the expense of 
     more earth-bound military and international treaties, before 
     we watch China build up its nuclear arsenal and see an arm's 
     race in Asia and in the sub-continent, before we squander the 
     best opportunity we've had in a generation to modernize our 
     conventional nuclear forces, let's look at the real threats 
     we face home and abroad. Let's re-engage and rethink and meet 
     our obligations with a strength and resolve that befits our 
     place in this new world.
       American foreign policy should not be based primarily on 
     the principle of national self-interest that defines strength 
     as rigid adherence to inflexible theory, or positive results 
     as emotionally satisfying unilateral action.
       I don't believe our national interests can be furthered, 
     let alone achieved, in splendid indifference to the rest of 
     the world's views of our policies. Our interests are 
     furthered when we meet our international obligations and when 
     we keep our treaties. They're furthered when we maintain an 
     unequal military, able to deter any threat at any place at 
     any time and anywhere, when we keep our economy strong, when 
     we make wise choices that solves real problems, when we stand 
     bound together as democracies--multi-racial, multi-ethnic, 
     multi-religious beacons of hope--not some dark house next 
     door.
       President Reagan's image of a ``shining city on a hill'' 
     held out America as an ideal to millions and millions of 
     people around the world, a nation that reaches out to its 
     allies and adversaries alike, with undiluted, unequivocal 
     message that democracy works, freedom is worth the fight, and 
     that America will always be a reliable friend of those who 
     take the risk of achieving the goals of democracy.
       We can't forget or simply disregard the responsibilities 
     that flow from our ideals. We can't lose sight of the fact 
     that leadership requires engagement, and partnership demands 
     inclusivity. Let there be no mistake, America must remain at 
     the table because walking away comes at a price. Our European 
     allies should never think that America ignores international 
     opinion or that we're ready to go it alone when we feel like 
     it. They should never think that our commitment to a vital 
     multi-national institutions, or projects, which are built 
     upon common values and common concerns--and that includes 
     NATO--has diminished.
       We became a European power in the 20th century, and out of 
     our self-interest, we must remain a European power in the 
     21st century. We've got to get it right in Europe. We have to 
     stay engaged in the Balkans--as this administration appears 
     to be doing--and bring them, the Balkans, into the European 
     community. It's in our naked self-interest.
       But let's understand that our foreign policy is as much 
     about American values as it is about complex multinational 
     treaties or arcane intricacies of strategic policy.
       When I think of the moral imperative of American 
     leadership, I think of an America founded upon the 
     unshakable, bedrock democratic principles, but willing to 
     accept the principal ideals and cultural dynamics and genuine 
     concerns of our allies; a nation that has a powerful sense of 
     place in the geopolitical scheme of things--one that is 
     tough-minded when it comes to our own security, yet has broad 
     enough vision and a strong enough will to contribute to 
     peaceful solutions where age-old strains of nationalism and 
     religious-based divisions wreak havoc; a government that 
     doesn't abandon arms control treaties with the excuse that 
     they are relics of the Cold War.
       I might note parenthetically, I think many of those 
     uttering that phrase are in fact themselves the relics of the 
     Cold War. They have not come to understand the wall is down 
     and the last time they were in power it was up. Half this 
     city doesn't realize that.
       And not abandon these agreements as relics of the Cold War 
     because it's (inaudible) to honor them because we've 
     negotiated them in good faith, we signed and ratified them, 
     and because they have stood the test of time in serving our 
     national interest and other nation's expect us to keep our 
     promises; a unique and strong nation that isn't confused 
     about its role and responsibilities and

[[Page 14122]]

     doesn't walk away from the table, but sits down, rolls up its 
     sleeves and convinces the world of our position; a nation 
     that thinks big and sees freedom in global economic growth as 
     consensus ideals.
       I think of America vastly different--so unburdened of the 
     old Cold War fears and feelings that it's willing to do a 
     little soul-searching. Are we a nation of our word or not? Do 
     we keep our treaties or don't we? Are we willing to lead the 
     hard way, because leadership isn't easy and requires us 
     convincing others? Diplomacy isn't easy. Multilateral policy 
     initiatives aren't easy.
       Or are we willing to end four decades of arms control 
     agreements to go it alone--a kind of bully nation sometimes a 
     little wrong-headed, but ready to make unilateral decisions 
     in what we perceive to be our self-interest, and to hell with 
     our treaties, our commitments and the world?
       Are we really prepared to raise the starting gun in the new 
     arms race in a potentially more dangerous world? Because, 
     make no mistakes about it, folks, if we deploy a missile 
     defense system that's being contemplated, we could do just 
     that.
       Step back from the ABM Treaty, go full steam ahead and 
     deploy a missile defense system, and we'll be raising the 
     starting gun. If the president continues to go headlong, 
     headstrong on this theological mission to develop his missile 
     defense system, if he does what he says and drops objections 
     to China's missile buildup, not only will we have raised the 
     starting gun, we'll have pulled back the hammer.
       Let's stop this nonsense before we end up pulling the 
     trigger.
       China now has about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 
     but according to press reports, the National Intelligence 
     Council thinks that China might deploy up to 200 warheads, 
     develop sophisticated decoys and perhaps move to multiple 
     warheads in response to a missile defense system.
       It seems to me it's absolute lunacy for us to invite China 
     to expand its arsenal and resume nuclear testing, not to 
     mention that moving forward with missile defense could 
     jeopardize Chinese cooperation on the Korean Peninsula.
       Let me remind you all that there are two types of 
     modernization they talk about. And there's no doubt the 
     Chinese are going to modernize. But up to recently, what most 
     people thought the modernization meant and our community 
     thought it meant was moving, for example, from liquid fuel 
     rockets to solid fuel rockets. Moving from systems that were 
     not mobile at all to more mobile systems.
       Not increasing, as the press has reported, 10-fold more 
     than they would have if we build a national missile defense. 
     Not MIRVing their missiles, meaning put more than one atom 
     bomb or hydrogen bomb on top of an ICBM. The most 
     destabilizing weapon that exists.
       I found it interesting, on MacNeil-Lehrer, Secretary 
     Rumsfeld saying that it wasn't the question of MIRVing that 
     was important, it was a question of the total number of 
     missiles.
       Well, George--President Bush, the first President Bush--
     understood that it was more than that. We fought for years 
     and years to do away with the big SS-18 Soviet missiles. Why? 
     Because they're what we saw, I say to the gentleman from 
     Chestnut Hill Academy, they're what we call a use-or-lose 
     weapon.
       Because they have such an incredible concentration of 
     power, you assume that they will be struck first. Therefore, 
     if there is a warning that you're under attack, which 
     sometimes they're mistaken, they're on a hair trigger and you 
     must launch them or lose them.
       That's why we're so fearful that the Russians will keep 
     their MIRVed systems, because they have such a porous defense 
     system. They have such a porous early warning system. And as 
     a nun I used to have would say, in a slightly different 
     context, ``the only nuclear war that's worse than one that is 
     intended is one that wasn't intended.''
       In Seoul, I spoke with President Kim Dae-jung of South 
     Korea about ways to bring North Korea, which is the new 
     bogeyman that we're all looking at now, which is the 
     justification for this pell-mell race to produce the 
     international missile defense, how to bring them into the 
     family of nations.
       He urged me to encourage the administration to engage North 
     Korea in senior-level dialogue and not allow a theological 
     commitment to missile defense to blind us to the prospects of 
     signing a verifiable agreement to end North Korea's 
     development, deployment and export of long-range missiles.
       Yesterday, Dr. Rice, on Meet the Press--she and I were on 
     Meet the Press--she talked about how ubiquitous these long-
     range missile systems were. I don't know what she's talking 
     about. We're getting briefed by two different groups of CIA 
     people, I guess, because none of these rogue nations have 
     that capacity yet. They may get it. It is maybe within their 
     reach, but it does not exist now.
       If we spur on an aggressive Chinese buildup, including the 
     need to test--and you know why they will have to test. When 
     you put more than one--I know most of you know this, but it's 
     worth repeating--you put more than one atom or hydrogen 
     weapon on top of a rocket, it requires more throw weight in 
     that rocket. It has to be more powerful.
       So practically what you have to do is you have to make 
     smaller, more compact missile warheads. And in order to be 
     able to be sure they work, you've got to test them. So if, in 
     fact, the Chinese are going to move to a modernized system 
     that requires--that's going to contemplate MIRVed ICBMs, 
     they're going to have to test.
       That's why I got so upset by the statement read by the 
     press account that we appeared to be willing to trade off, in 
     return for them not objecting to our building the national 
     missile defense system, the possibility that we would look 
     the other way when China tested and that we understood they 
     were going to have a considerable buildup.
       That's what I call a self-fulfilling prophesy.
       And let me ask you the question: Consider what India is 
     likely to do if China tests. Those of you who know the 
     subcontinent know that there's been an incredible political 
     tug to have another test of their, quote, ``hydrogen 
     weapon,'' because they believe the world does not believe 
     that they successfully tested one, and they want the world to 
     believe they have one.
       And what do you think happens when India tests, if China 
     tests?
       What do you think happens in Pakistan? Pakistan, I believe, 
     would ratchet up its production. And consider that Taiwan, 
     the two Koreas or Japan or all of them could build their own 
     nuclear weapons. Japan has the capacity within one year to 
     become a nuclear power.
       That greatest generation that Tom Brokaw speaks of, my 
     mother and father's generation, did two incredibly good 
     things, and I mean this as not an insult, to particularly my 
     German friend. Germany is a non-nuclear power and Japan is a 
     non-nuclear power. That's good for the world. I want to be no 
     party to setting in motion a series of events that will cause 
     the Japanese Diet to reconsider whether they should rely upon 
     the nuclear umbrella of the United States.
       And as the former chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt, 
     once said to me, sitting in his office 15 years ago, he said, 
     ``You don't understand, Joe, my son's generation does not 
     feel the same sense of obligation or guilt that mine does.''
       Are we so dead set positive that a missile defense system 
     furthers our national interest that we're willing to risk an 
     arms race? So sure of the science that we're willing to 
     weaponize space and nuclearize Asia?
       Are we so sure of the feasibility that we'll divert 
     potentially hundreds of billions of dollars from the real 
     needs of our military?
       Look, the fact is we could weaponize space or we could buy 
     339 F-22s to replace our aging F-15 fleet for $62 billion. We 
     could replace aging F-16s, A-10s, A-14s with a Joint Strike 
     Fighter for the cost of $223 billion. We could replace the 
     Cobra and Kiowa warrior helicopters for $39 billion. I could 
     go on and on.
       But in short, we could provide our Army, our Navy, Air 
     Force and Marines virtually everything they need in the 
     immediate future for a more stealth, more significant lift 
     capacity military to deal with the real threats we face and 
     still spend less on all of that than we will spend on the 
     national missile defense system.
       We're facing a difficult budget fight with a consequence of 
     the turndown in the economy, the business cycle, the $1.3 
     trillion tax cut, or all of the above, and we can't have our 
     cake and eat it too. The administration would like us to 
     think it's all possible, but it's not all possible.
       According to the Congressional Budget Office, we may have 
     already dipped into the Social Security trust fund, which we 
     used to do regularly in years past, but which we all promised 
     we wouldn't do anymore, we would have a lock box. And that 
     $21 billion or more will be consumed from that lock box in 
     the next three years. This is a very different economic 
     picture than projections of just a few months ago.
       Missile defense has to be weighed carefully against all 
     other spending and all other military priorities, which we're 
     not debating or doing right now. And in truth, our real 
     security needs are much more earthbound and far less costly 
     than national missile defense.
       If you combine the $1.3 trillion tax cut with what we've 
     spent on a full-blown missile defense shield, we could start 
     to modernize our conventional forces, build a stealthier, 
     more mobile, more self-sufficient military that I believe is 
     needed in the 21st century, and make significant impact on 
     rectifying what is going to be a gigantic problem in 10 years 
     in Social Security.
       Let's be clear: When it comes to defense, it's not the 
     president's missile defense or nothing, as the way it's being 
     posed. We should improve military personnel retention and 
     overall readiness; bring on the next generation of fighter 
     aircraft, the next generation of helicopters, the next 
     generation of destroyers; and be fully prepared for the next 
     generation of engagement.
       And while we're at it, we may fix the plumbing in the 
     barracks at Taipei, which I just visited, which the night 
     before I came, because they are so aged and we don't have the 
     money to fix them, they had to bring in water hoses from 
     outside to allow the women

[[Page 14123]]

     and men in there to be able to shave, to be able to use the 
     bathrooms, let alone drink any water. Visit the conditions in 
     which our active military are living now--two and three in a 
     room. You think when you drop your kid off at a college 
     dormitory and you're paying 30 grand to send him to a 
     prestigious school is hard to take, take a look at the 
     conditions they live in. And why are we not responding to it? 
     We don't have the money, we are told.
       My dad used to say, and still says, ``Son, if everything is 
     equally important to you, nothing is important to you.'' Our 
     priorities, I think, are a little out of whack. I've said, 
     and I'll say it again, we should be fully funding the 
     military and defending ourselves at home and abroad against 
     the more likely threats of short-range cruise missiles or 
     biological terrorism.
       Last week, the Foreign Relations Committee began hearings 
     on how to build a so-called ``homeland'' defense and to 
     protect our military from bioterrorism pathogens and chemical 
     attacks; on how we can deploy a missile defense system that 
     doesn't trade off conventional modernization of our military 
     for a fantasy of some system that remains more flawed than 
     feasible; on how we can jump-start the destruction of 
     Russia's massive chemical weapons stockpile and secure all 
     our nuclear materials.
       The very day they send up a budget that tells they are 
     going to increase by 8-point-some billion our missile defense 
     initiative, they cut the program that exists between us and 
     Russia to help them destroy their chemical weapons, keep 
     their scientists from being for sale and destroy their 
     nuclear weapons.
       I've said, and I'll say it again, we should work with 
     Russia and China and all of our allies to stem proliferation 
     of weapons of mass destruction; we should try to rely on some 
     mutual deterrence, rather than thinking we can replace it, 
     because, in fact, deterrence works.
       We should support research and development in boost phase 
     interceptors that would avoid the countermeasures and would 
     be more acceptable to Russia and China, limiting the 
     possibility of ending Russia's adherence to START II and 
     lessening the prospects of a new arms race in Asia than what 
     we are now proposing.
       We should strive through hard-nosed diplomacy to delay and 
     eliminate the long-range ballistic threat by ending North 
     Korea's program and its sale of long-range missile 
     technology. We should build a combined offensive and 
     defensive system that we know works before we deploy it. And 
     we should amend the ABM Treaty and not walk away from it.
       Having said that, let's put the cost and the effectiveness 
     of this missile defense system being discussed today in some 
     context so that everyone understands exactly what we're 
     talking about. The cheapest realistic system suggested, 
     national missile defense system, limited national missile 
     defense system suggested by this administration, which relies 
     on the same midcourse interceptors the Clinton administration 
     proposed, would cost at a minimum $60 billion over 20 years 
     and most suggest it would be closer to $100 billion.
       And remember, this is only for a system that's incapable of 
     shooting down a missile carrying biological weapons, 
     incapable of shooting down a missile carrying chemical 
     weapons, at least for now incapable of shooting down a 
     missile with an unsophisticated tumbling warhead that will 
     look just like a tumbling trajectory.
       In order to combat what are known as countermeasures, such 
     as those decoys or the submunitions that carry biological 
     weapons, the administration proposes a layered defense. That 
     means, a missile defense that begins with a boost phase 
     interceptor, that is, catching the rocket as it takes off 
     from behind, at its slowest point and nearest point; 
     continues with a midcourse interceptor, that is, getting it 
     out there in the atmosphere and a bullet hitting a bullet; 
     and finishes with a terminal defense as it's coming down.
       Now, you think the midcourse system we're working on is 
     expensive. Help me calculate the cost of a layered missile 
     defense, where we haven't even begun some of the research.
       One recent estimate for that system is a quarter trillion 
     dollars, and I think that, too, is a conservative figure, 
     because the truth is that the administration has yet to 
     comprehend the full complexities and the technological 
     challenges of a layered defense. If you doubt me, ask folks 
     like General Welch and others who used to run the show.
       In my view, that full-blown layered missile defense system, 
     which doesn't address a single real issue on the ground, is 
     more likely to cost a half a trillion dollars. And what will 
     it get us? For half a trillion dollars we may get a layered 
     defense system that's not been defined yet. If it includes 
     space-based lasers, you've now weaponized outer space, which 
     invites other countermeasures to attack the satellites on 
     which we depend for information and communications.
       But it still won't be 100 percent effective. Secretary 
     Rumsfeld, speaking about our national missile defense system 
     on the Lehrer NewsHour earlier this year, said that a system 
     would not have to be 90 or even 80 percent effective, but 
     only 70 percent effective. Secretary Rumsfeld, in referring 
     to a, quote, ``0.7 success rate,'' said, and I quote, 
     ``That's plenty.''
       Folks, 30 percent failure for any national defense system 
     could be called plenty of things, but plenty successful is 
     not one of them. Think about it.
       (Applause)
       Let's say President Richard Ryan becomes president of the 
     United States. And the head of a rogue state tells him, which 
     is how the scenario goes, ``I'm invading my neighborhood 
     today. And if you try to stop me, I'll fire my ICBMs at 
     you.'' Never mind that he won't do that because he knows he'd 
     be annihilated within a matter of 30 minutes. But President 
     Ryan turns to his national security adviser, as I always do, 
     Carl Wiser, and says, ``Carl, what do I do?''
       And Carl says, ``Don't worry, we have a missile defense 
     system. And unlike Rumsfeld's 0.7, ours is 0.9 effective.''
       President Ryan says, ``Oh. There's a 10 percent chance then 
     of losing Detroit?''
       And Carl says, ``Well that depends. If they fire seven 
     missiles, the odds of losing at least one city will be 50-50. 
     Because guess what: 0.9 means that not 90 percent fired will 
     get through, 0.9 means that for every missile fired, that 
     single missile has a nine out of 10 chance of getting 
     through. You get to seven, it's about a 50-50 chance that one 
     gets through. If you do the 0.7, you fire two missiles, 
     there's an equal chance one is going to get through.''
       So now President Ryan says, ``You know, these guys that 
     designed this system are right. This enables me to not be 
     blackmailed. I'm supposed to feel like I have freedom of 
     action thanks to this defense.''
       And Carl says, ``Hey look, Rumsfeld told Jim Lehrer that 70 
     percent effectiveness would be enough, at least initially. 
     And with that system there's a 50-50 chance of losing at 
     least one city if that rogue state fires two missiles. We're 
     better off than we were.''
       And I assume that this scenario which they lay out means, 
     where Ryan is president, he's going to say, ``You know, I 
     really have some flexibility now. I'm only going to lose 
     Detroit or San Francisco or Cleveland or Dallas, so I can 
     really move here with dispatch. I've got flexibility. I don't 
     have upon deterrence.''
       Now, I know you think I'm being a wise guy here, but 
     sometimes it's useful to reduce this complex nuclear 
     theological discussion to reality. If I'm president, does 
     that give me more flexibility?
       Does that allow me to say, ``I'm only going to lose one or 
     two population centers, therefore I have more flexibility to 
     do anything other than say, `If you do, we will annihilate 
     you'?''
       I also find it fascinating, this whole premise is based 
     upon the notion that defense no longer works. Deterrence no 
     longer works.
       Now, I say this, and there's a television audience 
     listening: Help educate me. Name me a time in the last 500 
     years when the leader of a nation-state has said, ``I know I 
     face virtual annihilation if I take the following action, but 
     I'm go ahead, and I'm going to do it anyway.''
       Saddam Hussein, the certifiable maniac--when George I said 
     to him, ``If you do we will take you out,'' what did he do 
     with 500,000 forces marching on Baghdad? He had those Scud 
     missiles everybody talks about as a justification for 
     building the system. He had chemical weapons. He had 
     biological weapons. Why did he not use them if deterrence 
     does not work?
       I just find the basic premise upon which this whole 
     argument rests and the sense of urgency a little wanting. 
     Think about it. We will have spent potentially up to a half a 
     trillion dollars for a system that might work nine out of 10 
     times, assuming the administration knows how to build it, 
     that, one, won't give the president the freedom of action.
       One, that won't give the Pentagon what it really needs, 
     won't modernize our conventional forces, and without being 
     able to say, ``Yes, we've saved Social Security for even one 
     more day.'' That's the system we're going to build.
       Remember now, folks, they don't know what it looks like, 
     they don't even have it on paper, they have tested a system 
     in one mode that, God bless our incredible technology, it 
     worked, and I vote to pay for them to continue to do that 
     research. But they're willing to pull out of an ABM Treaty 
     that sends the signal to the rest of the world the end of 
     arms control has arrived. And what protection do we have in 
     the near term, let alone down the road?
       Sure, we'll do all we can to defend ourselves against any 
     threat, nobody denies that, but even the Joint Chiefs says 
     that a strategic nuclear attack is less likely than a 
     regional conflict, a major theater war, terrorist attacks at 
     home or abroad, or any number of other real issues. We'll 
     have diverted all that money to address the least likely 
     threat, while the real threat comes to this country in the 
     hold of a ship, the belly of a plane, or smuggled into a city 
     in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack.
       And I ask you, you want to do us damage, are you more 
     likely to send a missile you're

[[Page 14124]]

     not sure can reach us with a biological or chemical weapon 
     because you don't have the throw weight to put a nuclear 
     weapon on it and no one's anticipating that in the near term, 
     with a return address saying, ``It came from us, here's where 
     we are?'' Or are you more likely to put somebody with a 
     backpack crossing the border from Vancouver down to Seattle, 
     or coming up the New York Harbor with a rusty old ship with 
     an atom bomb sitting in the hull? Which are you more likely 
     to do? And what defense do we have against those other 
     things?
       Watch these hearings we're about to have. We don't have, as 
     the testimony showed, a public health infrastructure to deal 
     with the existing pathogens that are around now. We don't 
     have the investment, the capability to identify or deal with 
     an anthrax attack. We do not have, as Ambassador to Japan 
     now, Howard Baker, and his committee said, the ability to 
     curtail the availability of chemical weapons lying around the 
     Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union and Russia, because 
     they don't know what to do with it.
       They showed us a report where they showed us photographs of 
     things that look like large outhouses, clapboard buildings, 
     with no windows and padlocks on the door, that have as many 
     chemical weapons in that building to destroy the bulk of the 
     East Coast--and we're not spending the money to help them 
     corral and destroy that in the name of this search? The cost 
     estimate was $30 billion over 10 years in this bipartisan 
     commission, and it was listed as the most urgent threat to 
     the United States of America.
       The truth is, technology will keep outpacing our capacity 
     to build an effective system, which may well be obsolete or 
     penetrable by the time it's done. And that means we'll 
     continually increase our capability, and in turn, so will 
     those who are trying to penetrate it. And so the new arms 
     race begins.
       Forty-nine Nobel Prize-winning scientists sent a letter to 
     President Clinton last year opposing the deployment of the 
     limited antiballistic missile system the president was 
     contemplating, and I'll quote from the letter. Quote: ``The 
     system would offer little protection, would do grave harm to 
     this nation's core security interest,'' end of quote.
       They went on to say, and I quote--these are now, we're 
     talking about 49 Nobel laureates--``We and other independent 
     scientists have long argued that antiballistic missile 
     systems, particularly those attempting to intercept reentry 
     vehicles in space, will inevitably lose in an arms race of 
     improvements in offensive capability.''
       That night in 1989 when the wall came down and we wondered 
     where it would lead, another arms race was the furthest thing 
     from any of our minds. The idea that our allies would 
     question our commitment and our resolve, even our motives, 
     was unthinkable.
       Our place in the world seemed secure. The world was looking 
     to us to demonstrate leadership, and it still is.
       Let's think about how we felt that night. The feeling that 
     something good was happening and something even better was on 
     the horizon. It was as if the world had awoken from a long, 
     bad dream into a new era in which old values and old 
     prejudices would no longer prevail, and new values and new 
     ideals, wherever they were to be found, would be found and 
     make us all more secure.
       Folks, let's not now raise the starting gun on a new arm's 
     race that is sure, I promise you, to make my children and my 
     grandchildren and these students assembled here feel less 
     secure than we feel today.
       Thank you very much for listening.

  Mr. BIDEN. On September 10, the day before the attacks on the towers, 
I made a speech to the National Press Club where I warned about a 
massive attack on the United States of America from terrorists; why I 
thought it would happen and why I thought our priorities were 
misplaced--the day before 9/11. I had no knowledge of 9/11, but I have 
been working in this field, like my colleagues on the floor, for 30 
years. There was an inevitability to it. But we did nothing.
  I feel like we are in that same ``Alice in Wonderland'' suspension 
when it comes to rail. It is either it is so big you can't protect 
everything so don't protect anything--like it was before. Our country 
is so big and so open there is nothing much we can do about terror. And 
the second subparagraph before 9/11 was: By the way, it is not likely 
to happen here.
  Why? Why is it not likely to happen here?
  There is $250 million to be allocated to general security upgrades 
for freight rail operations. That includes things like putting cameras 
in freight yards so you have somebody watching who is wandering around 
those yards and maybe sticking something up underneath 90-ton chlorine 
gas tanker cars or putting in a boxcar a dirty bomb, a home-made 
weapon.
  It also provides $65 million to go specifically to Amtrak security 
upgrades for hiring officers. We had an interesting thing. We have a 
relatively small number of officers on Amtrak. If you go from here to 
fly out of Reagan Airport, if you go out of Dulles or Reagan Airport or 
the Philadelphia airport or LaGuardia or Newark or L.A. or O'Hare or 
Atlanta, you are going to go through, en route to your gate, probably 
as many security officers, including the folks inspecting your bags, as 
exist in all of Amtrak.
  Did you hear me? Let me say that again.
  I guarantee you that going through the screening area you are going 
to run into not just the people looking at you in the area you go 
through, but you are likely to run into more TSA screeners than exist 
in any one station in the United States of America.
  I received a note indicating that I am needed urgently. If I could 
suspend for a minute and come back and pick up where I left off, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  (Ms. Murkowski assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, rather than suggesting a quorum, I will 
protect the Senator's position.
  Does the Senator have a modification to his amendment?


                    Amendment No. 4585, as Modified

  Mr. COBURN. I do. I have a modification of amendment No. 4585.
  The amendment will remain intact with the following added at the 
bottom which says ``except in Alaska, far Northwest, and far Northeast 
Continental United States of America.''
  I want to be clear that the Record show what that means; that is, 
they can dismantle LORAN everywhere except there. And that would 
protect specifically Nantucket, Caribou, George, and all six in Alaska. 
The study would still go forward for those areas only, not for the rest 
of the country. The dismantling of these areas that are not used would 
be able to continue as the administration and the Federal Radio 
Navigational Plan suggests.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 4585), as modified, is as follows:

       After section 539, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. None of the amounts available or otherwise 
     available to the Coast Guard under title II of this Act under 
     the heading ``United States Coast Guard'' under the heading 
     ``operating expenses'' may be obligated or expended for the 
     continuation of operations at Long Range Aids to Navigation 
     (LORAN) stations nationwide, except in Alaska, far northwest, 
     and far northeast continental United States of America.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I say to my friend, I do support his 
amendment now as amended to preserve the rights of people who currently 
rely on the LORAN-C--the LORAN system, not just the LORAN-C.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, is that amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not pending.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware be set aside and the 
amendment which has just been modified be pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Unless there is objection, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4585), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam American, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for the acceptance of the amendments today and the cordial way in which 
they have worked with us. I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 4553

  Madam President, is the regular order the admendment proposed by the 
Senator from Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Biden amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I apologize. It 
was an unusual request--an urgent

[[Page 14125]]

message which turned out not to be urgent. I apologize.
  The point I was making is $65 million goes specifically to Amtrak 
security upgrades. Specifically, things such as hiring officers, 
increasing K9 patrols, increasing fencing, lighting, and cameras in 
areas where the security experts indicate they are badly needed.
  There is $100 million for R&D. I will not take the time of the Senate 
to go into any of the ways in which to deal with tunnels and innovative 
ways to deal with detection of chemicals, et cetera, and biological 
agents.
  Before I close, I would like to point out a very troubling problem 
relating to rail police which this amendment addresses. We are all 
aware of the problems that this agency faces due to budget shortfalls. 
In particular, the police force is woefully inadequate for the job it 
is assigned to do. The amendment would add 200 Amtrak police officers 
and will provide a 25-percent salary increase for existing officers.
  You ask: Why is that the case? This funding is critical because the 
Amtrak police department cannot pay anything remotely approaching the 
competitive wage rate of other police officers. This contributes to an 
incredibly high turnover.
  An entry-level Amtrak police officer makes only $31,000 with a 
maximum, no matter how long he or she stays on the force and no matter 
what responsibility, of $51,000. By contrast, a Boston police 
department entry-level officer makes $49,000, and a U.S. Capitol Police 
officer entry level makes $46,746.
  This presents a problem with recruiting and turnover.
  Between 1997 and 2003, Amtrak lost 190 of its officers, with only 20 
percent to retirement, and hired only 184. As a result, Amtrak has only 
300 officers in the entire system nationwide, 20 percent below its 
inadequate authorized level.
  I have been working with the Amtrak police department and the 
Fraternal Order of Police for some time to address the disparity.
  This amendment sets aside $25 million to add 200 police officers and 
gives existing officers a 25-percent pay raise. And still they will not 
be competitive enough relative to other agencies.
  This funding is critical. We have neglected rail security since 9/11, 
and we have had wake-up call after wake-up call.
  This year, just as last year, our strong ally has experienced a 
deadly attack at the same time we are addressing homeland security 
appropriations at home. I pray to God that next year, as we address 
this, we are not responding to what might happen to our rail system.
  When are we going to wake up?
  I would like to draw attention to the 9/11 Commission's report card 
issued this past December.
  I think it was December 5. Don't hold me to that exactly, but it was 
in December. It found, in respect to our Nation's critical 
infrastructure, the following:

       No risk and vulnerability assessments have actually been 
     made, no national priorities established, no recommendations 
     made on the allocation of scarce resources, and all key 
     decisions are at least 1 year away.

  It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually set 
them.
  With this amendment, we establish rail security as a priority.
  I urge my colleagues to finally, for Lord's sake, deal with this. At 
any one moment today in New York City, there will be, in an aluminum 
tube in a tunnel underneath that city or standing on a platform, over 
20,000 people. How many people are on a 747--500, 600? I don't know the 
number, but 20,000 people in a relatively confined space at any one 
time sitting in aluminum tubes in tunnels where there is virtually no 
protection--and standing on platforms. We all go to New York. Go on up 
there and look at Penn Station. Get off the train. Walk around and tell 
me how many police officers you identify. You will find more in your 
hometown.
  We have to do something.
  I thank my colleagues for listening to me once again. I hope I will 
not make this speech again next year as a consequence of another 
serious rail attack. I pray to God it is not at home.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the Senator from Delaware makes a strong 
and effective case for the need of stronger rail security. He puts it 
in the context of what is happening in other nations, what has happened 
in England or what happened yesterday in India. There is no question--
and the most recent instance that was potentially here in the United 
States involving New York. There can be no question but that rail is a 
threatened infrastructure and a target of opportunity.
  The problem with his amendment is, as he knows, we are constricted by 
certain rules that we have in allocation. We funded rail security at 
more than we funded last year--not a lot more and certainly nowhere 
near what the Senator from Delaware has asked for.
  But we have used up all the allocation to take care of what we 
consider to be appropriate needs that have to be addressed--threat 
issues, mass destruction, border security, and things we have already 
discussed.
  His amendment, as it is structured, would add $1 billion on top of 
what we have received as an annual allocation, which means that it 
would break other allocations, exceed the agreed-to number, and that is 
something we can't do.
  As much as I recognize the legitimacy of many of the points he makes, 
I think it is, however, important to put in context what is happening 
in rail.
  The number in this bill--and we have about $187 million for rail 
security--is not the only commitment to rail. In fact, if you look at 
the amendment that the Senator from Delaware has put forward, a big 
chunk of the money, I think, goes to tunnel security or other 
construction. We talked about it quite a bit. Amtrak and the northeast 
corridor, which is Amtrak, gets its funding through another 
subcommittee. That subcommittee has, in its appropriation, a lot of 
money for Amtrak. In fact, it has $770 million for capital improvement 
which can be used for tunnel security.
  It has $440 million, I believe, for operating costs which can be used 
for security. That comes through a different committee. And it is 
available for many of the things which these dollars would be used for.
  In addition, I think it is important to note how our priorities are 
set by States and communities which have a large amount of rail and get 
the funds which we give them with great flexibility to be used to 
address threat. We distribute billions of dollars under this bill and 
the prior homeland security bills to major urban areas, especially 
along the northeast corridor. Those funds go out on the basis of 
threat. And communities such as New York, Washington, Baltimore, 
Boston, and Philadelphia have the opportunity to use those funds for 
rail security, if they wish to. But what we have seen from these 
communities is that they don't prioritize rail security at that level. 
They use it for other things.
  For example, in 2005, of the grants that went to States and to 
communities, they spent only 2 percent of their discretionary pool on 
rail security; in New York, a little more, 12 percent. But on average, 
it was 2 percent.
  The State of Washington actually was the most aggressive. They spent 
29 percent of theirs on transportation security. In the largest urban 
areas, the average has been around 8 percent. Communities which have 
the opportunity to make the choice, do we put it into our subway 
systems and bus systems or do we put it into some other area where we 
see threat, we have decided that their commitment will be at this 
fairly small level of the overall dollars that are available. But the 
dollars are there in rather large sums--literally billions of dollars--
and $5 billion approximately is still in the pipeline which could be 
used in these areas. There are other resources that can go toward rail.
  Those that are specific, such as the Amtrak funding that will come 
through for capital improvement, $770 million out of the Transportation 
bill or the operating account, which is $440 million, or those which 
are more general but could be reallocated toward rail, which are the 
city and State discretionary funds. So there is money

[[Page 14126]]

and a lot of it that is available to move in this direction and address 
these needs.
  Assume for the moment there is not enough, which is the argument of 
the Senator from Delaware. I am willing to accept that more money could 
certainly be used in this area. What is the way we should approach 
this? It is not to break the cap. It is, rather, to tie it to a fee 
system, much as we have done with the airlines.
  The Senator from Delaware mentioned the airlines. We have a 
transportation fee in the airline system, which essentially funds the 
TSA activities which involve a lot of capital activities in the area of 
airport security and obviously all the personnel. There are 22 million 
people who ride Amtrak. If you put a $5 transportation fee on their 
tickets, which is about the same as the airline fee, that would 
generate almost exactly the amount of money the Senator from Delaware 
is requesting.
  If the Senator wanted to bring his amendment back with that type of a 
fee system which would allow for the extra money and then allocate it 
the way he is suggesting it be allocated, rather than these other 
sources of revenue, I could agree to that, potentially. But in its 
present form as a cap buster, as a budget buster--because it takes the 
top off the appropriations bill--we cannot agree to this.
  It is not that we do not feel there aren't needs there. There are 
needs there, but we feel there are other sources to fund those needs. 
We feel we make a strong commitment, relative to rail in this bill in 
the context of what has been done historically, and to the extent the 
Senator from Delaware feels an even stronger commitment has to be made 
beyond what Amtrak and cities and towns have as discretionary funds and 
beyond the $187 million in this bill, should do it the same way we are 
doing it with TSA, which is to use a fee system. Those are our 
thoughts.
  It is subject to a point of order because it is $1 billion over the 
budget and would essentially blow the 302(b) cap. At the proper time, I 
will make that point of order, unless it is amended.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator permit me to respond, briefly?
  Mr. GREGG. The floor is the Senator's.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, let me deal with a piece at a time, to 
the cogent arguments my friend from New Hampshire has made and thank 
him for the acknowledgment that there may be a need to do more on rail.
  First of all, I find the whole debate about homeland security, which 
is beyond the purview of this debate, somewhat fascinating. The 9/11 
Commission tells us we should be spending over $42 billion over the 
next 5 years to deal with what they believe and identify as serious 
threats which are woefully inadequate, where they give the mark to the 
Congress and the Senate of a D or an F, in terms of how they grade the 
area of concern. We are $42 billion behind the curve to begin with.
  I find the argument, by the way, a little akin to the argument my 
friend from New Hampshire just made, a little akin to the false 
argument about whether, of $740 million allocated in the last round, 
there should be a 40-percent cut in money for New York and Washington 
to be sent to St. Louis and Omaha. The question isn't whether it should 
have been cut to be sent to Omaha, the money is needed in New York and 
Omaha and in St. Louis.
  The debate should be, why are we only spending, in that allocation, 
$740 million? The single most primary and primitive function of 
Government is to protect its citizens, to physically protect them. In 
my view, it comes before civil rights, civil liberties. It comes before 
education. It comes before health care. If you are not safe in your 
home, safe in your street, safe in your Nation, the rest of it does not 
matter a whole lot.
  So we get into a false debate. Take Amtrak, all the money in Amtrak, 
$740 million for capital expenditures. That $740 million for capital 
expenditures still leaves Amtrak about $4.5 billion behind on capital 
needs. What are we talking about? Rail maintenance, rail improvement, 
the catenary wire above it, the actual cars, the actual engines that 
have to be upgraded. We have forced Amtrak, by underfunding so badly 
for so long, to cannibalize its own system in order to be able to pay 
salaries to keep the trains operating. There is no money.
  It is a little bit similar to my saying, in the education budget, 
there is a whole lot of money there in order to be able to provide for 
eliminating the additional cost of the loans to college students 
because the education budget has X number of dollars. That means you 
have to go cut something out of education that is already underfunded.
  I find it to be a false argument.
  The point about the basis of the threat, I know of no other area 
where there has been as many consistent, specific threat assessments 
made by the FBI, by the CIA, by our intelligence agencies than rail. I 
may be mistaken, but I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong. The 
threat is there.
  Lastly, TSA does not pay for the doors on the aircraft. We still 
spend billions and billions of direct dollars in taxpayers' money. 
Again, it sounds good but irrelevant.
  The arguments are very well made and very irrelevant. We are still 
only spending about $150 million.
  You say: Well, the States have this money. What have they chosen to 
do? Guess what. How much money have the States had to spend on airport 
security when they choose that? The Federal Government has come in and 
taken on th lion's share of that responsibility. I am confused. Why 
does Reagan Airport, which has fewer people visiting every day, have a 
higher priority than Union Station? I don't get that. I don't 
understand that.
  The bottom line is, we do not have the commitment to deal with this. 
I acknowledge, as the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend gets an 
allocation. But, again, that is a false argument. It is true he gets an 
allocation. Why is the allocation not bigger? The allocation is not 
bigger because our priorities in this country are backward.
  Let me give one example, and I realize it is just one. About a month 
ago, we had the six major oil companies before the Judiciary Committee. 
During that time, the chairman, Republican Chairman Senator Specter--
and the issue was price gouging--swore all six CEOs in under oath. 
Everyone asked about price gouging.
  It got my turn in the order of asking questions, and I said I would 
like to not ask about price gouging, I would like to ask you about tax 
breaks. You have an Energy bill last year that I voted against, that, 
at a minimum, there are $2.5 billion worth of tax breaks to encourage 
you to explore. I looked at the chairman of the board of ExxonMobil. I 
am paraphrasing, and I will later in the day come back with the actual 
record of that exchange and ask it be printed in the Record at that 
time. I said: You made $35 billion in profits. My mother would say: God 
love you, that is wonderful. I am not arguing about your profit. That 
is great. Do you need any of the $2.5 billion per year you are going to 
get? He put his head down, if you take a look at the film. I said: Sir, 
you are under oath. And he looked up and he said: No, we don't need it. 
I said: Good. And I went down the list of the other five oil 
executives. Do you need it? No, no, no, no, no.
  Then I asked another question. I'm going to propose to eliminate that 
tax cut, and I am going to use it for homeland security. Do you object 
to that? Would you support it? I said: You are under oath. The CEO of 
ExxonMobil said: I would support it. They all supported it.
  So $2.5 billion we are wasting--wasting--in giving energy breaks to 
oil companies.
  I say to my colleagues, parenthetically, you do not hear me stand up 
here and demagog. I am happy they are making all that money. But they 
acknowledge they do not need it. For $2.5 billion, we could restore my 
entire COPS Program, which we have eliminated. We could add 1,000 more 
FBI

[[Page 14127]]

agents to deal with homegrown terrorism. We could fund every penny of 
this.
  I realize, as the joke goes, that is above my friend's pay grade. It 
is not his responsibility. But we get put in these positions where guys 
such as me vote against budget priorities that are set, allocations are 
limited, and, understandably, under the rule, we are then put in a 
position of points of order.
  I respectfully suggest that if anyone said: What should be the 
priorities of this Nation and how much money should we be spending to 
protect the American people, my guess is a whole lot of things, 
including some social programs, would come after a basic fundamental 
requirement to protect the American people from what we are told is a 
reasonable probability that it will happen.
  I accept everything my friend said in terms of the caps, et cetera. I 
acknowledge this, in fact, would be subject to a point of order. I find 
it frustrating I am consistently left in the position of having to 
argue. It is a little bit similar to what we used to do in local 
office. You cut the budget, and we would make the hearing impaired 
compete with the physically impaired, who compete with the blind, for 
the limited amount of money we gave them. We would say: We cannot use 
more money for the hearing impaired because within this allocation we 
do not have enough money. We will have to cut it from someone else or 
go find it somewhere else. That is how I feel.
  I apologize for my frustration. The record will show, although when I 
speak in the Senate someone suggests I am mildly energized about what I 
speak about, I don't often rise in the Senate to speak.
  Folks, we are going to regret this. We are going to regret this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at 2 p.m. today 
the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to waive the budget with 
respect to the Biden amendment No. 4553, with no amendments in order to 
the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 4589 Withdrawn

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment of Senator Coburn, 
No. 4589, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I now understand that the Senator from 
South Dakota has an amendment he wishes to offer, and we will proceed 
to that. If there are other people who wish to bring amendments over 
prior to the 2 o'clock vote, we would be happy to hear from them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, maybe this has already been done, but I 
ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4610

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

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, and 
     Mr. Talent, proposes an amendment numbered 4610.

  Mr. THUNE. Madam 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 establish a program to use amounts collected from 
  violations of the corporate average fuel economy program to expand 
 infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of alternative 
                                 fuels)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 5__. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REFUELING SYSTEMS.

       (a) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     fund, to be known as the ``Energy Security Fund'' (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Fund''), consisting of--
       (A) amounts transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2); 
     and
       (B) amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (3)(C).
       (2) Transfers to fund.--For fiscal year 2006 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, there is appropriated to the Fund an 
     amount determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be 
     equal to the total amount deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury for the preceding fiscal year from fines, 
     penalties, and other funds obtained through enforcement 
     actions conducted pursuant to section 32912 of title 49, 
     United States Code (including funds obtained under consent 
     decrees).
       (3) Investment of amounts.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals.
       (B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (C) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund in 
     accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (4) Use of amounts in the fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall 
     be made available to the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency for use in carrying out the reimbursement 
     program for alternative energy refueling under section 
     9003(h)(13) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
       (b) Alternative Energy Refueling.--Section 9003(h) of the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Alternative energy refueling systems.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Alternative energy refueling system.--The term 
     `alternative energy refueling system' means a system composed 
     of 1 or more underground storage tanks, pumps, and pump 
     fittings or other related infrastructure that is used to 
     refuel motor vehicles with--

       ``(I) compressed natural gas;
       ``(II) E-85 ethanol;
       ``(III) a fuel described in section 30C(c)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(IV) any other alternative fuel, as determined by the 
     Administrator.

       ``(ii) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     refueling vendor or other person that is an owner or operator 
     of a service station or other facility at which an 
     alternative energy refueling system is located or proposed to 
     be located.
       ``(iii) Energy security fund.--The term `Energy Security 
     Fund' means the Energy Security Fund established by section 
     5__(a)(1) of the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act, 2007.
       ``(B) Reimbursement program.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall 
     establish a program to provide to eligible entities, for each 
     of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, reimbursement from the 
     Energy Security Fund of a portion of the costs of purchasing 
     and installing 1 or more alternative energy refueling 
     systems, including any alternative energy refueling system 
     intended to replace a petroleum refueling tank or system.
       ``(ii) Application.--An eligible entity that seeks to 
     receive reimbursement described in clause (i) shall submit to 
     the Administrator an application by such time, in such form, 
     and containing such information as the Administrator shall 
     prescribe.
       ``(iii) Timing of reimbursement.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the appropriate State agency, verifies that an 
     alternative energy refueling system for which reimbursement 
     is requested by an eligible entity under this paragraph has 
     been installed and is operational, the Administrator shall 
     provide the reimbursement to the eligible entity.
       ``(iv) Limitations.--

       ``(I) Prohibition on receipt of dual benefits.--An eligible 
     entity that receives a tax credit under section 30C of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for placing in service a 
     qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property (as 
     defined in that section) may not receive any reimbursement 
     under this paragraph for an alternative energy refueling 
     system on the property if the cost of the alternative energy 
     refueling system was taken into consideration in calculating 
     the tax credit.
       ``(II) Number of systems.--An eligible entity may not 
     receive reimbursement under this paragraph for more than 2 
     alternative energy refueling systems for each facility owned 
     or operated by the eligible entity.
       ``(III) Amount.--The amount of reimbursement provided for 
     an alternative energy refueling system under this paragraph 
     shall not exceed the lesser of--

       ``(aa) the amount that is 30 percent of the cost of the 
     alternative energy refueling system; or
       ``(bb) $30,000.
       ``(C) Further appropriation.--Reimbursement authorized 
     under this paragraph shall be provided by the Administrator 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(D) No effect on other responsibilities.--Nothing in this 
     paragraph affects any

[[Page 14128]]

     obligation of an owner or operator to comply with other 
     provisions of this subtitle.''.

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the amendment I offer is something I feel 
very strongly about. A threat to America's energy security is a threat 
to our national security. Our dependence upon OPEC and foreign oil 
entangles us in the Middle East and makes us dependent on countries 
that are hostile to America and to American interests. The greater 
America's dependence upon foreign energy, the greater the threat to 
American national security.
  Two decades ago, America alone drove the world's economy. We had 
Western Europe as competitors, but our economy was clearly on top and 
unchallenged. But things have changed. Right now, China is growing at 
about 10 percent a year in GDP. That is almost three times the rate of 
growth here in America. They do not have 300 million citizens; they 
have over a billion. People in that growth rate create an incredibly 
strong economy with serious economic demands; and one of those demands 
is oil.
  China is not alone. India is also growing at a double-digit rate. 
They, too, are a huge economy. And both countries are expanding their 
manufacturing, expanding their technology, and, therefore, expanding 
their demand for oil.
  The challenge for American consumers and, frankly, for American 
industry is that the supply of oil has not kept up with the demand for 
oil. When you have an essential economic commodity, and you are not 
producing a sufficient supply, then prices tend to go up, which is what 
we see happening across the country today. We are all fighting for the 
same gallon of oil. Until that changes, either we will need to increase 
supply or we are going to face higher prices.
  In my view, the long-term strategy and solution is to power our 
automobiles with something other than gasoline. Technology is the way 
to help change America for the better. Years of investment in fuels 
such as ethanol have put us on the threshold of major breakthroughs. 
Those breakthroughs are becoming a reality for consumers here in this 
country.
  In my home State, the community of Aberdeen, SD, is, right now, 
selling E85 fuel for under $2 a gallon when other fuel prices are going 
for $3 a gallon and sometimes higher because they have an abundant 
supply of ethanol. It is produced locally, and the fuel retailers have 
made the investment to install the tanks. That is the very thing we 
want to see happen in other places across this country because American 
consumers and Congress realize we have to do more to reduce our 
dependence upon foreign sources of energy.
  The amendment I am offering would significantly help in providing 
alternatives for the American consumer while lessening our dependence 
upon foreign oil. This amendment, very simply, would allow station 
owners around this country to be reimbursed for 30 percent--not 
exceeding $30,000--of the expenses related to the purchase and 
installation of alternative refueling systems.
  This amendment provides partial reimbursement for eligible 
alternative refueling systems, such as E85--which, I mentioned, is 
something we are starting to see more of in my State--biodiesel, 
natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied 
petroleum gas, hydrogen, and other alternative fuels as defined by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. This amendment utilized penalties that 
are primarily paid by foreign automakers who violate CAFE standards. 
Last year, these penalties generated about $20 million. It will 
complement the growing number of alternative fueled vehicles across our 
country, protect the environment, and allow our country to reduce its 
dependence upon foreign sources of oil.
  The car companies in this country have announced recently they are 
going to double the number of flex-fuel vehicles they are going to put 
on the roads here in the future. If you look at already what we have on 
the roads today, there are more than 5 million flexible-fuel vehicles 
on the road that can run on either E85 or regular gasoline. However, 
the problem is that we have 180,000 gas stations across this country 
and only 800 currently offer E85 ethanol. In short, this means that 
less than 1 percent of all stations in America today offer E85 as an 
alternative.
  The average cost of purchasing and installing an E85 refueling system 
is approximately $40,000 to $200,000, depending on the geographic area 
and the size of the tank. Ethanol production is at an all-time high of 
4.5 billion gallons per year. Nationwide, there are currently 103 
plants producing ethanol, with 35 more under construction. Those 35 
additional plants will add an additional 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol 
production by next year. The Energy Policy Act, passed last year, 
requires the annual use of 7.5 billion gallons of alternative fuel by 
the year 2012.
  The amendment is very straightforward. It acknowledges the fact we 
have auto manufacturers who are producing more and more automobiles 
that are capable of using alternative sources of fuel such as E85. It 
acknowledges the fact that we have production in this country going, 
with 2.3 billion additional gallons becoming available this year of 
ethanol. And it also acknowledges there is a consumer out there in the 
country today who is looking not only to get the very best possible 
price per gallon for the fuel they put in their vehicle, but also to do 
something about the long-term problem that faces this country; that is, 
this enormous appetite for oil that furthers our dependence upon 
foreign sources of energy.
  What we need in this country is American energy and American 
independence so we do not have to worry about getting all that fuel, 
all that oil, from places outside the United States that are hostile to 
this country and to American interests.
  This is about energy independence. It is about closing that 
distribution gap, so that now that we have the supply, we have the 
demand for ethanol, that we have the fuel retailers in this country 
moving in a way, putting policies in place, that would make it possible 
for them economically to install the very pumps that would provide the 
fuel that is being increasingly demanded by American consumers and 
which those in the ethanol industry in this country are continually 
gearing up, in terms of production, to meet.
  So this is a very straightforward amendment. It applies to this 
particular piece of legislation, I believe, for a lot of reasons, one 
of which is, as I said earlier, it is a very, very clear and 
established connection that a threat to America's energy security is a 
threat to our national security.
  We talk about protecting our homeland and making sure America is safe 
and secure going forward for future generations. A key component in 
that debate ought to be: What steps are we taking as a nation, what 
policies are we putting in place that will enable our country to become 
energy independent, to have American energy meet the needs and the 
demands that our economy has to grow in this country?
  So, Madam President, I offer this amendment to this legislation. 
There are others who I believe are interested in this issue. I 
introduced a bill that is very similar to this amendment. I have made 
some slight modifications to it, which was cosponsored by Members on 
both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. A similar bill is 
calendared for action in the House of Representatives.
  I believe it is high time as a nation, as a U.S. Senate, that we put 
as a priority getting away from that dependence upon foreign sources of 
energy, having an abundant supply of an American energy, so we can 
provide the supply that is necessary to fuel our economy, keep it 
growing, keep it strong, and make sure that it is affordable for 
American consumers.
  Madam President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be laid aside, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 14129]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from North Dakota be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning 
business, and upon completion of his statement the Senator from 
Louisiana be recognized to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 4615

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4615.

  Mr. VITTER. 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 the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency 
 or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited 
                      under Federal or State law)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 540. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.

       None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     temporarily or permanently seize any firearm during an 
     emergency or major disaster (as those terms are defined in 
     section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) if the possession 
     of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law, 
     other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal or State 
     law or as evidence in a criminal investigation.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this involves gun confiscation during 
major disasters or emergencies. My amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It would prevent any sort of confiscation of legally 
held guns protected by the second amendment during major disasters or 
emergencies.
  In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, local and Federal law 
enforcement officials were overwhelmed in many ways by the tragedy that 
unfolded. That is understandable. During the chaos, a criminal element 
took advantage of the tragedy and started to commit serious crimes 
against persons and property. In many cases, law-abiding citizens took 
action and defended their property and themselves through the 
constitutionally guaranteed second amendment right to bear arms.
  There is probably no more important or significant moment in normal, 
everyday American life where that second amendment right meant 
something. In some cases, it was literally the difference between a 
law-abiding citizen's life or death and between that citizen's ability 
to protect his property or have it completely taken away. Yet in the 
midst of that situation, where that constitutionally guaranteed right 
was so important, even far more important than in an everyday 
situation--although it is certainly crucial then--certain law 
enforcement authorities confiscated legally held firearms by law-
abiding citizens. Not a few, not a dozen, not two dozen, but literally 
thousands were confiscated by law enforcement officials.
  In fact, even well after the hurricanes, the Federal court ordered 
the city of New Orleans to return all guns unlawfully seized during 
Hurricane Katrina. Even after all that, the New Orleans police 
superintendent, Warren Riley, stated in a June 6 radio interview that 
his officers would confiscate guns again if another similar disaster 
should strike New Orleans.
  This is ridiculous and should not be tolerated. We are talking about 
a constitutionally protected second amendment right. And even more so, 
we are talking about a situation where those rights are vitally 
important for the law-abiding citizen when the police are not there and 
are unavailable, when there is no phone service, and literally that 
citizen's second amendment right is the key to protecting his own life, 
his family, and their property.
  I am proud to say that in Louisiana, our State legislature acted on 
this issue, as I am attempting to do today. In June of this year, in 
time for the new hurricane season, a law was passed to clarify that the 
emergency powers granted to the Governor and to local officials ``do 
not authorize the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, weapon or 
ammunition from any individual if the firearm, weapon or ammunition is 
being possessed or used lawfully.''
  I am supportive of that action by the State legislature. It was 
signed into law by the Governor. Unfortunately, there is still room for 
Federal authorities to act inconsistent with that. That is the problem 
and the issue and challenge I want to solve. My amendment is very 
simple and straightforward. It is a limitation of funds saying that no 
Federal funds in this act can be used to temporarily or permanently 
seize any firearm during an emergency or major disaster, if the 
possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State 
law. The amendment also allows for the forfeiture of firearms in 
compliance with Federal or State law or as evidence in a criminal 
investigation.
  I hope this will be noncontroversial, that all Senators will accept 
the amendment as an important, commonsense clarification of the law and 
what the law certainly should be.
  I understand our law enforcement officers are under intense pressure 
in these extreme situations following a major disaster or a major 
emergency. But particularly in those situations, when their services, 
quite frankly, are unavailable to the populace as under normal times, 
when all communication is shut down, officers should not be 
confiscating legal firearms from law-abiding citizens protected under 
the second amendment.
  That is the nature of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators 
Inhofe, Enzi, Thune, Burns, Brownback, Martinez, Domenici, and Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. 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 (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4553

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to 
the Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Biden amendment is now the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I will raise a point of order against the pending 
amendment. The amendment would cause the bill to violate section 302 of 
the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of 
the Budget Act on this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez

[[Page 14130]]


     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 50, the nays 
are 50. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


          Amendments Nos. 4558, 4554, 4552, and 4569, en bloc

  Mr. GREGG. I have four amendments--by Senators Lautenberg, Salazar, 
Kerry, and Feingold--all of which have been cleared on the other side. 
I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4558

(Purpose: To prohibit the expenditure of appropriated funds to enforce 
or comply with the limitation on the number of Transportation Security 
           Administration employees, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


             CERTAIN TSA PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS NOT TO APPLY

       Sec. __. No amount appropriated by this or any other Act 
     may be used to enforce or comply with any statutory 
     limitation on the number of employees in the Transportation 
     Security Administration, before or after its transfer to the 
     Department of Homeland Security from the Department of 
     Transportation, and no amount appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used to enforce or comply with any 
     administrative rule or regulation imposing a limitation on 
     the recruiting or hiring of personnel into the Transportation 
     Security Administration to a maximum number of permanent 
     positions, except to the extent that enforcement or 
     compliance with that limitation does not prevent the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security from recruiting and hiring 
     such personnel into the Administration as may be necessary--
       (1) to provide appropriate levels of aviation security; and
       (2) to accomplish that goal in such a manner that the 
     average aviation security-related delay experienced by 
     airline passengers is reduced to a level of 10 minutes.


                           amendment no. 4554

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare a 
     report on the conduct of activities to achieve communications 
                           interoperability)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives with an 
     assessment of short-term (defined as within 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act), intermediate-term (defined as 
     between 2 years and 4 years after such date of enactment), 
     and long-term (defined as more than 4 years after such date 
     of enactment) actions necessary for the Department of 
     Homeland Security to take in order to assist Federal, State, 
     and local governments achieve communications 
     interoperability, including equipment acquisition, changes in 
     governance structure, and training.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4552

   (Purpose: To repeal TSA's exemption from Federal procurement law)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TSA ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT POLICY.

       (a) In General.--Section 114 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (o) and redesignating 
     subsections (p) through (t) as subsections (o) through (s), 
     respectively.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4569

  (Purpose: To require reports to Congress on Department of Homeland 
                      Security use of data-mining)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 540. DATA-MINING.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Data-mining.--The term ``data-mining'' means a query or 
     search or other analysis of 1 or more electronic databases, 
     whereas--
       (A) at least 1 of the databases was obtained from or 
     remains under the control of a non-Federal entity, or the 
     information was acquired initially by another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government for purposes other than 
     intelligence or law enforcement;
       (B) a department or agency of the Federal Government or a 
     non-Federal entity acting on behalf of the Federal Government 
     is conducting the query or search or other analysis to find a 
     predictive pattern indicating terrorist or criminal activity; 
     and
       (C) the search does not use a specific individual's 
     personal identifiers to acquire information concerning that 
     individual.
       (2) Database.--The term ``database'' does not include 
     telephone directories, news reporting, information publicly 
     available via the Internet or available by any other means to 
     any member of the public without payment of a fee, or 
     databases of judicial and administrative opinions.
       (b) Reports on Data-Mining Activities by the Department of 
     Homeland Security.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or 
     agency in the Department of Homeland Security that is engaged 
     in any activity to use or develop data-mining technology 
     shall each submit a report to Congress on all such activities 
     of the agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The 
     report shall be made available to the public.
       (2) Content of report.--Each report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, for each activity to use or 
     develop data-mining technology that is required to be covered 
     by the report, the following information:
       (A) A thorough description of the data-mining technology 
     and the data that is being or will be used.
       (B) A thorough description of the goals and plans for the 
     use or development of such technology and, where appropriate, 
     the target dates for the deployment of the data-mining 
     technology.
       (C) An assessment of the efficacy or likely efficacy of the 
     data-mining technology in providing accurate information 
     consistent with and valuable to the stated goals and plans 
     for the use or development of the technology.
       (D) An assessment of the impact or likely impact of the 
     implementation of the data-mining technology on the privacy 
     and civil liberties of individuals.
       (E) A list and analysis of the laws and regulations that 
     govern the information being or to be collected, reviewed, 
     gathered, analyzed, or used with the data-mining technology.
       (F) A thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, and 
     guidelines that are in place or that are to be developed and 
     applied in the use of such technology for data-mining in 
     order to--
       (i) protect the privacy and due process rights of 
     individuals; and
       (ii) ensure that only accurate information is collected, 
     reviewed, gathered, analyzed, or used.
       (G) Any necessary classified information in an annex that 
     shall be available to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Time for report.--Each report required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the end 
     of fiscal year 2007.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent my name be added as a cosponsor to 
Senator Vitter's amendment No. 4615.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4620

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment to strengthen 
chemical facility security.
  As Yogi Berra once said, ``this is like deja vu all over again.'' 
This is the fourth appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security, and every summer, I have offered an amendment to provide 
incentives to the chemical sector to secure their facilities by 
establishing a chemical security grant program.
  Unfortunately, at every turn, the administration opposed my 
amendments and those amendments were defeated. The administration 
claimed that it was partnering with the chemical sector and that they 
were doing enough to secure their facilities.
  In my State of West Virginia, there are 73 chemical manufacturing 
plants

[[Page 14131]]

and 100 chemical distribution plants. If there were an attack on one or 
more of those facilities, the potential loss of human life and damage 
to the local and national economy would be devastating. The same can be 
said for facilities in New Jersey, New York, Texas, Michigan, 
California, Pennsylvania, and many other States.
  The Department of Homeland Security's National Strategy for Securing 
the Chemical Sector states that ``the value of the sector to the 
Nation, as well as the potentially high consequences associated with 
some chemical facilities, make the Chemical Sector a potentially 
attractive target for terrorists.''
  Despite the multitude of warnings that the chemical sector is 
vulnerable to attack, including its own warnings, the administration 
has shown a great reluctance to make security at chemical facilities a 
priority.
  Last year, the Government Accountability Office concluded that for 93 
percent of the chemical industry, it is uncertain whether facilities 
are improving security at all. Only 1,100 of the 15,000 chemical 
facilities identified by the Department of Homeland Security are known 
to adhere to voluntary industry security procedures.
  The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 123 chemical plants 
located throughout the Nation could each potentially expose more than a 
million people if a chemical release were to occur.
  I was encouraged last summer when the DHS Assistant Secretary for 
Infrastructure Protection and Information Security testified before 
Congress that a system to enforce and audit security standards must be 
put in place for the chemical sector. Unfortunately, no action has been 
taken since his testimony.
  This year, in its National Strategy to Secure the Chemical Sector, 
DHS says, ``legislation that would provide the Department of Homeland 
Security with overarching regulatory authority for the Chemical Sector 
security should be enacted.'' If the administration were serious about 
chemical security, it would have submitted legislation to back up this 
tough talk. Yet, the administration has not submitted such legislation. 
Nor has it played an active role in encouraging the congressional 
leadership to work with the various committees with an interest in this 
matter to resolve their differences and bring a bill to the floor. This 
morning, the administration submitted its statement of administration 
policy on the bill that is before the Senate, and once again the 
administration is silent on this matter. For the life of me, I do not 
understand why this administration does not take securing our chemical 
facilities seriously.
  I applaud the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
for reporting legislation on this matter, and I thank Senator Joe 
Lieberman for cosponsoring this amendment.
  My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue 
interim final regulations for chemical facilities that he determines 
present the greatest security risk. The substance of the regulations 
would be established by the Secretary.
  I believe this is a strong first step. Any regulations issued by the 
Secretary under this authority would only be applicable until final 
regulations issued under other laws are established.
  We have waited too long. The potential devastation--the terrible loss 
of life, the huge hit to the Nation's economy, the irreparable harm to 
our air and water--the potential devastation demands that we take steps 
now to secure these chemical facilities. There has been enough talk; it 
is time to act. I urge all colleagues to support this amendment.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4620.

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

 (Purpose: To ensure adequate safety at high-risk chemical facilities)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. (a) Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall hereafter issue interim final regulations that 
     establish homeland security requirements, including minimum 
     standards and required submission of facility security plans 
     to the Secretary, for chemical facilities that the Secretary 
     determines present the greatest security risk and that are 
     not currently regulated under Federal law for homeland 
     security purposes.
       (b) Interim regulations under this section shall apply to a 
     chemical facility until the effective date of final 
     regulations issued under other laws by the Secretary, that 
     establish requirements and standards referred to in 
     subsection (a) that apply with respect to that facility.
       (c) Any person that violates an interim regulation issued 
     under this section shall be liable for a civil penalty under 
     section 70117 of title 46, United States Code.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I support the Senator's amendment. I 
understand there may be some Members who wish to speak to it, so I 
suggest we lay it aside and move on to the amendment of the Senator 
from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 4621

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4621.

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

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct 
  tests of unmanned aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the 
              border between Canada and the United States)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish and conduct a pilot program at the Northern 
     Border Air Wing bases of the Office of CBP Air and Marine, 
     United States Customs and Border Protection, to test unmanned 
     aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the 
     international marine and land border between Canada and the 
     United States.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill to address an area that needs 
more attention, the northern border. We have 5,526 miles of border 
between the United States and Canada. That is about double the length 
of our southern border with Mexico. Along that border, about 560 miles 
of it is in the State of Montana. The terrain is remote in many cases. 
It is mountainous. Passage is somewhat difficult in some areas. In 
others it is easy; it is wide open.
  This amendment will help our Border Patrol cover this vast area by 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot 
program using unmanned aerial vehicles along that border.
  In addition to personnel training, we must also employ the latest 
technologies. The border patrol has already conducted successful tests 
using UAVs along the southwestern border in Arizona for aliens and 
detection of those attempting to enter our country illegally. It 
requires some of the UAVs already provided for in this bill be used to 
run a pilot program on the northern border similar to that conducted on 
the southern border.
  We do not want to compete with our friends in the Southern States, 
but we want to make it clear that the northern border also needs 
increased attention. As you can imagine, as the southern border of the 
United States is tightened, our northern border, which used to be 
America's back door, is quickly becoming a front door.

[[Page 14132]]

  Customs and Border Patrol report that their No. 1 concern on the 
southern border is illegal immigration. What is the No. 1 concern on 
the northern border? Terrorism. Border gangs are going international 
and admit having ties to al-Qaida and smuggling al-Qaida members into 
the United States.
  In Montana, markings from these gangs have been found in the 
correctional systems, within the walls of our jails, in our detention 
facilities.
  Surveillance of our ports is happening daily by nefarious people. It 
appears that our procedures for checking out vehicles both leaving and 
entering our country are being looked at by criminals, and it has been 
reported that these ``dry runs'' are being conducted near Glacier 
National Park. All of these activities are made easy due to the wide 
open space and insufficient numbers of law enforcement personnel along 
our northern border.
  The ability of our Border Patrol to successfully carry out their 
daily duties is of critical importance, obviously, to the safety of all 
Americans. This amendment will give us the tools we need to protect our 
borders. UAVs are a safe alternative to placing civilians in harm's 
way, and by introducing a pilot program that helps us patrol our 
northern border, we are getting on the right track to fighting the war 
on terrorism and keeping our home front safe.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Cantwell and 
Murray as cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this 
amendment offered by my colleague from a northern border State, and 
want to emphasize that homeland security along our northern border is 
of the utmost importance.
  I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana is a very 
important amendment for us to add to this legislation because of both 
its efficiency and effectiveness in helping us secure our northern 
border. For us, with great transportation crossings as we have in 
Washington State, including ferry transportation crossings, there was 
the instance in the Northwest where a terrorist was caught coming 
across from Canada into Port Angeles who was detained.
  But we are here today to talk about the vastness of the northern 
border that sometimes is penetrated by people who are not checking in 
at various checkpoints but try to sneak into the country along the 
vast, rugged areas of our Northwest terrain.
  So it is very important we get tough on border security by passing 
this amendment, which has cutting-edge technology that will actually 
help save this country dollars and provide greater border security.
  The unmanned aerial vehicles, as Senator Baucus has talked about, are 
already being deployed on dangerous patrols in the Middle East and in 
some places along our borders here at home. But the UAVs, I believe, 
are already in limited use on the southern border, and they have proven 
their effectiveness. To me, it is something we ought to expand on for 
our overall capability to help respond to incidents.
  With their extended range, these UAVs can conduct prolonged 
surveillance, sweep over remote border areas, relaying information to 
border agents on the ground. As has been described by some of the 
people I have met with on this issue, they literally create a 
communications network from the air to the ground that can get vital 
information to those who are involved in border security who can more 
effectively, then, do their job.
  This process provides critical intelligence about the areas that have 
previously gone unsecured for so long, and it allows our agents to 
better prepare and respond to incidents involving both illegal 
immigrants and drug smugglers.
  Now, I know there has been the Insitu Group from our State that has 
provided this technology in our Operation Iraqi Freedom and the global 
war on terror. They have flown many hours and been very effective with 
that technology. So I believe it is important for us to now get 
aggressive about using this same technology--that has been proven so 
successful--on our northern border and to have the continuation of its 
use on our southern border so we can modernize the patrol capabilities 
and reach hundreds of miles that have previously been unguarded.
  As I said, we do this at a much more effective rate than could 
possibly be done with any other tools and technology or manned efforts. 
So we will be giving our agents the best technology possible for them 
to guard our southern and northern borders, using improved 
intelligence. That is why I am so happy to work with Senator Baucus to 
direct the Department of Homeland Security to do a pilot on this UAV 
surveillance along the northern border.
  I will continue to work with him and many of my other colleagues to 
encourage Homeland Security to run this pilot program in affected areas 
throughout the Northwest and making sure that the investment here is 
realized so we can continue the expansion of this operation.
  As I said, the technology will help law enforcement at every level do 
their job, and it will help us in fighting this influx of drug problems 
we are also facing in the Northwest as well. And it will certainly give 
our citizens at home more security.
  We cannot turn our backs on the needs of the northern border while we 
are looking at some of the issues on the southern border. So let's make 
sure we are effective in covering both areas of our country and giving 
law enforcement the broadest tools possible to do their job.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I advise Members and their staff who are 
listening that we have put out a request for anybody who wishes to 
address the amendment from Senator Byrd to get in touch with us, and if 
they have an objection to get in touch with us. Otherwise, at 3 
o'clock, I intend to move to accept that amendment--just so people are 
aware of that, unless we hear an objection.
  The Senators from Montana are working on making sure the language of 
this pending amendment--I understand Senators Burns and Baucus from 
Montana are working to make sure the amendment is correctly drafted. 
Once they work out the correct drafting of the amendment, then I would 
expect we would accept that amendment also.
  Pending that, 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.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4614

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I call up Senator Byrd's amendment No. 
4614.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4614.

  Mr. GREGG. 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 establish procedures for grants for State and local 
                               programs)

       On page 93, line 4, before the period insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That for grants under subparagraphs (B) 
     through (F), the applications for such grants shall be made 
     available to eligible applicants not later than 75 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, eligible applicants shall 
     submit applications not later than 45 days after the date of 
     the grant announcement, and the Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness shall act on such applications not later than

[[Page 14133]]

     45 days after the date on which such an application is 
     received''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Byrd, in offering an amendment to the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 that would require the 
Department of Homeland Security to issue interim regulations to help 
secure the most dangerous chemical facilities around the country.
  Since 9/11 opened our eyes to the threats we face on U.S. soil from 
Islamist terrorist groups, we have moved to improve security for many 
of the critical elements of our society and economy. But somehow we 
have not yet protected one of our greatest vulnerabilities--the 
chemical sector.
  Chemicals are vital to many of the processes that feed us, heal us, 
and power our economy. Yet the very pervasiveness of the chemical 
sector makes it vulnerable to terrorism. Thousands of facilities 
throughout the country use or store potentially lethal materials, often 
near large population centers.
  We know that terrorists are interested in targeting these facilities. 
The Congressional Research Service reports that during the 1990s both 
international and domestic terrorists attempted to use explosives to 
release chemicals from manufacturing and storage facilities close to 
population centers. The Justice Department in 2002 described the threat 
posed by terrorists to chemical facilities as ``both real and 
credible,'' for the foreseeable future.
  When homeland security expert Richard Falkenrath testified before our 
committee last year, he said that one asset above all others stands out 
as being acutely vulnerable and uniquely dangerous: toxic-by-inhalation 
chemicals. He said the Federal Government had done virtually nothing to 
secure the facilities manufacturing and storing these chemicals and 
called on the 109th Congress to give the executive branch the authority 
to mandate and enforce security enhancements for these facilities.
  I think Congress has the responsibility to enact a strong and 
comprehensive chemical security program, and I believe we have started 
down the right road to do so. Last month, the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously approved the Chemical 
Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which Senator Collins and I 
introduced last December. I think this legislation--which was crafted 
and approved on a bipartisan basis after four hearings and extensive 
input--is the best way to address the vulnerability posed by chemical 
sites. The bill would authorize DHS to issue final regulations to help 
secure the Nation's most at-risk chemical facilities.
  I urge the administration--which has said it wants legislative 
authority to regulate chemical security--to actively support this 
strong, bipartisan legislation and the majority leader to give it with 
immediate consideration on the Senate floor.
  But we cannot afford to take chances where chemical security is 
concerned and every day of additional delay on chemical site security 
places the American people at unacceptable risk. So while it is my 
great hope that we will enact the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act 
of 2006 soon to establish a permanent chemical security program, this 
amendment is critical to ending the long drought of inaction on 
chemical security by the Federal Government and ensuring we will move 
swiftly to begin to close this critical homeland security gap.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4614) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the regular order is the Baucus amendment; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Baucus amendment is now pending.


                           Amendment No. 4620

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Baucus 
amendment be set aside and that the Byrd amendment be returned as the 
regular order. It is amendment No. 4620.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 4620 will be 
made the regular order.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4620) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SUNUNU. 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. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of an 
extremely important provision in the pending bill. That funding 
provision is the $40 million to support the Counter-MANPAD program. 
This is a program initiated by Congress to develop technology to 
protect commercial aircraft from man-portable air defense systems or 
MANPADS, known to many as shoulder-fired missiles or portable anti-
aircraft weapons. Congress originally included $110 million in funding 
for this program in the fiscal year 2006 budget and there is currently 
$40 million in the pending fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill. This funding will allow for the completion of 
Phase III of this important program. This phase includes testing of the 
technology in real-world operations, a final report on the findings to 
Congress and the termination of the program.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security has decided to 
complete the program and report its findings based on Phase III flight 
testing on cargo aircraft only. This is a decision that I question 
because it runs counter to the program's original objective of 
developing a system that would protect primarily passenger aircraft, 
but also protect cargo aircraft.
  Operations in the cargo and commercial aviation industries are very 
different and I believe that any final reporting or evaluation must 
include an assessment of the potential deployment of a Counter-MANPAD 
system on passenger aircraft as well as cargo aircraft. Without the 
actual flight testing of the Counter-MANPAD system on passenger 
aircraft, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the system.
  Moreover, future policy decisions on aircraft protection would be 
based on findings that many could argue are incomplete. Prior funding 
has already gone a long way towards approving this important 
technology, and adding a passenger aircraft study would validate the 
original objective set forth by DHS and Congress, and in no way delay 
any final reports from the program office.
  I commend the work of the subcommittee for including this funding as 
well as those who participated in the program through the Department of 
Homeland Security, phases 1, 2, and 3. I also commend the many 
participants in the private sector: from the scientists, engineers, to 
those who test the equipment to ensure that it is the strongest, most 
competitive, most viable system.
  I thank the committee for its work and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. What is the regular order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is the pending 
question.

[[Page 14134]]




                    Amendment No. 4621, as Modified

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4621), as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct 
  tests of unmanned aerial vehicles for border surveillance along the 
              border between Canada and the United States)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 540. Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish and conduct a pilot program at the Northern 
     Border Air Wing bases of the Office of CBP Air and Marine, 
     United States Customs and Border Protection, working 
     expeditiously with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to test unmanned aerial vehicles for border 
     surveillance along the international marine and land border 
     between Canada and the United States.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the modification to the amendment I 
offered is including the phrase, ``working expeditiously with the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.''
  The purpose is to make sure that the Department of Homeland 
Security's efforts in operating the pilot program along the northern 
border is one that can work with the FAA because the FAA will probably 
have to give clearance for air traffic taking off. In addition, the FAA 
will need to, it is my understanding, offer a waiver for these types of 
aircraft as they have at the southern border. It is my hope, in working 
with Senator Burns, that this will clear up potential problems that may 
arise. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I have already spoken about this and why I think it is important. The 
efforts on the southern border are to combat illegal immigration, and 
on the northern border they are more to combat terrorism. There are 
many more reports of potential terrorist casing and transporting of 
people into the United States from the northern border. It is becoming 
quite alarming.
  It is our hope that this will help control the northern border and 
help with the additional personnel really needed on the northern 
border. We don't have that personnel. I think this will help make our 
country more secure. I thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, 
for making this suggestion. This is a good suggestion. It will 
strengthen this amendment. I hope it will be agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Montana. The reason we filed that amendment on Monday was for this 
particular reason: The FAA controls all air space. Just like we found 
out a little while ago, they only have one area where a waiver has been 
granted, and this instructs that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
will work with the FAA, and the FAA will work with the other agency in 
order to allow this pilot program to move forward. It has already been 
established in Great Falls. That northern border security that we 
already have there and this pilot program can move forward with the 
UAV.
  So I thank my colleague for including that language. That is the 
reason we filed the amendment in the first place. He already put 
language in the immigration bill, but we needed that language that 
still recognizes the FAA as controller of our air space and is probably 
key in this pilot program moving forward.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask uanimous consent that Senators Craig and Coleman 
also be cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. Is there further debate?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the unmanned aerial vehicle program is 
something the subcommittee is supportive of. This concept of having one 
on the northern border is something we also support. The Senators have 
a good amendment. I think the addition of language on the FAA makes it 
an operable amendment. If FAA were not engaged, it would not be an 
operable amendment. It merges well with the initiative in the bill 
which is to stand up the northern airway, which initiative Senators 
Burns, Dorgan, Conrad, and Baucus asked be started. This bill funds two 
aircraft out of North Dakota to make sure that we have manned aircraft 
on the border.
  So this is an attempt to tool up the northern border. It is something 
that is going to take a lot more work. Certainly in the long run there 
is going to have to be more than one unmanned vehicle on the northern 
border. There will have to be quite a few.
  As was mentioned by Senator Baucus, the northern border appears to 
have a high risk of terrorists coming across it. We know numerous 
instances now of the northern border being used for potential terrorist 
crossings. Therefore, we cannot ignore that border; we are not ignoring 
the border. But the issues there are a lot different than the southern 
border because of the length of the border. In fact, it is heavily 
wooded wilderness and difficult terrain to surveil. So I believe these 
unmanned vehicles will be critical in the long run.
  I congratulate the Senators for bringing this amendment forward. I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4621), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we await further amendments. The Senator 
from Illinois wishes to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, 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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from New York is going to offer an amendment at this time. I ask 
unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 o'clock be divided as 
follows: The Senator from New York have 40 minutes and that I have 15 
minutes in opposition. I think that adds up to the right time--
actually, now, it doesn't--that I have 20 minutes in opposition. 
Whatever is left after 40 minutes, that is what I have in opposition, 
and at 5 o'clock we proceed to a vote on the amendment of the Senator.
  There will be 40 minutes for the Senator from New York, 20 minutes 
will be reserved to myself, and at the conclusion of that time we will 
proceed to a vote, or earlier should the time be yielded back on the 
time of the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4576

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4576 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 14135]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself, Mr. 
     Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, 
     Mr. Obama, and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4576.

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

   (Purpose: To restore funding to States and local governments for 
terrorism prevention activities in the Homeland Security Grant Program 
                      to fiscal year 2005 levels)

       On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,183,500,000, of which $790,000,000 is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 
     83 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2007, as made applicable in the Senate by 
     section 7035 of Public Law 109-234''.
       On page 91, line 8, strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,100,000,000''.
       On page 91, line 9, strike ``$350,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$400,000,000''.
       On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,312,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 1, strike ``$745,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$885,000,000''.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Obama and Akaka be added as original cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, nearly 5 years ago, as we all remember, 
on September 11, 2001, terrorists murdered 2,819 Americans, including 
2,752 in New York; 343 firefighters and paramedics and 608 police 
officers lost their lives. It was the single deadliest attack on 
American soil in our history.
  We are here debating how much money our country is ready, willing, 
and able to spend to protect our homeland. What is clear, what has been 
clear, is that the threat posed by terrorism requires a great 
mobilization of American might, muscle, resources, and ingenuity. I do 
not believe that mobilization has yet occurred.
  Just in last December, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission, 
reported that we should get failing grades for how we are responding to 
the challenges of homeland security. Governor Tim Kaine said when it 
comes to protecting America, it is not a priority for the Government 
right now. The urgency may have faded, but the threat has not. We only 
need to look at the news and see what happened in Mumbai, India, 
yesterday to be reminded that terrorists strike anywhere, at any time, 
at innocent people.
  There are many problems with the strategy, or lack thereof, that we 
have been pursuing on behalf of homeland security. I regret that we 
have not done more, we have not had a comprehensive strategy, we have 
not put the money to work in smart, effective ways, and we have 
witnessed dangerous incompetence with respect to the failed response to 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have gotten a lot of tough talk, but I 
would take tough action anytime. We got a lot of rhetoric, but I would 
take resources. We have had campaign slogans, but I would rather have 
real security.
  What has been the No. 1 recommendation by every independent group, 
every expert who has analyzed the threats we face and the challenges we 
confront when it comes to homeland security? Threat-based funding, that 
was one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Sadly, all 
too often funding decisions have been based on politics as usual.
  I have been championing threat-based funding ever since 9/11. I 
introduced the Homeland Security block grant bill as well as the 
Domestic Defense Fund Act, both of which provided direct and threat-
based homeland security funding to our communities and our first 
responders. I have personally made the case for threat-based funding to 
Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Ridge before him. Even funds 
supposedly distributed based on risk have been administered 
incompetently. We just saw an inspector general's report from the 
Department of Homeland Security listing all of the alleged threats 
around the country. With all due respect, you can read that list and it 
just causes your head to shake in bewilderment.
  In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced its 2006 
Homeland Security grants. Cities and States facing high terrorist 
threats suffered considerable funding cuts, a decision that can be 
largely attributed to a series of highly questionable risk assessments. 
New York City and Washington, DC, remain at the top of any intelligence 
that we get with respect to threats. Yet they were given drastic 
reductions. Funding under the Urban Area Security Initiative alone was 
slashed in New York City by more than 40 percent, and in Washington, 
DC, by 43 percent. New York State has been struggling since 9/11 to 
come up with a comprehensive State plan and has been trying to scrape 
together funds for what are shortfalls from the Federal Government.
  Today, I am joining my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and my partner, 
Senator Schumer, in introducing an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 
Homeland Security appropriations bill to restore the Homeland Security 
Grant Program funding. This amendment provides an additional $790 
million in Homeland Security funds so that next year's levels of 
funding will match those of 2005. That is all this asks for--bring back 
the funding to what it was 2 years ago.
  We have already heard eloquent statements on the floor about port 
security. We have already heard about how difficult it is to get the 
kind of inspections and screenings we need at our ports. That is why I 
cosponsored Senator Byrd's port security amendment, and I am delighted 
that it actually passed by unanimous consent. I only hope that we will 
fight for that when this goes to conference and that the administration 
will listen and support this extra funding for port security.
  We are still fighting for border security. We know that we have not 
done enough. We have had weeks of debates about immigration that are 
really about border security. What are we going to do to keep our 
borders secure? Not enough. Under this administration, despite the 9/11 
attacks, our borders have become less secure.
  According to a May 2006 report by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service, the U.S. Border Patrol grew at a faster rate and 
apprehended more undocumented immigrants each year under President 
Clinton than it has under President Bush. We have the technology and 
the tools. Americans are certainly telling us they want us to make our 
borders secure. So let's get serious. Let's employ new surveillance 
equipment, like detection centers, unmanned ground and infrared 
cameras. Let's enlist and deploy the manpower we need.
  We just voted on, unfortunately unsuccessfully, putting more money 
into securing our mass transit systems: our roads, our rails, our 
tunnels. We know how important that is. I cosponsored Senator Biden's 
rail security amendment which would have provided an additional $1.1 
billion to enhance rail security, upgrade tunnels, provide for more 
Amtrak police. But it failed.
  Today I am joining Senator Schumer to submit an amendment to provide 
an additional $300 million for transit security nationwide. I hope it 
succeeds. Anybody who rides mass transit should know we are doing 
everything we possibly can to take care of and eliminate the 
vulnerabilities that our mass transit systems have.
  Beyond our financial investments, we also need new strategies and 
creative ideas. We have been talking about an interoperable 
communications system since 9/11. The 9/11 Commission recognized the 
essential critical nature of such a system. But year after year we 
don't do it. We bring amendments to the floor, we make speeches, it 
doesn't happen.
  In May of this year, I introduced legislation to set up a Federal 
interoperable communications and safety system to create a national 
emergency communications strategy, to make sure that when police and 
fire departments respond they can talk to each other; when the Federal 
Government sends help through the Coast Guard or the military or FEMA, 
they can talk to

[[Page 14136]]

each other, and they can talk to State and local officials as well.
  I have also been fighting for several years to make sure that we have 
a nationwide emergency 9-1-1 system so that when you call from a cell 
phone people will know where you are.
  Can you imagine being caught in a terrorist attack or a natural 
disaster and calling for help and people can't hear you, can't know 
where you are, can't send help to you? It happens all the time.
  I was at an event this morning where an emergency response director 
made two horrifying calls that went unanswered in one case and a late 
answer in another because the cell phone couldn't be tracked.
  We have a lot to do. We can just stand here and list the problems. It 
is not just all about terrorism. Are we truly ready for a pandemic flu? 
Do we have adequate security at our chemical and nuclear facilities? 
Are we prepared for the potential of a dirty bomb attack in a major 
population center?
  I was encouraged that legislation I authored to create a national 
system to track radiological materials that could be used to make a 
dirty bomb was finally passed. I thought: OK. Great. I can check that 
off my worry list, which is a pretty long list being a Senator from New 
York.
  Then I find out that the administration announced a national plan, 
which was the whole idea behind tracking radiological materials. They 
wanted to have a State-by-State approach. In a nutshell, that is what 
is wrong. It is a national problem. The attacks of 9/11 may have 
happened in Washington, in New York, and in a field in Pennsylvania, 
but they were attacks on every single American, on our way of life, on 
our values, on our freedom. I don't think we want State-by-State 
responses. Do you think terrorists are going to stop at a State border 
or a county border? I don't.
  We have to restore confidence and competence as we approach this 
problem of homeland security. We have made some progress but not nearly 
enough. Sadly, I think we have put different priorities ahead of 
securing our country. I regret that. I hope we make amends. I hope we 
get back on the right track with a comprehensive plan, with the right 
strategies, with the appropriations we need, and with the distribution 
of those taxpayer dollars in a smart and effective manner, not politics 
as usual.
  I see on the Senate floor my colleague and friend, one of the great 
leaders on homeland security, the Senator from Maryland. I yield to her 
whatever time she needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, once again I rise with great pride to support the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, as she 
has so often in the past stood for the fact that funding to fight 
terrorists and to be ready for any kind of major disaster should be 
based on risk. In other words, money should go to where there is the 
greatest risk. The Senator from New York has been a longstanding 
advocate of this from September 12 to standing here today.
  I support this amendment, as I, too, have done in the past. I am so 
frustrated with the Department of Homeland Security. It can't get its 
act together. It can't get the job done. It makes poor decisions on 
allocation, and it is saturated with waste and fraud.
  The last straw was when I opened the paper and saw that the 
Department of Homeland Security was slashing funds for high-threat 
urban areas. The money was leaving the Capital region and New York to 
go to States such as Nebraska. I respect the people of Nebraska. If 
they are in danger, I want them protected. I don't know about the 
threats of Montana and Minnesota, but I sure do know about the threats 
in Maryland. We are part of the Capital region, the home of the 
President of the United States, the home of the Congress of the United 
States, the home of the Cabinet that runs Government, the home of the 
Supreme Court, and the FBI.
  In the Capital region we have the Pentagon, we have the Central 
Intelligence Agency. In Maryland, we have three intelligence agencies 
gathering technical information--and they say we are not a high threat?
  On September 11, we lost 60 Marylanders at the Pentagon, mostly 
African American, mostly who worked in the clerical positions. And we 
said a grateful nation would never forget. Just like the other 
Marylanders who died at the World Trade Center, we said a grateful 
nation would never forget. And the way that we are never going to 
forget is to make sure it doesn't happen again--to protect against 
attacks and, second, that we were going to do whatever we could to be 
able to be ready and respond to any of these attacks.
  When we saw that smoke here at the Capitol that day, it just wasn't 
on television. I was so proud of the fact that it was Maryland first 
responders who were first on the scene because they work together in 
the Capital region. Rescue One out of Chevy Chase, MD, dashed across 
the Potomac to be first on site at the Pentagon. They were worried in 
northern Virginia because they didn't know what else would happen.
  I visited that site. Again, on a bipartisan basis, I and Olympia 
Snowe toured the site together. We saw the rubble of the Pentagon. We 
saw them working to save lives. We saw how they had worked together in 
the Capital region. Obviously, Homeland Security, its agencies, and its 
database doesn't get it. They don't get it. They do not get the fact 
that the 9/11 Commission recognized the threats facing our urban areas 
and said target the resources at the areas of greatest need.
  The Senate recognized the threat facing the Capital region when they 
worked with Senators Warner, Allen, Sarbanes, and myself to establish 
an Office of the National Capital Region so we could coordinate in the 
most effective way. It enabled the Capital region and also New York and 
other major areas to receive extra resources. However, the Department 
of Homeland Security that gave us the Katrina aftermath ignored 
Congress and ignored the Commission, and they slashed the resources for 
New York and the Capital region by 40 percent. They said we had gotten 
money. Oh. Right.
  They said: Our database shows you don't deserve it. Thank God for the 
Department of Homeland Security's IG. There they go again over there at 
Homeland Security. They can't get it right. Their own inspector general 
said the Department's ability to assess risk is seriously flawed.
  Guess what. They count an insect zoo and a bourbon festival as 
critical infrastructure.
  When you listen to the fact that an insect zoo ranks up there with 
the Supreme Court, doesn't that bug you?
  Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security failed to list 
the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building.
  They do not know the difference between a bourbon festival and the 
Statue of Liberty. They don't seem to know the difference.
  This is the data that the Department of Homeland Security used to 
allocate the funding for Homeland Security grants.
  There were in the State of Indiana over 8,000 assets listed, and in 
New York over 5,000. Just come with me down the Baltimore-Washington 
corridor as you pass these agencies that are helping people. There are 
the threats. We have high-threat targets because of what they do in 
national security, such as the National Security Agency.
  We have threats of the heart, like the National Institutes of Health. 
Can you imagine the blow to research if something happened to NIH? Then 
come with me over there to Calvert Cliffs where we have a nuclear power 
plant, and then come up along the bay and see the U.S. Naval Academy.
  How does that rank? That is Maryland. Then, of course, there is New 
York. We all know that New York showed up on every single list.
  I commend the Senator from New York for offering this amendment. I 
believe that as we have organizational reform for Homeland Security, as 
the

[[Page 14137]]

Collins' amendment did, and the Clinton amendment made such a strong 
point, we should have resource funding reform, and the heart and soul 
of that is the resource funding should follow risk.
  The Department of Homeland Security along with FEMA should be 
operating on a risk-based strategy with confident professional people 
who have to learn the difference between an insect zoo, the Supreme 
Court, and the White House. If they can't get that straight and they 
didn't know how to build lessons, and they say: Don't worry 
``Brownie,'' you are doing a good job, there they go again. I am fed up 
with it.
  If I could vote one more time to dissolve the Department of Homeland 
Security, I would. I can't quite do that. But what I can do is make 
sure that the right resources go to the areas with the greatest risk. 
Baltimore would benefit. The Capital region would benefit. New York 
would benefit. But it is not about money. It is about saving lives and 
saving people.
  I want to enthusiastically support the Clinton amendment and know 
that we are here to try to do this, to save lives, to save communities, 
and to protect the United States of America. If they do not know how to 
be the Department of Homeland Security, let us in Congress be the ones 
who understand it and properly fund it.
  In conclusion, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire because under 
his leadership the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee was the first 
committee to hold comprehensive hearings on terrorism. He remembers the 
questions and who was in charge. Obviously, you can see that the 
Department of Homeland Security is not.
  I support the Clinton amendment and am happy to be a cosponsor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 18 minutes and 38 seconds.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, to be 
followed by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
6 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for 
yielding time.
  What the Senator is attempting to do is make sure we react 
appropriately to the threats we face. We talk about making sure our 
citizens are safe. We want to make sure they are safe from terrorist 
attacks around the world, but it has to be focused on protecting our 
homeland from yet another terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the amounts 
dedicated to State and local Homeland Security grants in this bill fall 
far short of that goal.
  Senator Clinton's amendment is crucial because it restores $790 
million that has been slashed from Homeland Security grant programs 
over the past 2 years. This amendment will help ensure our high-risk 
States and cities get what they need to protect their citizens and to 
defend our country.
  How can we justify cutting Federal Homeland Security funds at this 
time? The administration has been warning us about terrorist plots 
targeting the passenger rail tunnels between New York and New Jersey. 
They have broken up another plot that targeted the Sears Tower in 
Chicago, areas that are under considerable risk. How do we justify 
cutting funds?
  We are going to spend some $500 billion on the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan before this year is out. We should be making sure we 
protect ourselves from an attack from abroad. But how about attacks 
within our boundaries? Almost 3,000 people lost their lives on 
September 11. Nothing could have been worse than to see the 
consequences of that, as we did from the State of New Jersey. We could 
see the smoke from the towers. We could see the disappearing World 
Trade Center facilities.
  The Clinton amendment restores funding for the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention 
Program, and the urban area security initiative to the fiscal year 2005 
levels.
  New York and New Jersey bore the brunt of the attacks on September 11 
and continue to be the most at risk. Just recently, a Lebanese citizen 
was taken into custody with two other individuals for plotting to bomb 
the PATH railway tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey 
and New York.
  We have seen terror strikes all over the world. Just yesterday, bombs 
went off on 7 different trains during rush hour in India, killing 160 
people and wounding over 460. We do not yet know who is responsible for 
that atrocity, but coming on the heels of the London and Madrid transit 
system bombings and the two attacks on the World Trade Center, it is 
clear that terrorists strike in places that are vulnerable, where they 
can maximize the number of innocent civilians who will be killed or 
wounded.
  The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark 
and the Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most 
at risk area in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack. Yet my 
State's Homeland Security funding was cut by $4.6 million when the 
fiscal year 2006 grants were allocated. And New Jersey got off 
relatively well, with an 8 percent cut, compared to New York, which 
lost 37 percent of its funds, or Texas, which lost 31 percent of its 
funds.
  Are we truly protecting our citizens if we keep cutting homeland 
security funding? No, we are not. Have we already won the war on 
terror? Has the mission been accomplished?
  We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We want to make 
sure our troops on the front lines there have everything they need to 
do the job. But the other front line is the home front line. We have to 
make sure our States and our cities and particularly those places most 
at risk have everything they need to do the job.
  What are our priorities in the Senate? Reducing inheritance tax for 
multimillionaires or providing our communities with Homeland Security 
funds? This is the choice we face on this amendment.
  We may disagree on whether it is appropriate to have nonrisk-based 
formulas apply to Homeland Security grants, but we can all agree that 
cutting overall funding year after year is not making anyone safer.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Clinton's amendment. I 
proudly support it. We desperately need this restoration of funding for 
homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on behalf of this 
amendment to strengthen our homeland security efforts--specifically the 
ability of first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and 
recover from terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters. I 
commend my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Schumer and Mikulski, for 
authoring this critical amendment and am proud to join them as a 
cosponsor.
  September 11, 2001, changed our lives forever. We face new and 
dangerous threats from our enemies that we must be prepared to deal 
with. Furthermore, the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina proved 
beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are still a nation unprepared for 
catastrophe. We know our first responders lack the training, equipment, 
and frequently the manpower they need to do their jobs. Most don't even 
have the basic capability to communicate with one another across 
jurisdictional and service lines, and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated 
that sometimes during a major catastrophe they can't communicate at 
all.
  Yet the Bush administration seems to have turned its back on the 
lessons of September 11, 2001, and of August 29, 2005, the day 
Hurricane Katrina made landfall. The President's budget proposal did 
nothing to indicate otherwise. That proposal eliminates a number of 
first responder programs and cuts others, leaving those on the 
frontlines of the war against terror or on the frontlines of a 
hurricane, struggling to make do with less. It was the latest chapter 
in an ongoing assault on these vital programs: this is the third 
straight year the administration has sought dramatic cuts in first 
responder

[[Page 14138]]

funding, down from $3.95 billion in fiscal year 2004 to just $1.97 
billion in this year's request.
  The appropriators have done what they could to restore the worst of 
the proposed administration cuts, but their bill still leaves some 
programs below current levels. We simply cannot continue to shrink 
these accounts that form the backbone of our homeland defense. This 
amendment calls a halt to this dangerous slide. It would provide $790 
million to restore the key first responder accounts to fiscal year 2005 
levels. Specifically, the amendment would: Add $600 million for the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, the fundamental building 
block of States' homeland security efforts, to bring it to $1.1 
billion; add $50 million for the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention 
Program, LETPP, to restore it to $400 million. This program helps 
empower our first responders to prevent terrorist attacks, not simply 
respond after the fact. Add $140 million for the urban areas security 
initiative, UASI, to restore the program to the FY 2005 total of $885 
million. This program targets additional resources to urban centers 
that bear particular risk of terror attacks.
  Frankly, we can and should do more. Interoperability--the ability for 
our first responders to talk to each other--is an urgent need and one 
that will cost far more than even this amendment will provide. In 1993, 
an expert task force chaired by our former colleague Senator Warren 
Rudman concluded that the Nation needed to invest nearly $100 billion 
more in equipping and training our first responders. Instead of heeding 
that call, this administration has instead led us down a path of 
shrinking resources for first responder programs. This amendment would 
be an important step to reverse the erosion of these critical accounts.
  Our enemies are ruthless and choose their own battlefields in the 
communities where we live and work. Nature, too, can be ruthless and 
will strike in unpredictable ways year after year. We must have first 
responders who are trained and equipped not just to prepare for and 
respond to catastrophes but to work to prevent them, as well.
  We worked with a real sense of urgency after September 11, 2001, to 
secure our nation. We must summon that same sense of urgency now to 
close the security gaps that remain. I wish there was a cheap way to do 
that. But there isn't. It takes money--more money than the 
administration's budget offers and more money than this appropriations 
bill currently provides. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
so that we can make additional headway toward our goal of being better 
able to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the 
terrorist attacks and natural disasters that are sure to come.
  Mrs. CLINTON. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes and 53 seconds.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4587

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I call up my amendment No. 4587.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr. 
     Menendez, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4587.

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

  (Purpose: To increase the amount appropriated for transit security 
                        grants by $300,000,000)

       On page 91, line 6, strike ``$2,393,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,693,500,000''.
       On page 91, line 22, strike ``$1,172,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,472,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 13, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$450,000,000''.
       On page 92, line 16, insert ``: Provided, That not less 
     than $50,000,000 shall be made available for grants for 
     transit and intercity passenger rail security research and 
     development: Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000 
     shall be made available for grants for overtime compensation 
     in high threat areas'' after ``transit security grants: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided under this 
     subparagraph is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, 
     as made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public 
     Law 109-234'' after ``security grants''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues 
from New York and New Jersey. We are doing three amendments together. 
One, Senator Clinton's amendment, increases the threat money. The 
second, the amendment of Senator Menendez, which I believe will be 
offered within the hour or shortly thereafter, will change the wording 
in the formula. My amendment increases money for transit homeland 
Security by $300 million. All of these amendments are important to our 
New York-New Jersey area.
  We have seen, in the last few months, two things. First, the New 
York-New Jersey area, of course, continues to be, unfortunately, a 
target of choice. When terrorists talk about creating devastation to 
our homeland, unfortunately, New York comes first to their minds. It 
means that our city has to be extra vigilant. Our State has to be extra 
vigilant. Our friends across the river have to be extra vigilant.
  Frankly, while there are threats everywhere, New York has to be more 
vigilant than anywhere else. Yet in a deep disappointment that still 
wounds us, the Homeland Security Department dramatically cut back on 
our funding.
  The amendment Senator Clinton is offering with which I am proud to be 
her partner, along with Senator Menendez and Senator Mikulski, 
basically increases the overall pot because we have two problems. The 
pie is not large enough, and the way the pie is distributed, 
maldistributes the money. Senator Menendez' amendment deals with how 
the money is distributed.
  It is an outrage that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who 
promised Congress before he was nominated that he would be fair to New 
York, has cut back so dramatically. He has used the most foolish of 
formulas. He had a peer review process. I have great respect for the 
sheriff of a small town in the Rocky Mountain States, but in all due 
respect to that sheriff, he should not be the judge of how New York 
needs money.
  Today we saw the list of terrorist sites. It reaches the point of 
absurdity. The Old McDonald Petting Zoo is a target for terrorists. I 
have been to petting zoos when I was a kid. I took my children to 
petting zoos, but I never saw a terrorist hiding behind one of the 
sheep in Little Bo' Peep's flock. Then they have the Amish Popcorn 
Factory as a terrorist site.
  Why did this happen? It is because of the careless and sloppy 
attitude at Homeland Security that reflected itself in the formula by 
which our city and our State were dramatically cut.
  The amendments we are talking about would both increase the size of 
the pie desperately needed when we know the war on terror is real and 
the threat to our homeland is not subsiding. It is desperately needed 
because we are one Nation. Just as the mayor of New York City is not on 
some peer review panel to determine whether New York City should get 
corn subsidies, the small town officials, who are very good people in 
defending their city, are not the folks to determine how much New York 
needs and where it needs it. We will be having other amendments later 
that deal with some of the specific issues.
  My amendment is the third leg of this stool. New York has been 
targeted repeatedly, whether it is releasing cyanide on a New York City 
subway car or trying to blow up the PATH that Senator Lautenberg talked 
about that brings millions of commuters during the course of each year 
across the river from New Jersey to New York.
  The terrorists know what we are doing. The Internet allows them to 
know it. They look for our weakest pressure point.

[[Page 14139]]

  We have done virtually nothing on rail security. Nothing. We spend a 
couple of pennies for each mass transit rider while we spend $7 or $8 
on each person who flies. And I am glad we spend the $7 or $8 on the 
people who fly. But mark my words, the terrorists know if air travel is 
pretty well protected they will look somewhere else.
  The most logical place they look, unfortunately, is to the rails, 
where millions of people are in unguarded entrances, coming together. 
We saw it in Madrid. We saw it in London. Unfortunately, once again, we 
saw it in Mumbai yesterday. We will see it again. I wish that were not 
true. God forbid, but it will happen.
  This is a modest amendment. My colleague, Senator Biden, asked for a 
large amount of money. This is just $300 million, but it will go a long 
way. Right now we only spend $150 million. What we would do in our 
amendment is double, add $200 million, grants on rail security, the 
personnel, the dogs. Talk to terrorist experts. They say dogs that can 
smell explosives or biological or chemical weapons are the best 
anecdote. This would pay for things like that.
  We also put aside $50 million to develop detection devices. 
Technology allowed terrorism to occur. Technology can protect us. But 
we are not availing ourselves of that technology. One of the things I 
have been pushing for for years is the money to develop a detection 
device, much like a smoke detector, that could sit on the ceiling of a 
subway car or in the entrance of a railroad station. When someone came 
by with a great deal of explosives or biological or chemical or nuclear 
material on their bodies, it would go ``beep, beep, beep,'' and the 
police would be able to make an arrest before damage was done.
  This amendment sets aside a modest $50 million to begin that 
research.
  Finally, the amendment provides $50 million for overtime 
reimbursement. Every time we hear of a threat in a different part of 
the world, the New York City police department must put men and women 
on overtime to guard the subways and the dog squads and everyone else. 
This is a Federal responsibility.
  The bottom line is, the soft underbelly of subways, buses, and 
tunnels are highly vulnerable to the kinds of terrorist attacks we have 
seen in London and Madrid and Mumbai. Unless we take real steps to beef 
up mass transit security immediately, the bottom line is, we spend more 
than $7 per airline passenger on air security but little more than a 
penny per mass transit rider.
  In the wake of these most recent threats and yesterday's tragic 
attacks in India, we need to be doing a lot more to even the score. 
This week, we have increased funding for border security and port 
security. I ask my colleagues to do the same for rail systems. I will 
ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment at an appropriate time.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to my friend and colleague from 
New York.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York. Sadly, 
today is an all too appropriate day to be offering an amendment to 
increase transit funding. Yesterday, the savage bombing of eight 
commuter trains in Mumbai--densely packed during the evening rush hour 
by people just trying to make their way home--showed once again that 
terrorists find public transportation to be an extremely attractive 
target. Currently, the Indian government reports that over 200 people 
died in the blasts, and the death toll is rising. And so our thoughts 
and prayers are with the people of Mumbai, and our minds should be 
riveted back here in the United States.
  Two years ago, we saw tragic bombings in Madrid; last year, in 
London; yesterday, Mumbai. Each of these should have served as a wake-
up call to this country, a call to action for Congress to act to secure 
the over 14 million Americans who use public transportation to get to 
work each day. The recently disclosed plot against the tunnels under 
the Hudson River highlights the need for action. One of the targets was 
the PATH subway tunnel that carries over two hundred thousand people a 
day back and forth between New York and New Jersey. And yet, we 
continue to spend a virtual pittance on transit security. The Federal 
Government spends about $9 on security for each airline passenger, but 
only about 1 cent for each bus or train rider. While we need to secure 
our airways, we also need to secure our streets, our rails, and our 
subways.
  According to the American Public Transportation Association, our 
Nation's transit systems need over $5 billion in capital equipment and 
$800 million per year in annual operating expenses in order to 
adequately meet security needs. One hundred and fifty million dollars a 
year is not going to get us there. The Schumer/Menendez amendment 
provides $300 million--not the entire amount we need but a crucial 
increase over what we are currently providing. In addition to adding 
$200 million for additional transit security grants, the amendment also 
provides money for research into new security technologies for transit 
and intercity rail. We all know that airport-style screening of 
everyone boarding a train isn't going to work. But that doesn't mean we 
can simply give up. New technologies offer the promise of being able to 
detect explosives and chemical weapons far quicker and less obtrusively 
than we do now, but we need to put the money into researching those 
technologies. This amendment will do that. This amendment also provides 
money to help local law enforcement authorities out with overtime when 
their region is declared to be a high threat area, which is sorely 
needed in high-risk areas such as the New York and New Jersey 
metropolitan region.
  I never want to be standing here and discussing an attack that 
happened a day earlier on an American subway system, on American 
trains, or on American buses. It is bad enough that I have to stand 
here today and discuss yesterday's tragic events in India. But this is 
one more wake-up call to a Congress that has continued to hit the 
snooze button when it comes to transit security. I want my colleagues 
to ask themselves what they would be willing to do, what commitment 
they would be willing to make, if yesterday's news had been about 
trains in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Denver, Houston, 
Buffalo, or any other American city. Well, we don't need to wait for an 
attack on American soil. We can make that commitment now, we can 
provide the resources now so we don't look back some day and ask 
ourselves, ``Why didn't we do then what we need to do today?'' And we 
should ask ourselves now, ``How much more would we be willing to spend 
after the fact?'' It is far more expensive to respond to an attack than 
to try to prevent one. The Schumer/Menendez amendment is not the final 
step, but it is a necessary step, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4576

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 12 seconds.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Boxer be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I think this debate must be very 
confusing to people around our country who might be tuning in or 
sitting in the galleries because we should be spending an appropriate 
amount of money, not wasting it. We should have it focused. We should 
not be thinking of funding places and institutions like those referred 
to by both Senators Schumer and Mikulski. And I think it is bewildering 
for us even on the floor.
  It has been so difficult to get a straight story out of the 
Department of Homeland Security, to get any kind of clear sense of what 
the strategy is. What is it we have to do to make a case based on 
threats and risks? And why is

[[Page 14140]]

money being cut from the places that are at the top of the terrorists' 
hit list?
  I do not have an explanation. The closest I can come is that we have 
other priorities in this Congress and on the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue. We would rather spend money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 
among us. I just do not get it.
  But we have a chance to send a very clear message with this 
amendment, to say: Look, there is not anything more important. Let's do 
it right. Let's require the highest level of competence from this 
administration and particularly the Department of Homeland Security. 
Let's not spend money wastefully, but let's spend money where we know 
it will give us the best results to protect our country.
  I make a special plea on behalf of New York. We have spent billions 
of dollars in New York City and New York State. It is not like we have 
been waiting around. We have created a 1,000-person intelligence unit 
with the NYPD, with detectives all over the country. We have spent a 
lot of money beefing up the personnel and putting in equipment. But we 
need help. We cannot take a 40-percent cut and protect everything that 
needs to be protected in New York City--from the mass transit system, 
to the Statute of liberty, to the United Nations, to the ports, to 
bridges, to the tunnels; you name it.
  So I hope we will have a bipartisan vote in favor of going back to 
the amount of money we spent in 2005, and making sure we spend it in 
accordance with threat and risk.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 4576, and 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back her time.
  Is there a sufficient second for the yeas and nays?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. GREGG. This is on the Clinton amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Clinton amendment.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 20 
minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. 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.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that when I read the 
article that was in the paper about the decision to basically transfer 
a significant amount of dollars from New York and Washington, I was 
surprised and quite shocked. I said to myself: That doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense. Because I think most of us understand that New 
York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a couple of other spots 
which are probably better not to mention, are truly the No. 1 targets. 
Certainly, New York is at the top of every list, as is the city of 
Washington. So I thought: Why are we doing that? Or why was the 
Department doing that? They did not advise us, obviously.
  I looked into it, and they have a peer-review process for the 
application of these funds. All these funds go out under a threat-based 
concept. This has been the insistence of this committee. There are 
funds that do go out under the formula. I do not happen to be a big fan 
of the formula. It is not a lot of funds compared to the entire block 
of funds. But the vast majority of the funds flow out on the basis of 
threat-based decisions.
  Now, what happened was, of the 46 cities that were in competition for 
these funds, New York came in 44th and the District of Columbia came in 
42nd in evaluation of their proposals. And their proposals, in fact, 
were just plain poorly written; not only poorly written, they were 
poorly structured, and they did not have behind them the backup that 
was necessary to make them viable proposals.
  In that context, the decision was made to take these funds and move 
them over to other applicants who had put in better proposals. I guess 
if I had been managing the Department, what I would have said is: 
Listen, we know that Washington and New York are the primary targets. 
We also know these proposals, as they came forward, were just not very 
good proposals and really did not accomplish the goals we are seeking 
in the issue of addressing threat and effectiveness. And effectiveness 
should be part of this. We should not take effectiveness out because 
there is no point sending money out if we are not going to get results 
for it.
  Probably, if I had been in charge, had the magic wand, I would have 
said, escrow this money until we can work with these two cities, and 
regions in the case of New York and Washington, and get the plans in 
order. But that is not the decision that was made. The decision was 
made to move the dollars to other locales. So there are equities, in my 
opinion, in the arguments made by the Senators from New York and the 
Senators from Maryland and New Jersey. And the equities are strong 
enough that we actually put language in our report that requests that 
the Department place a higher priority on risk and that they focus on 
dealing with this type of a situation. And I am certainly expecting it 
will not happen again the way it happened this year.
  But that is not the essence of this amendment. The essence of this 
amendment offered by the Senator from New York is to increase funding 
above our allocation--I guess it claims it as an emergency--and to 
basically put additional dollars on the table for the purposes of these 
types of threat-based grants.
  Now, I think it is important to understand that since we started this 
program we have put $14.6 billion into the pipeline to try to assist 
the cities and areas of highest risk, and that in this bill we have 
$2.4 billion to accomplish that. That is a lot of money. And of that 
money, only $6.1 billion has actually been taken down. In other words, 
there is still literally close to $9 billion when you consider this 
year of money available to address these issues. And to put another big 
chunk of money on top of that, really, I do not think is going to 
improve the situation from the standpoint of what New York and 
Washington are concerned about, because I think there is enough money 
in the pipeline to accomplish much of what they desire.
  The right way to correct this problem relative to New York and 
Washington is to have the Department understand these are the priority 
sites, and that if the proposals coming in from these two regions are 
not of a quality that give the Department confidence that the money is 
going to go out and be used effectively, then they should sit down with 
these two regions and work out the process so we do it right--escrow 
the money, sit down, work out the problem, figure out how the money can 
be used so everybody knows it is being use effectively. So that would 
be the way I would resolve this issue.
  To simply put more money in the pipeline, when we have this much 
money in the pipeline, I do not think is going to resolve it. For all 
we know, they might still not get the money if they went through this 
same approval process they had this year. Hopefully, they won't. I did 
note comments by the mayor of New York--and I respect him for this--
where he said he recognized the proposal they sent down here was not up 
to snuff. That is my characterization, but that is the way I read it. 
And he is right. It was not. But that did not mean they should not have 
gotten the money. It should have meant the Department should have sat 
down with them and figured out how to get it right. However, that is, 
as they say, history.
  As we have moved forward, I believe we have put in adequate language 
to make it clear. And certainly this floor discussion, I hope, 
illuminates the issue further, that we expect these two regions to 
receive the resources which are in the pipeline, and to receive them in 
a robust way, but under the condition that the various programs which

[[Page 14141]]

they send down here have been worked through so both sides have 
confidence the money is going to be used effectively.
  I will, however, have to make a point of order against this amendment 
from the Senator from New York because I do not believe the best 
approach at this time is to simply bust the budget, put more money in 
the pipeline, declaring an emergency, in order to address what was 
really a programmatic issue and a failure of communication, to be quite 
honest--a massive failure--between the city of New York and the city of 
Washington and the Department of Homeland Security as to how they 
should have handled the funds which were in the pipeline.
  So when the proper time comes, I will make a point of order that this 
amendment busts the budget and is not an appropriate use of the 
emergency designation.


                           Amendment No. 4587

  As to Senator Schumer's amendment, which is a follow-on to Senator 
Biden's amendment, I would just renew the comments I made under Senator 
Biden's amendment. We have again increased the funding for rail. It is 
not anywhere near where I would like to be able to put it, but it is an 
increase. But, more importantly, there is a large amount of money again 
in the pipeline coming through the funding for Amtrak--$770 million, 
which is available for capital improvement.
  On top of that, it is very interesting, if this is such a high 
priority, why has the discretionary money which we are sending to these 
major metropolitan communities been used in such a minor way to address 
rail security?
  The average, I believe I said earlier, was like 2 percent, and in New 
York's case they are using 8 percent of their discretionary money for 
rail security. They get a huge amount of money. In fact, New York--and 
I think this should be mentioned for part of the Record--gets 
dramatically more money; even when they lost the funds in this 
competitive grant process, they still get, I think, about twice what 
any other community gets, twice what any other community in the country 
gets. And they deserve it, quite honestly. They are where the basic 
threat is. So I do not begrudge them that.
  But the fact is, they get a large amount of resources, and they could 
take much more than 8 percent of those resources and put them toward 
rail, if they wanted to. But they do not. And to simply put more money 
on top of this, and, thus, once again go well beyond our allocation, is 
a mistake and not the fiscally prudent thing to do, nor is it the best 
way to approach the threat in the context of the dollars which are 
coming from other areas and can be used to address the threat--such as 
the underlying Amtrak funding, such as the grants program, which is 
billions of dollars, and the basic funding in this bill for rail 
security.
  So I will also make a point of order against that amendment.
  I have suggested--and I suggested it to Senator Biden and to Senator 
Schumer--if rail really feels it needs a significant increase in 
resources, they could do it the same way the airlines have done it, by 
assessing a fee on passengers. That is how we pay for the airlines. 
That is how we are paying, basically, for TSA. A $5 fee would generate, 
essentially, the number that Senator Biden wanted. About a third of 
that would generate the number that Senator Schumer feels is necessary. 
And that is one way they could redress their issue and still stay 
within the budget, if they felt it was that important a question.


                           Amendment No. 4576

  So at this point, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my 
time, unless the Senator from New York--she used up all her time. I 
didn't know if the Senator wanted to respond to anything I said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has yielded back her 
time.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator want any of my time to respond or is the 
Senator all set?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Two minutes if I could.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator 2 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. It is my understanding that a point of order has been 
made against my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has not yet been made 
against the amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire suggested he 
would make a point of order but has not made such a point of order. The 
Chair has not heard a point of order formally put to the Chair against 
the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I inform the Chair that pursuant to the deeming language 
of Public Law 109-234, I raise a point of order against the emergency 
designation of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator, a point of 
order is made appropriately at the end of the debate. The Senator from 
New York was asking a question whether a point of order had yet been 
made.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I hear a point of order that I will then 
respond to.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back the balance of my time, unless the Senator 
from New York wants 2 minutes. I renew the point of order.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House 
Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent 
resolution for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, 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. The emergency designation is removed.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
pending amendment because it would cause the bill to violate section 
302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 4587

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we now move to the Schumer amendment. At 
the conclusion of the debate, I reserve the right to make a point of 
order against the Schumer amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It adds $300 
million to probably the most woefully neglected area of homeland 
security, and

[[Page 14142]]

that is security on the rails, whether it be mass transit, whether it 
be long-term passenger rail, or freight.
  We have seen in the last year that transit rails are a target of 
choice for terrorists. We saw it in London, we saw it in Madrid, and we 
saw it just yesterday, unfortunately, once again in Mumbai. Our rails 
are very vulnerable. We spend over $7 per air traveler for homeland 
security; we spend about a penny for mass transit. And the terrorists 
always look for our vulnerability. Transit is vulnerable. Passenger 
rail is vulnerable. Freight rail is vulnerable. There are miles and 
miles of unguarded track and thousands of people entering unguarded 
entrances. If there were ever a place we needed help, this is it.
  There are, obviously, things we are doing on port security. The 
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia increased that funding. It 
makes no sense, given that the rails have been the target of the last 
three major terrorist attacks around the world, to have a paltry $150 
million for rail security.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from New York yield? I believe we had a 
1-minute agreement.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thought it was 2. How much time do I have remaining, 
Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thirty-four seconds. In the interest of moving things 
along, I yield back the remainder of my time and urge an ``aye'' vote 
on this important amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, also in the interest of moving things 
along, the debate in opposition to this amendment has been made 
relative to the Biden amendment. It is basically a ``little Biden,'' 
and it is in excess of the ability of this committee to fund it at the 
levels being suggested.
  Pursuant to the deeming language in Public Law 109-234, I raise a 
point of order against the emergency designation in the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I 
move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of 
the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
50. 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 is removed.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
pending amendment. The amendment would cause the bill to violate 
section 302 of the Budget Act.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We can't hear, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator repeat the motion.
  Mr. GREGG. I raise a point of order the amendment would cause the 
bill to violate section 302 of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 4556

  Mr. REID. I ask for the regular order with respect to the Feinstein 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                           Amendment No. 4557

  Mr. REID. I make a point of order against the Cornyn amendment. It is 
legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is this the second-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree amendment falls on the point 
of order.
  The Feinstein amendment is now pending.


                           Amendment No. 4556

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the game plan now is to recognize the 
Senator from New Jersey to speak on his amendment. Then we will go to 
the Senator from Alabama to speak on amendments which he is going to 
offer. There will not be any more votes tonight. Those will be the only 
amendments offered this evening. I will formally ask unanimous consent 
to that point. Then tomorrow morning we hope to structure it so we 
begin voting around 10 or 10:30, initially on the amendment of the 
Senator from New Jersey and potentially, or hopefully, on the amendment 
of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Pennsylvania, which 
they will have a chance to debate in the morning prior to the 
amendments. Then, around 12 o'clock, we know we are going to have an 
amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio and we will go to that 
amendment. In the interim, there will also be an issue of the 
amendments of the Senator from Alabama and other amendments which 
people may wish to bring forward.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New Jersey be 
recognized, followed by the Senator from Alabama, to offer their 
amendments, and that those be the only amendments offered this evening, 
and at the conclusion of the debate on their amendments we go to a 
period of morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 4634, As Modified

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4634, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4634, as modified.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that appropriations under this Act may not be used 
  for the purpose of providing certain grants, unless all such grants 
                meet certain conditions for allocation)

       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3 insert the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     appropriations under this Act may not be used for the purpose 
     of providing--

[[Page 14143]]

       (1) formula-based grants or law enforcement terrorism 
     prevention grants, unless all such grants are allocated based 
     on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence, 
     to the maximum extent praticable, with no State receiving 
     less than 0.25 percent of the funds available for each such 
     grant program, and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, each 
     receiving 0.08 of the funds available for each such grant 
     program;
       (2) discretionary grants for use in high-threat, high-
     density urban areas, unless all such grants are allocated 
     based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and 
     consequence, to the maximum extent practicable.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on July 7, just last Friday, media 
outlets across the Nation reported the news that the FBI had apparently 
foiled a plot to bomb the transit systems that connect New York and New 
Jersey.
  The revelation of this latest plot paints a clear picture of where 
the terrorists intend to target their actions. Clearly, they want to 
strike where they can create the greatest loss of life and economic 
damage. Time and time again, we see that areas like New York, New 
Jersey, Washington State, California, Chicago, and others are high on 
the target lists of terrorists.
  These most recent threats against New York and New Jersey are only 
one example of this in one key area.
  Why had the terrorists chosen to attack the tunnels and rail system 
that connect the city of New York with the citizens of New Jersey?
  Because they wanted to inflict great damage, not only to the tunnels 
and the trains and the people on them, not only to the city of New York 
and the citizens of New Jersey, not only to the metropolitan area that 
encompasses New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut--no, the terrorists 
chose to plan their attack on the New York-New Jersey transit system 
because they wanted to inflict great damage on the entire country.
  More than 100,000 people use the Holland Tunnel everyday. More than 
200,000 people ride the PATH trains every day.
  Mr. President, 18.7 million people live in the New York/New Jersey 
metropolitan area, nearly 6.5 million of whom come from New Jersey. New 
York is home to the financial heart of our country, with key financial 
institutions housed right across the river in New Jersey. Imagine what 
would happen to the Nation, not just New York or New Jersey, if these 
financial institutions were shut down.
  The port in New Jersey, the largest container seaport on the east 
coast, the third largest in the Nation, handled more than $132 billion 
in goods in 2005 and creates over 200,000 jobs. Imagine what would 
happen to the Nation, not just New York or New Jersey, if commerce were 
shut down in this port.
  The greatest ``zone of vulnerability'' in the U.S. is in South 
Kearney, NJ, where 12 million people live in proximity to a chlorine 
chemical plant. An explosion at the facility would endanger the life 
and health of people caught in the path of the prevailing winds to that 
great extent.
  The FBI has placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the 
``National Critical Infrastructure List'' and has called the area 
between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport the ``most 
dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' 
An article in the New York Times pointed out that this 2-mile area 
provides ``a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major 
portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries, 
pipelines, air traffic, communications networks and highway system.'' 
Imagine what would happen to the Nation, not just New York and New 
Jersey, if the most dangerous 2 miles in America was attacked.
  Clearly, as we saw last Friday, the terrorists can imagine exactly 
what would happen if they attacked New York and New Jersey.
  If the terrorists understand that New York and New Jersey are 
targets, why can't the Department of Homeland Security?
  The recent inspector general report on Homeland Security's National 
Database shows that we have it wrong. Certainly the Department of 
Homeland Security has it wrong, once again.
  According to a recent article by the New York Times, the report 
``reads like a tally of terrorist targets that a child might have 
written: Old MacDonald's Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn 
factory, the Mule Day Parade.''
  The inspector general found that the list included items ``whose 
criticality is not readily apparent'' but are still included in the 
Federal antiterrorism database and that ``the presence of large numbers 
of out-of-place assets taints the credibility of the data.''
  The fact that this database is being used to help determine risk-
based funding simply makes no sense.
  The bottom-line is that States and municipalities across the country 
that actually are under the greatest risk should receive the greatest 
number of homeland security dollars based on that risk. I cannot 
understand why the Department of Homeland Security would not use a 
truly risk-based formula when awarding their grants.
  That is why I am offering the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment today. 
The amendment states that no funds in this bill should go to homeland 
security grants unless they are based on an ``assessment of threat, 
vulnerability, and consequence, to the maximum extent practicable.'' 
Not exclusively, but ``to the maximum extent possible.''
  The amendment also allows, in specific cases, for each State to 
receive a minimum of .25 percent of the grants. Let me be clear; while 
I would prefer to give all funds based on risk, I believe that this 
compromise which makes this amendment different than previous 
amendments based on risk, will allow more support for this amendment.
  It also moves in the direction of where the White House has said they 
want to see us go on the question of homeland security funds. This is 
also the same minimum percentage included in the House legislation 
recently endorsed by the former Chairman and former Vice Chairman of 
the 9/11 Commission.
  I certainly hope with this minimum percentage guarantee that our 
Senate delegation will be able to support this amendment.
  Since we only have a finite amount of money, this is not a place 
where revenue sharing should be the policy. Just as Senators from 
agricultural areas of the country call on those of us who may not have 
much agriculture for our support, just as the Senators from ravaged 
flood areas call on us for our support, just as Senators from areas hit 
by hurricanes call on us for our support, those of us who come from 
high-target areas across the country call on the rest of the Senate for 
equal treatment when it comes to risk-based funding.
  Many of us in the Senate have been fighting for risk-based funding 
for years. I know Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Schumer, and others 
have led the fight in the Senate. I know our senior Senator from New 
Jersey has been a leader over and over again. We are thankful to him 
for his leadership. I fought for risk-based funding as a former Member 
of the House of Representatives. I included risk-based funding in the 
Menendez substitute to the intelligence reform bill in 2004 which was, 
unfortunately, voted down by my Republican colleagues. I fought for 
risk-based funding in the conference report on that legislation. I 
continued to fight for risk-based funding when I introduced the risk-
based Homeland Security Funding Act in the House, which Senator 
Lautenberg also introduced in the Senate. Most recently here in the 
Senate, we have introduced legislation to make sure we fully and 
finally implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which 
includes risk-based funding. But today we are here to fight the next 
round of this battle.
  I am proud to have Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, and Schumer as 
cosponsors of this amendment.
  It is important when we talk about homeland security. We have seen 
the votes on a host of these funding issues. You can't have the 
administration talking tough on homeland security and then acting weak. 
Cutting funds to homeland security grants simply makes no sense.
  For those from New York and New Jersey and from other parts of the

[[Page 14144]]

country--Pennsylvania or Washington, DC--for those from those areas 
where loved ones were killed on September 11 of 2001, this is not an 
abstract policy discussion. This is not an abstract policy discussion 
for us. This is personal. Over 700 people from the State of New Jersey 
were killed. My former congressional district looks directly at the 
site where the Twin Towers once stood. In New York and New Jersey, we 
still live with the aftermath of these attacks on a daily basis. Just 
today, we learned in a Quinnipiac poll that 77 percent of New Jerseyans 
expect a terrorist attack in the United States in the next 6 months.
  The No. 1 role of our Government is to keep us safe. That is what 
Americans expect. That is what the people of New Jersey have been 
saying to me all along. They believe--and we can see from the nature of 
these revelations of the plots--they are going to be attacked, and they 
need the Government to meet its No. 1 responsibility to them; that is, 
to keep them safe.
  How can we keep them safe if we allow the funding for homeland 
security grants to be underfunded? How can we keep them safe if we 
aren't making sure that the places at greatest risk of attack get the 
most money to protect against those attacks? And how can we come to a 
conclusion that we don't assign--even with this compromise amendment 
which still provides 2.5 to all of the States but still takes the 
majority of that money to where the greatest risks are, how do we not 
hold the view that this is one country and these attacks, in fact, 
would affect the entire Nation?
  The Senate has both an obligation and a moral responsibility to 
protect the people of the United States. The only way to do that is to 
take all possible steps to prevent terrorist attacks.
  One of the critical ways is to follow the 9/11 Commission's report, a 
unanimous and bipartisan conclusion that homeland security funding 
should be based strictly on risk. We have taken that as a foundation, 
amended it somewhat to create, hopefully, a greater groundswell of 
support but still with the fundamental principle that ultimately the 
majority of our homeland security funding should go to where the 
greatest risks in our country are and the greatest risk that ultimately 
would affect the Nation in its commerce, in its security, and in its 
ability to sustain itself.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. GREGG. I am intrigued by the amendment. We have worked very hard 
on the committee to have a threat-based funding formula, so that is my 
goal. I have no problem with the reduction to 2.5 even though it would 
prejudice my own State. But my view is that the target should be where 
the funding goes.
  I just wanted to be sure that when the Senator uses those terms of 
art here, that it is not his intention to undermine the capacity of 
peer review groups to look at the issue. The Senator used the term 
``unless all such grants are allocated based on threat, vulnerability, 
and consequence to the maximum extent practical,'' which seem to be 
pretty good words of art.
  For the record, I would like to make it clear that the Senator is not 
trying to adjust the peer review process which looks at threat and 
effectiveness of the plan. Is that correct?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. That is correct. We are silent on effectiveness because 
we think effectiveness is very important as part of that equation.
  Mr. GREGG. In light of that, I probably will support the amendment, 
although I suspect there are others who will oppose the reduction of 
2.5. In any event, I think the amendment is a good amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first I commend my colleague, Senator 
Menendez, for his persistence on this issue. We both come from the 
northern part of the State of New Jersey, which is the most dense 
portion of the most densely populated State in the country.
  Seven hundred of our fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives on 
September 11, 2001. It would be hard to find people whose lives were 
not touched by the events of that day--whether immediate neighbors, 
friends, family, all of us knew someone who was killed or injured on 
that fateful day. From our part of New Jersey, you could see the smoke 
rising from the World Trade Center where many of our friends, 
neighbors, and loved ones worked.
  The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of the attack on 9/11, 
and to this day it remains the area of our country that is most at risk 
of another attack. We were reminded of this just last week when 
authorities disrupted a plot by eight terrorists to blow up commuter 
train tunnels connecting New Jersey and New York. Each day, nearly 
200,000 people travel through these tunnels.
  Since we don't have unlimited resources for homeland security, 
homeland security must be targeted to those parts of the country most 
at risk of another terrorist attack. But that isn't currently the case. 
Why? Because this Congress is treating homeland security funding as 
just another pork project rather than sending the resources based 
solely on risk, as has been recommended by the 9/11 Commission. And in 
section 25:

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

  This is by the authors of this Commission report which was adopted 
wholeheartedly in this place.
  Because each State gets a minimum guarantee of funding regardless of 
risk or population density, we take resources from States known as 
major terrorist targets and give them to low-risk areas.
  Politics rears its ugly head.
  I saw the prevailing view on the Homeland Security Committee on which 
I sit--the committee of jurisdiction. I called the attention of the 
committee to the report of the 9/11 Commission very specifically and 
asked the committee to endorse fully the risk-based distribution 
mechanisms for funding. Perhaps my argument wasn't persuasive, but the 
vote was 15 to 1 against it, solely basing this distribution of grants 
on risk. It was painful for me to see that.
  I want to give you an example. In fiscal year 2006, New Jersey 
received $1.92 per capita spending for State homeland security and law 
enforcement terrorism prevention grants. Wyoming received $14.73. New 
Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, received $1.92 
in per capita spending; and Wyoming--a beautiful State, though I think 
it is fair to say that their risk of a terrorist attack is 
substantially different or not even this in terms of what terrorist 
planning is typically doing--Wyoming, $14.73. Are the people of Wyoming 
seven times more likely to be the victims of a terrorist attack than 
the people of New Jersey? I don't think so.
  The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of New York 
and Newark-Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most 
inviting target in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack because of 
the huge amount of damage that could be inflicted. It is believed--this 
isn't secret, it has been published many times in many places--it is 
believed that a terrorist attack in this area could kill or injure more 
than 10 million people because of the density of population there and 
the presence of so many chemical facilities.
  The way we fund homeland security flies in the face of the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. We see it on this placard. It is a stark 
reminder of what we ought to be doing and how much it differs from what 
we are arguing.
  Today, nearly 5 years after 9/11, nearly 40 percent of the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program is given out as ``general revenue 
sharing'' to each and every State and territory regardless of

[[Page 14145]]

the danger they face from terrorism. The system is broken. We have to 
fix it. I have been trying to reform this grant program for several 
years.
  In February 2005, I introduced a bill called the Risk-Based Homeland 
Security Funding Act, which would require that all homeland security 
grants be based strictly on risk, threat, and vulnerability. My 
colleague, Senator Menendez, did similarly when he was a Member of the 
House of Representatives. The amendment offered by my colleague today 
moves us in that direction. That is why I so strongly support it.
  Under the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment, the Senate minimums will be 
reduced from .75 percent of Homeland Security funding to .25 percent. 
That lower amount, .25 percent, is the same as the allocation President 
Bush recommends. Even the Bush administration confirms the .75 minimum 
is inappropriate and puts our security at risk. Secretary Chertoff has 
consistently advocated Homeland Security funding be risk-based.
  By reducing these State minimums, we can better protect the Nation by 
getting more funding to areas that are actually under threat and risk. 
If Congress will not eliminate State minimums, the best way to proceed 
is to reduce the State minimums so that as much money as possible is 
directed toward the highest risk areas.
  If we review past terrorist attacks, it is clear terrorists want to 
attack densely populated areas, areas where they can inflict the most 
damage. We heard my colleague, Senator Menendez, talk about the damage 
it could do to our national economy if we have a major attack in this 
very sensitive area. They want to kill as many people as they can, 
disrupt economic life as it exists.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment. A 
vote for this amendment is a vote in support of the administration's 
position, the 9/11 Commission position, and plain common sense.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be offering some amendments to 
the Homeland Security bill that I think are important. I thank Senator 
Gregg for his leadership and his interest and his hard work in meeting 
some of the demands of this Nation with regard to homeland security. 
Unfortunately, we have not been able to meet all of those demands.
  America, we have a problem, a very real problem.
  This Senate and its action concerning immigration with relation to 
the bill that just passed this Senate is beginning to create a 
circumstance that in every respect looks like 1986, the year we passed 
the last immigration bill. We must not allow a repeat of 1986. This 
Senator will do all that he can to see that does not happen.
  It goes to the very heart of our service in this Senate. It goes to 
the integrity of the Senate. It goes to the respect with which we want 
to be held by our constituents around this country. We must not repeat 
what happened in 1986. We must not allow a repeat of the 1986 
immigration bill.
  Back when the immigration bill started moving through the Judiciary 
Committee, I raised this very point. It came about in an interesting 
way. I offered an amendment in the committee to expand bed space. It 
was accepted. I offered another amendment, and it was accepted. I began 
to think: It is easy to authorize, isn't it? It is very easy to pass a 
bill that authorizes more bed space. It is very easy to pass a bill 
that authorizes a fence to be built along the border to improve our 
security. It is easy to authorize more Federal agents to be hired, more 
workplace enforcement to be put in place. It is easy to authorize the 
expansion of the US-VISIT Program, which is central to an entry-and-
exit system. It is easy to authorize interior enforcement agents around 
the country.
  But an authorization is merely an authorization. Those agents do not 
get hired, they will not be paid, the VISIT system will not be in 
place, the fences will not be built until money is appropriated. This 
is the bill we would expect that appropriation to take place.
  That is the problem we have. The bill does provide some additional 
expenditures for Homeland Security and for border enforcement and for 
other things. For that we are grateful. But the big matters that go to 
the heart of whether we are going to have a lawful system have not been 
funded adequately. It is something we have to confront and deal with in 
an effective way.
  In 1986, we promised we would just have amnesty one time. It was the 
amnesty to end all amnesties, unlike today, when we deny we are 
offering amnesty. In fact, the proposal we passed in the Senate does 
just that. It is very similar to 1986.
  What was the promise? The promise is we will have enforcement in the 
future and we will not need another amnesty. They said in 1986 it was 
an amnesty to end all amnesties. That was the argument. That is what we 
tried to do. That is what they tried to do at the time.
  What happened? The promises that were made about enhanced enforcement 
did not occur. I point out, 2 million people were expected to claim 
amnesty; 1.5 million people were expected to claim amnesty. When it 
concluded, 3 million people had claims. Almost double the number of 
people came forward to claim the amnesty, many of them with fraudulent 
documents and inadequate proof. But they got it because it could not be 
disproved, and the numbers were so large.
  That system did not work well, but the amnesty was part of the 
immigration bill. It became law. Everyone entitled to that amnesty got 
it. It openly was called amnesty. I note for the record that Black's 
Law Dictionary, in its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' lists the 
1986 immigration bill as one of its definitions.
  These people got their legal status, their citizenship track, the 
benefits of welfare, earned-income tax credit, and all the other 
benefits that accrue for people in the United States, but the 
enforcement never came.
  Remember, we said it was not going to happen again not too long ago, 
just 20 years ago. Where are we today? We now have an estimated 11 
million people in our country illegally. We say we have to do something 
about this, but we cannot call it amnesty. But we will create this 
little system where they pay $1,000 or $2,000 and they are on a track 
to full citizenship--but it is not amnesty. Mind you, there is hardly 
any difference between what we did in 1986, but this year it is not 
popular to talk about amnesty because people have been around the 
country listening to their constituents, and the people of America are 
not happy with amnesty. They do not like it.
  Many Members of this Senate have promised not to vote for amnesty. So 
all they do when they vote for this bill is redefine the meaning of 
words and say it is not amnesty. They just say it is not amnesty. They 
vote for it and say: I didn't vote for amnesty.
  They have to wait a while before they get citizenship. They have to 
pay $1,000. And if they held back taxes for 5 years, if they pay taxes 
for 3 of those years--and they pick the 3--then they have paid the 
price. They have paid the penalty. They earned their amnesty by paying 
back taxes. Yet American citizens pay their taxes all 5 years. How are 
you going to prove the back taxes anyway?
  This is nothing more than amnesty. I drive this point home. What is 
the point? The point is, that has been put into law by the bill we 
passed in this Senate. Now they say: We will have enforcement this 
time; we are going to do the things that are necessary to have 
enforcement.
  A lot of people say we really do not like a fence, but after they 
talk to their constituents back home--and I offered the amendment to 
have 350 miles of fences and 500 miles of barriers, and we had a vote. 
It passed 83 to

[[Page 14146]]

13--we passed an amendment to build the 350 miles of fences, 500 miles 
of barriers. We have authorized it, colleagues. That is all we did was 
authorize it.
  I have heard the comments: I voted for the Sessions amendment. I 
voted to build a fence. I am for enforcing immigration laws. When do we 
build this fence? Where do we get the money to build this fence? What 
bill is it that the money has to come out of? It is a Homeland Security 
bill. That is the one in the Senate. We have been looking through the 
bill, reading the fine print, and it is not in there. The money to 
build the fence is not included.
  We should be ashamed. We trumpeted this. The majority leader said he 
was supportive of this. Everyone was supportive of building a fence. 
When it comes time to pay up and actually buy the bricks or buy the 
wire and pay the people to do it, where are we?
  I raised this in the Judiciary Committee. I offered an amendment sort 
of like the Isakson amendment at that time. Senator Isakson offered his 
amendment in the Senate that said: We see this problem coming, 
colleagues. This has been the pattern. We authorize things, we make 
promises, but we do not follow through, so let's do the Isakson 
amendment which says none of this amnesty takes place until the 
enforcement takes place at the border and we follow through on the 
things we promised to do.
  That is a pretty clever little amendment. Why would anybody object to 
that? Why would anybody who voted and promised to build fences, to add 
detention beds, to add agents--why in the world would you vote for 
those kinds of things and then not want to follow through on them?
  I think it was troubling to me--troubling to a lot of Americans; I 
know troubling to Senator Coburn, the Presiding Officer--when Senator 
Isakson's amendment did not pass. Why? Why did Senator Isakson's 
amendment not pass? Well, the American people are pretty cynical now 
about our commitment and our integrity when it comes to matters 
involving immigration. And I suggested at the time and worried at the 
time that the reason the Isakson amendment did not pass was there was 
never any intention to fund the fence, to fund increased bed space, and 
fund the increased agents, make the US-VISIT program work--never any 
intention.
  Now, wouldn't that be a bad thing? Wouldn't that reflect badly on the 
integrity of the U.S. Senate, when the whole Nation is looking at us? 
They are frustrated with us. They have not forgotten 1986. People 
remember that. They remember that. And they are looking at us: Are we 
going to do this again? And the first bill that comes up, we don't have 
money in it to fund the fence that we voted 83 to 16 to build. That is 
just breathtaking when you think about it.
  It was a highly debated issue. It was probably one of the more 
noteworthy amendments in the entire debate. People thought it might be 
a close vote. As it turned out, it was an overwhelming vote. But it is 
easy to vote to authorize, isn't it, if you never intend to fund. That 
is an easy vote. I see the young people and the pages and those around 
here. Learn something about the U.S. Senate. It erodes public 
confidence in the integrity of the Government when you brag and speak 
glowingly about taking aggressive action to improve enforcement of 
immigration laws in America and then do not do it.
  That is not good. That is just not good. The matter is not a little 
one. This is not a little matter. The American people know that 
immigration is important to our country. They know it is deeply 
important to our country. They care about it. They have been watching 
it. They watch it nightly on television. They write letters to their 
editor. They call my office. They call other people's offices. They 
complain about what is going on and how we have done our business.
  They have every right to complain. They have every right to complain. 
Why in the world would we ever suggest that somehow the American people 
are not generous and fair and decent when it comes to immigration? They 
really are. We are a nation that believes in immigrants. We are a 
nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration.
  But people are frustrated. Some people say things that are harsh 
maybe about immigrants, but when you listen to most people, the anger 
that they are expressing is not at the immigrants, it is at those of us 
in Washington. It is at a string of Presidents, it is at a series of 
Congresses that have failed, refused to do what they asked them to do.
  And what have the American people asked? They have asked that we 
create a lawful system of immigration and we create a policy of 
immigration that is in the national interest of the United States of 
America, that we allow a number of people to come in every year, that 
we make a rational judgment about how many that should be. People 
should not come in illegally. They should come in in accordance with 
law. And if they come in illegally, they expect the Government to stop 
them or apprehend them and deport them.
  What is wrong with that? Is that harsh? Is it mean-spirited to say 
that we need to have a legitimate legal system involving immigration in 
this country? I suggest not. I have been looking at the numbers. I 
think it is adversely impacting the wages of working Americans. And I 
am prepared to debate it. But regardless, this is a matter we need to 
deal with. We are going to maintain a flow of legal immigrants into our 
country, and we should. We should set up a system that identifies 
people who are most worthy of coming into our country and approve them 
in a meritorious way, in an effective system.
  We do not have that today. The bill we have passed pretends to be a 
comprehensive bill for immigration reform, and it is an utter failure. 
It should never, ever, ever become law. It is a total disaster. They 
say: Well, we will just send it over to the House. The same people who 
may well vote against funding this amendment say: We will just send 
this bill now over to the House, the House of Representatives, who they 
made fun of a few months ago for passing a border enforcement bill 
first. We will send it over there, and maybe we will fix all this.
  How does it work in conference? The majority leader of the Senate 
appoints a group of conferees, the Speaker of the House does, the 
Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate appoint conferees, and 
this group of hand-picked Senators and Congressmen meet. They go meet 
someplace, and they work it all out, basically in secret, without any 
real input from the American people.
  We have a bill from the Senate that has comprehensive review and 
reform, so-called, of the entire immigration policy of the United 
States of America and the House of Representatives has a law 
enforcement security bill only. And these are going to be just written 
out of thin air by these hand-picked people in secret? I don't think 
that is healthy, not on a matter this important.
  Let me ask you, do the American people have a right to expect that 
this Senate and the House of Representatives are going to protect their 
interests and do what they have been asking them to do for 30 years. Or 
do they have a right to be cynical and expect that they will meet, plot 
out some sort of immigration bill, trumpet it as solving all our 
problems, bring it on the floor of this Senate, not subject to 
amendment, and drive it through and pass it? And it will not work again 
just like 1986.
  How can you test what we do here? How can the American people have a 
test of this Senate? I submit to you, one way is to watch the vote on 
the funding of the enforcement issues that are dealt with in the 
amendments I have offered.
  So let's see. Are we going to pass a fence amendment or not? If we 
pass it, maybe we are beginning to get serious over here. But even that 
can be fixed in conference. That is not the final passage of the bill. 
They can still go into conference and take it out. But it would be a 
step.
  I say this to my colleagues: If we vote down funding the agents, the 
fencing, the detention beds that we have

[[Page 14147]]

authorized in this bill, why shouldn't the American people really look 
at us askance? Why shouldn't they say: they just authorized it, and 
they are not even going to fund this fence? They are not even going to 
add the agents? They are not going to even add the bed spaces? I think 
that is what the American people are going to ask. And the truth is, 
they are correct.
  Now, some will say: Well, we don't have the money. We don't have the 
money? We spend over $2 trillion a year in this country. What do you 
mean we don't have the money? We could do a ``Cadillac'' program for $2 
billion or $3 billion. That is a lot of money. We are spending $100 
billion on hurricane relief, $85 billion, in the supplemental, on the 
war.
  Let me tell you some other things we spend money on in this country, 
when people say we don't have the money to do what the American people 
are demanding that we do: According to the Congressional Budget 
Office--this is from March 2006--spending for Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid alone is expected to increase by $106 billion 
from 2006 to 2007, a 9.5-percent increase. It is a 9.5-percent increase 
in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone, with the increase 
totaling $106 billion. And we can't find $1 billion or $2 billion to 
make the border secure? Give me a break.
  Defense spending: We spent $76.8 billion in 2005 on that. How about 
$32 billion to fund this Department, the whole Department of Homeland 
Security? The bill budget for the Department of Homeland Security is 
$32 billion. We cannot find another $1 billion or $2 billion to follow 
through on the commitments we made to make the immigration system in 
this country lawful? And within that Department of Homeland Security 
money is all the funding they will get. It is all the money we are 
going to get to increase immigration enforcement efforts. It is just 
not there. In this appropriations, the money has not been funded to 
meet the authorizations we passed and made a commitment to.
  I am not here to break the budget. I am tired of that. I know the 
Presiding Officer is. He has fought harder than anybody I know in this 
Senate to bring integrity to spending, and I have been pleased to 
support him. But I will tell you, he has been a breath of fresh air and 
a great addition to the Senate. He has called our attention to the 
wasteful spending we carry on in this body on a regular basis. We 
cannot afford everything. We are paid to set priorities.
  Has anybody ever listened to the people in their States about what 
they want us to do? I am telling you, they want us to make the 
immigration system a legal one, not a lawless one. They want us to 
spend the money that is necessary--no more but they want to spend 
whatever it takes. That is a priority with the American people. It 
should be a priority of those of us who are here because they are 
right. In the scheme of things, the money we spend is not that great, 
but it is important for us to do it correctly.
  I will be offering amendments that will deal with five different 
areas. Those amendments will be offset, will not add additional 
spending to the budget or increase the debt in any way. We will set 
some priorities. We will set some choices. That is what the people pay 
us to do.
  What do we need? We need strategic fencing and vehicle barriers at 
the border. We need an interior investigative agent increase--that is 
for the ICE agents, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents--to 
increase worksite enforcement. We need to increase the detention bed 
spaces.
  Detention beds are critical. The reason is, we still are carrying out 
a catch-and-release policy. What do you mean ``catch-and-release''? 
This is what happens: Someone comes into the country from a country, 
say, other than Mexico. They are referred to as OTMs, other than 
Mexicans--Brazil, Central America, South America, Asia--and they are 
apprehended here illegally.
  What happens then? Well, you say: They try them and deport them. 
Wrong. Not really. What has been happening is, these particular people 
who are apprehended in this country illegally are not from Mexico, so 
they cannot be readily taken back across the border. They are then 
detained and then given a trial date. Since there are no bed spaces, 
they do not have a place to keep them. What do they do? They release 
them on bail. They catch them and they release them on bail. They sign 
their name because they do not have any money to put up for the bail. 
They just allow them a signature bond, and they are asked to come back 
at a certain date to have their trial on whether or not they are going 
to be deported.
  How many do you think come back? They have already entered the 
country illegally. They are apprehended and released. They do not come 
back for trial. One reporter did an interesting article that showed 
that 95 percent did not show up. What a joke that is. The only way to 
end the catch-and-release problem is to have enough detention beds so 
they could be detained until they could be deported from the country.
  Secretary Chertoff is making some progress in this regard but not 
enough. We will never get there without some more beds. So if we are 
serious about making a legal system here work, then we need more bed 
spaces.
  Everybody says we need worksite enforcement. We have a pilot program 
that has been played with for a number of years that is supposed to 
work. It really has the potential to work, but it is not working today. 
We need some more money for that to make that system work. If you don't 
want the workplace enforcement system to work and you are President of 
the United States, you don't ask for funding for a program that will 
work, and if you are a Member of Congress, you don't vote for the money 
to make the program work. If you are part of Homeland Security, you 
don't come and demand money so you can make it work. Everybody's hands 
are dirty on workplace enforcement. We know that. Let's be frank about 
it.
  We need agents. You have to have law enforcement agents. Those law 
enforcement agents can have a tremendous impact on the worksite. It 
does not take that many prosecutions, frankly, to have a complete 
change in behavior. I strongly say we need that.
  We need to protect the funds that were already appropriated for 
section 287(g). The 287(g) program is the cooperative immigration 
enforcement effort with State and local law enforcement. The Department 
of Homeland Security has this program. They train local law 
enforcement. They set up abilities to work together. If they apprehend 
someone for speeding and find out they are here illegally, then they 
call the agents and they can transfer them for processing and 
deportation. Wouldn't we want to see that happen? Wouldn't we want to 
take the help of State and local law enforcement agencies? Well, we 
don't have the money for that. We put the money in. It was in there for 
a while. Now they have spent it on something else. It is a bargain, a 
real bargain to do that.
  Finally, we need to fully implement the exit portion of the US-VISIT 
system to track visitors who leave the country as well as when they 
come in. That is what the system was set up to do. We have been working 
on it for 10 years. It has not been completed, they say, because of 
various problems.
  Let's be frank. It hasn't been completed because Congress and the 
President over the last 10 or 15 years have not wanted it completed. 
There has been plenty of time to complete it. Agencies hadn't come 
forward and demanded the money necessary. They haven't told us what 
they needed. The President hasn't put it in his budget, and Congress 
hasn't spent the money. So it hasn't been completed. That is just it. I 
don't know any other way to say it.
  We now can track people when they come in the country, and we need a 
good biometric card so people can enter really easily. If they have a 
legal right to come, they present their card. It clears immediately. 
They come right on through. If they work in the United States a week, 
they can go home and see their family, come back on Sunday or Monday, 
travel back and forth. They can do all those things.

[[Page 14148]]

  We would like to see this system work. It can work. We are close to 
it, but we don't have the exit system working. Unless the exit system 
works, you have no idea of who is in the country and who has stayed, 
who did not go home when they were supposed to.
  That is where we are. We will have some of those votes tomorrow. I 
don't mean to be unfair in my comments or unduly harsh, but the truth 
is the American people are watching us this time. They saw what 
happened in 1986. They don't want that to happen again. We should not 
want that to happen again. We should do what we promised to do. We 
should follow through and fund the projects that we have authorized. 
When we authorized these projects, we knew they were necessary to make 
this system move from a lawless system, a system that makes a mockery 
of law, to a lawful, decent system. It can be done. It actually can be 
done. It will not take an excessive amount of money, but it will take a 
significant amount of money.
  Then there will be a tipping point. When people find out that the way 
to come in and work in the United States is to have a biometric card to 
come lawfully, that will be successful. If they wait in line, they can 
work. When they find out they can't get a job and it is very hard to 
get across the border, maybe impossible almost to come illegally across 
the border, they will quit coming illegally. When they can't get a job 
and it is too hard to get across the border, they will decide then to 
wait in line and get their card and come and work in due course 
lawfully. Right now the system is a mockery of the law. It is not 
working. Let's fix that.
  When we vote tomorrow, we will send a signal to all those people back 
home that we are committed now to creating a lawful system of 
immigration. We are going to follow through and put up the money, a 
significant amount of money, but in the scheme of the size of the 
United States budget, it is a very small amount to make this system 
work.
  If you went back home and asked the American people, do you want to 
see us follow through, do you want to spend a few more billion dollars, 
$2 to $3 billion--that would be super; maybe we could do it for less 
than that--a couple billion dollars more than what we are spending 
today to make us move from a lawless system to a lawful system, they 
would say: Do it--in a heartbeat.
  That is where we are headed. I thank the Presiding Officer for his 
leadership and commitment to creating a lawful system of immigration 
for the United States.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I supported Senator Clinton's amendment 
to restore FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it once again as an 
independent agency. In the early 1990s, as the chair of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD, we funded FEMA. Senator Garn, my 
wonderful colleague, was my ranking member. We found that FEMA was a 
Cold War relic, and we went to work on a bipartisan basis, transforming 
it from a relic of the Cold War into a professional, prepared, all-
hazards agency.
  Hurricane Katrina was the storm we all feared. In the hours and days 
after Hurricane Katrina, like all of you I watched in disbelief and 
absolute frustration. Why? At the Federal Government's befuddled and 
boondoggled response blowing it. The people in our Gulf Coast States 
were doubly victimized first by the hurricane, second by the slow and 
sluggish response of our Government. And I thought: How like Hugo. How 
like Andrew. I didn't know about Betsy.
  So this, of course, has prompted reform. Well, back in 1989 when we 
took a look at this, what did I see? What I found out as I took over 
the chairmanship of that subcommittee was that FEMA was a Cold War 
agency. It focused only on worrying about if we were hit with a nuclear 
attack. It was out of date, out of touch, and riddled with political 
hacks. If you had to give someone a favor job, whether it was at the 
Federal level or the State level, put them in civil defense. It was 
called civil defense. And many of us in my generation remember where we 
used to practice by hiding under those desks if war came. Well that is 
the way the bureaucrats were. Any time there was a question, they hid 
under their desk. So we set about reform. They were focused on 
something called continuity of Government. It was incompetent 
leadership. They had ridiculous ideas. In the event of a nuclear war--
stop first at the post office and leave your forwarding address to 
these three shelters. So you get a sense of what it was like.
  But Senator Garn and I looked at it. And then what happened was 
Hurricane Hugo hit the Carolinas, particularly South Carolina. FEMA's 
response was very poor. The military had to come in to get power back 
up in Charleston. The people went for over a week without basic 
functions. Sound familiar? Our former colleague Senator Hollings had to 
call the President's Chief of Staff, John Sununu, to get help and call 
the head of the Joint Chiefs, then General Colin Powell, just to get 
generators from the Army. It was like cats and charmer cops. Are you in 
charge? No, I am not in charge. They had the generators but didn't ask. 
It was all of that. In the meantime, there was no water, no utilities 
in Charleston. We began then to begin to examine what steps to take in 
reform.
  Then along the way we were hit with Andrew. Andrew, again, was the 
worst disaster. Yet FEMA's response was so bad and they were so inept 
that President Bush I sent Andy Card, then Secretary of Transportation, 
to take over. I remember seeing a woman named Katie Hale saying, 
``Where the hell is the cavalry on this one? We need food. We need 
water. We need people.''
  Having said all that, it was very clear to Senator Garn and me. Our 
job was to protect lives, protect people, and now of course protect the 
homeland. Working with Garn, and then Senator Bond, we worked to change 
it. We commissioned three studies, and I ask you to go take a look at 
them. One was a GAO study, the other was a National Academy of Public 
Administration, and then FEMA's own inspector general.
  We looked at all of this, and we wanted to be able to prevent, do all 
we could for prevention, and do what we could to respond. Our goals 
then were: First of all, FEMA has to be professionalized. They need a 
professional director and a professional staff. Whoever runs FEMA has 
to have a background in crisis management, either to come from 
emergency response at the State level, the way James Lee Witt or Joe 
Allbaugh did, or from the military or private sector where they have 
done crisis management and know how to organize large numbers of 
people. But not only professionalized Washington but insist there be 
professionals at each State level. And I would emphasize reform must 
also be directed at the States. No matter how good James Lee Witt was, 
no matter how dedicated Joe Allbaugh was, if they didn't have the State 
functioning well, it wouldn't work. As we know, the genius of our 
system is that each State will have a different type of threat. The 
terrain is different, the threat is different. And they need to be 
ready. So the professionalization and the way was that each State 
submit a plan. If you don't do the right plan and do tabletops, you are 
not going to get the money. I think you have to have a muscular way to 
have State plans in place with professional people and where there are 
benchmarks for measurement and then use the ultimate withholding. That 
is tough, but let me tell you, it works. So that is why we go for the 
professionalization of FEMA.
  We focused on it being a risk-based agency--that means prepared for 
any risk that affects the risk base--because we thought then that the 
threat of the Cold War was coming to an end. The wall was coming down 
in Berlin, but the wall wasn't coming down in the Federal bureaucracy. 
So we said, what are the risks? The threat is natural disasters. And 
our States--we are coastal Senators, I share a coast with my colleague 
from Delaware--we are threatened by hurricanes. Soon as June comes, we 
are on our hurricanes readiness again--regardless of what the threat 
is. And now it is even more important because it could be an earthquake 
in California, a tornado in the Midwest, or, of course, a terrorist 
attack.

[[Page 14149]]

  Next, be ready for all hazards. And again, it is the States that get 
ready with Washington offering the command and control and the ultimate 
backup of sending in the calvary should the States collapse. All 
hazards need to be prepared like when we had a fire in the Baltimore 
tunnel--we didn't know if it was predatory or not. A hazardous chemical 
spill, a hurricane, a tornado or even a dirty bomb.
  If we practice the three R's, of readiness, meaning if we are ready, 
and we are ready at the State level, then we can respond where the 
threat occurs and then you have the infrastructure ready for recovery. 
We were able to put the State plans, professionalize the agency, in 
place.
  What was never really ultimately addressed, though, is the Federal 
backup if there is a complete collapse. That is something I believe 
needs to be very carefully examined because of two things: No. 1, I 
recall Governor Giles of Florida when Andrew hit. He said: We need NASA 
satellites to tell me what my coast line looks like. We can't even call 
the first responders. The firehouses are underwater. And you know all 
of the great tragedies that you have heard. There does come a time when 
there is only the Federal Government that can bring in, under some kind 
of doctrine of mutual aid, really come in and provide the resources 
necessary. We lost cities--we have never lost an entire city, except 
back to Betsy.
  That has to be dealt with. The other is the role of the Vice 
President in our earlier recommendation. The Vice President always 
backs the President up, but in a big disaster, like when the big ones 
hit, the Vice President should move to the Situation Room and really 
take charge, to make sure the Governors can handle the job, that the 
Governors next to the States affected can provide mutual aid, and so 
on, because it is also an appropriate role for the Vice President 
should the President be out of the country. The Vice President would be 
prepared and also, should the Vice President ever have to take over for 
any reason, would know the complete working of the FEMA disaster plans 
and how it should work. There are those other questions, too, of legal 
authority when the Government takes over. Our three R's have to be 
readiness, response, recovery. To do that we have to have 
professionalization, risk-based, all hazards.
  You know, hurricanes are predictable. Terrorist attacks are not. And 
we have to be ready. Colleagues, I am concerned that whether it is 
avian flu or another hurricane getting ready for the season or 
something else, we don't know the answer, Who is in charge? That 
question has never been answered. Who manages the disaster? And most of 
all, who manages the panic around that? And who speaks? Your health 
committee members have just done a tabletop on bioterrorism. It is the 
same.
  So I believe, No. 1, FEMA ought to be an independent agency. No. 2, 
maybe we need a disaster response agency, which handles this. But I 
also think we need to take a look at what would be our response and how 
we would handle these others, like avian flu. Are we going to call FEMA 
in? Is FEMA going to be avian flu? I don't know if we have to respond, 
but I don't think so. I would hope not. But should we have a new 
framework for that? What are the legal authorities? Can a President 
supersede a Governor if necessary? These are the big questions. But I 
believe we can create the right infrastructure. We can be ready for the 
natural disasters, and so on.
  I am going to conclude by saying that when we work together, and I 
don't mean just us, but really work--we know how we have worked with 
Delaware. Just a couple of months ago, there was a terrible accident in 
a factory in West Virginia. The closest search and rescue team with 
helicopters was in Maryland with our State police. But because they had 
worked together, because they had trained together, because they knew 
each other, could talk to each other, trusted each other, my wonderful 
Maryland State troopers were able to go fly that 90 miles. The Coast 
Guard was too far away, this up near our Appalachian region. In the 
pitch blackness, with power lines around them when they couldn't see, 
they went down and were able to rescue two, and for the third they 
weren't sure whether he was going to get in the little basket that they 
have, but they stayed to make sure they were going to leave no one 
behind. Our State troopers did it, but they did it because they were 
professional, they were trained, they had worked together, they had 
trusted.
  That is what they did that terrible night in West Virginia. It should 
be a model of what we need. Let's work together, train together, and 
trust each other. And that is why I supported this amendment to restore 
FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it again as an independent 
agency


                  northern border air wing initiative

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, regarding funds that have 
been included in Senator Byrd's amendment for Customs and Border 
Protection, CBP, air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, 
and procurement.
  The northern border air wing, NBAW, initiative was launched by the 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, 2004 to provide air and marine 
interdiction and enforcement capabilities along the northern border. 
Original plans called for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, 
Washington, North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan.
  The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been operational since 
2004. Unfortunately, not all of the sites have yet been established, 
leaving large portions of our northern border unpatrolled from the air 
and, in the case of my home State, the water. In the conference report 
accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS appropriations bill, the 
conferees noted that these remaining gaps in our air patrol coverage of 
the northern border should be closed as quickly as possible.
  Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, and others 
who seek to enter our country illegally has not diminished, I believe 
approximately $12 million of the funds included in Senator Byrd's 
amendment for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and 
procurement should be used by Customs and Border Protection to complete 
the remaining activities necessary to prepare, equip, and establish the 
Michigan NBAW site as Secretary Chertoff has indicated he would like to 
be able to do.
  In an April 11, 2006, letter to me, Secretary Chertoff indicated that 
it was his Department's plan to open the Michigan site during the 2007 
fiscal year, and the Byrd amendment will enable the Department to stick 
to its schedule. Mr. President, I will ask that Secretary Chertoff's 
letter and enclosures, my letter to the Secretary, and a colloquy from 
earlier this year be printed in the Record.
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with my friend from Michigan. I understand that 
Secretary Chertoff has said that the establishment of the final 
northern border air wings will be completed in fiscal year 2007. These 
funds will help the Secretary meet his goal. My amendment, which was 
cosponsored by the chairman of our subcommittee and adopted unanimously 
by the Senate yesterday, provides $105 million for air and marine 
interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement. Certainly, $12 
million of those funds could go to Michigan for the establishment of 
this important and final northern border air wing. I will work with the 
chairman in conference to ensure that the border security funds are 
retained in conference.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned 
materials be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Department of Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2006.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter from March 
     10, 2006 in which you requested clarification on the 
     Department of Homeland Security's plan for the opening of 
     additional Northern Border Air Wing sites in Fiscal Years 
     2006 and 2007. The Department is committed to enhancing our 
     Northern

[[Page 14150]]

     Border security through the establishment of the needed air 
     wings just as soon as the ground infrastructure, air assets, 
     and experienced personnel can be made available. Consistent 
     with my earlier testimony, the activation of the Montana air 
     wing at Great Falls is well underway and should be completed 
     by the end of this fiscal year. In Fiscal Year 2007, our 
     objective remains the activation of the Michigan site and the 
     initiation of activity on the site in North Dakota. This will 
     give us a limited presence at all five of the primary 
     Northern Border Air Wing sites by the year's end.
       Based on the operational experience gained on the Northern 
     Border and our continuing evaluation of available 
     intelligence, we will add or relocate air assets and 
     personnel among the five sites to provide the most 
     comprehensive patrol coverage and to support ground 
     interdiction operations. We may also establish a series of 
     secondary air sites and/or deploy unmanned aerial vehicles 
     along our border to enhance air coverage.
       We have developed a fully integrated aviation plan that is 
     undergoing review within the Department. The plan details our 
     long-range objectives for enhancing border security through 
     the use of our air force and how we intend to achieve the 
     objectives over time. We look forward to sharing the plan 
     with Congress as soon as the review is complete. I believe 
     that the plan will underscore both the extensive work 
     accomplished to date and the challenges that face us. For 
     now, please find enclosed our responses to your specific 
     questions.
       Thank you for your continuing support of our efforts to 
     secure our borders. If we may be of further assistance, 
     please contact the Department's Office of Legislative and 
     Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 205-4412.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Chertoff,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

       Questions to Secretary Michael Chertoff from the Honorable 
     Carl Levin, United States Senate, dated March 10, 2006:
       1. Will new Northern Border Air Wing Sites be established 
     in Michigan and North Dakota during FY07?
       a. When will specific sites in Michigan and North Dakota be 
     selected?
       b. When do you predict step sisters will be operational?
       Response: Yes, the Department will begin the activation 
     process for new air sites in both Detroit, Michigan and the 
     Grand Forks area of North Dakota in FY 2007. The site survey 
     for Detroit has been completed and preliminary work to assess 
     hangar, maintenance, and support facility requirements is 
     ongoing. Air assets are being identified for transfer to the 
     site and staffing plans are being compiled. The FY 2006 
     appropriation provided $2 million for the North Dakota site 
     assessment, which is in progress and should be completed in 
     late May 2006. The relocation of air assets and experienced 
     personnel for both sites remains a challenge, and the 
     Department will have to close smaller, less valuable, 
     interior sites to su port the Northern Border site 
     activations. This should enable the Department to establish 
     initial presence at both sites by the end of FY 2007.
       2. Does the President's FY07 budget request for DHS include 
     funding for the opening of Northern Border Air Wing sites in 
     Michigan and North Dakota?
       a. If so, how much money has been budgeted for the opening 
     of the sites?
       Response: The current cost to fully activate a single air 
     wing site is approximately $17 million ($12 million for 
     infrastructure, operations, and maintenance; $5 million for 
     staffing salaries and relocations), depending on specific 
     site requirements and other factors. The Department is 
     currently developing funding options to support the site 
     activations.
       3. What criteria were used to determine the order of 
     Northern Border Air Wing sites to be opened?
       Response: The order in which the border sites are activated 
     was based on the known level of aviation, marine, and ground 
     activity in each geographical area, combined with available 
     intelligence on the threat. This resulted in Bellingham, WA 
     and Plattsburgh, NY being activated first, with Great Falls, 
     MT and Detroit, MI to be activated second. Grand Forks, ND 
     was identified as the last of the primary sites to be 
     established.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington DC, March 10, 2006.
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to request clarification 
     of the Department of Homeland Security's plans for opening 
     additional Northern Border Air Wing sites to complement the 
     current sites in Bellingham, Washington and Plattsburg, New 
     York. You have testified before the Senate Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs Committee on several occasions that 
     the Department plans to open sites in Michigan, Montana, and 
     North Dakota in Fiscal Years (FY) 2006 and 2007. I strongly 
     support the Northern Border Air Wing initiative and look 
     forward to all five Northern Border Air Wing sites becoming 
     operational in the coming years.
       During your testimony before the Senate Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs Committee on March 1, 2006, you 
     indicated to the Committee that the Northern Border Air Wing 
     site in Montana would open in FY06, followed by the North 
     Dakota and Michigan sites in FY07. However, an analysis of 
     the President's FY07 budget request for DHS does not seem to 
     support your testimony since there are no funds designated 
     for the establishment of Northern Border Air Wing sites in 
     either North Dakota or Michigan.
       In light of these discrepancies, I would appreciate your 
     response to the following questions:
       (1.) Will new Northern Border Air Wing sites be established 
     in Michigan and North Dakota during FY07?
       a. When will specific sites in Michigan and North Dakota be 
     selected?
       b. When do you predict these sites will be operational?
       (2.) Does the President's FY07 budget request for DHS 
     include funding for the opening of Northern Border Air Wing 
     sites in Michigan and North Dakota?
       a. If so, how much money has been budgeted for the opening 
     of these sites?
       (3.) What criteria were used to determine the order of 
     Northern Border Air Wing sites to be opened?
       A Northern Border Air Wing site in Michigan will provide an 
     additional layer of air and marine border security along a 
     critical section of our Northern Border. The region for which 
     the Michigan site will be responsible encompasses at least 
     three of our Great Lakes and several major ports along the 
     St. Lawrence Seaway including Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, 
     Milwaukee, and Green Bay. In addition, Southeast Michigan is 
     home to three of our nation's busiest border crossings and an 
     unparalleled industrial base vital to our economy and 
     national security. I hope you agree that the establishment of 
     a Northern Border Air Wing site in Michigan is a national 
     priority and I would appreciate your timely response to the 
     above questions.
       Should your staff have any questions, please feel free to 
     have them contact Michael Noblet of my staff at (202) 224-
     3999.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin.
                                  ____



                     customs and border protection

       Mr. LEVIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my 
     friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and my friend from 
     North Dakota, Senator Conrad, regarding funds that have been 
     included in this bill for customs and border protection, CBP, 
     air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and 
     procurement.
       The Northern Border Air Wing, NBAW, initiative was launched 
     by the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, in 2004 to 
     provide air and marine interdiction and enforcement 
     capabilities along the Northern Border. Original plans called 
     for DHS to open five NBAW sites in New York, Washington, 
     North Dakota, Montana, and Michigan.
       The New York and Washington NBAW sites have been 
     operational since 2004. Unfortunately, none of the other 
     three sites have yet been stood up, leaving large portions of 
     our Northern Border unpatrolled from the air. In the 
     conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 DHS 
     appropriations bill, the conferees noted that these remaining 
     gaps in our air patrol coverage of the northern border should 
     be closed as quickly as possible.
       Given that the threat from terrorists, drug traffickers, 
     and others who seek to enter our country illegally has not 
     diminished, I believe an adequate portion of the funds 
     included in this bill for air and marine interdiction, 
     operations, maintenance, and procurement should be used by 
     customs and border protection to complete the remaining 
     assessments, evaluations, and other activities necessary to 
     prepare and equip the Michigan, North Dakota, and Montana 
     NBAW sites with appropriate CBP air and marine assets.
       This bill requires that DHS submit an expenditure plan to 
     the appropriations committee before any of the funds may be 
     obligated. I urge DHS to include in their plan the funds 
     necessary to stand up, equip, and begin operations at the 
     three remaining northern border air wing sites in Michigan, 
     North Dakota, and Montana.
       Mr. CONRAD. I agree with my friend from Michigan. The 
     fiscal year 2006 DHS appropriations bill included a small 
     amount of funds to begin initial preparations for a NBAW site 
     in my home state of North Dakota, but more funds are needed 
     for the site to become operational. Secretary Chertoff has 
     told us that the establishment of the three additional 
     northern border air wings will be complete in fiscal year 
     2007.
       A small portion of the air and marine interdiction funds in 
     this bill would go a long way toward meeting this deadline 
     and the goal of securing our long and currently porous 
     northern border. I join Senator Levin in encouraging the DHS 
     to include funds sufficient to stand up and equip the North 
     Dakota, Michigan, and Montana sites.
       Mr. GREGG. My friends from Michigan and North Dakota raise 
     important points. I agree the establishment and equipping of 
     the three remaining northern border air wings is a priority. 
     The northern border has long been neglected compared to the 
     southern border. As

[[Page 14151]]

     my colleagues are aware, funds were appropriated in the 
     fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Act to initiate funding of the third northern 
     border air wing in North Dakota. I am committed to seeing 
     that the establishment of the remaining northern border air 
     wings is accomplished as expeditiously as possible
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________