[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17695-17704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4954, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security 
     through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Stevens (for DeMint) amendment No. 4921, to establish a 
     unified national hazard alert system.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the pending business the DeMint 
amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it is.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4929

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4929.

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


                           amendment no. 4929

  (Purpose: To extend the merchandise processing fees, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. COBRA FEES.

       (a) Extension of Fees.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of 
     section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(A) and 
     (B)(i)) are amended by striking ``2014'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2015''.
       (b) Use of Fees.--Paragraph (2) of section 13031(f) of such 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The provisions of the first and second sentences 
     of this paragraph limiting the purposes for which amounts in 
     the Customs User Fee Account may be made available shall not 
     apply with respect to amounts in that Account during fiscal 
     year 2015.''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this morning the Senate is considering a 
very important bill, the port security bill, which many Members have 
come to the floor to talk about. I am proud to be an original sponsor 
of this bill and have been working on it for a number of years; in 
fact, since five years ago, after September 11, when I was the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee chair. At that time I began 
to bring stakeholders together to talk about how we can make sure the 
cargo containers that are coming into this country are secure. It is a 
very complex issue. It is very difficult to do. We have a tremendous 
balancing act of making sure that cargo containers are safe when they 
come into our ports but also that we don't halt our economy as we move 
forward with this initiative.
  I have been very proud to work with a number of Senators in getting 
us to this point, and I am hoping this bill will move forward in an 
expeditious manner. Obviously, there will be a number of amendments 
that come before us, and I look forward to working with other Senators 
on both sides of the aisle to move them forward.
  The bill that is now before the Senate has one major hole. The 
original bill we have been working on with all of the committees 
contained a funding source for this bill that some Members had some 
concerns about. The original bill that we offered had tariff fees as 
the funding source. The Finance Committee has objected to that. They 
were concerned about that. I understand that concern. Because of that 
objection, the bill that has come before us is an important bill, but 
it lacks the ability to put in place a secure system. It is essentially 
an empty shell without a funding source.
  That is why I have sent to the desk right now an amendment we have 
been working on together with a number of people to make sure this bill 
is not just about rhetoric but actually has the funding behind it. If 
we pass this bill without funding it, we will not have done our job. 
The amendment I sent to the desk extends two existing Customs user fees 
for 1 year to fund this bill. Those are fees that are collected today 
that are going to expire, and all we are doing is extending the 
collection for an additional year.
  The fees we are extending are the merchandise processing fee and the 
passenger conveyance fee. Extending those for just 1 year will produce 
close to $2.5 billion in revenue and will importantly provide a 
dedicated funding stream to pay for the new security initiatives 
authorized in this bill. By voting for this amendment, this Senate will 
put money behind the rhetoric of port security. This Senate will put 
money behind the rhetoric. That is absolutely critical in today's 
world.
  I sit on the Appropriations Committee. I sit on the Department of 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. If we do not put a 
dedicated source of funding behind this bill, we will simply put port 
security in contention with all of the other functions of the 
Department of Homeland Security. We will be looking at Coast Guard 
money, FBI money, all of the important functions that we need to have 
within this bill, and port security will be just another issue that 
doesn't get funded. That is why this funding amendment is so absolutely 
critical.
  The funding for this amendment is going to be used to hire new 
Customs and Border Protection officers. We can't just simply require 
our Customs and border officials to do more. They are important 
positions. Their eyes on the containers and their eyes on the tracking, 
their eyes on the containers as they are loaded and secured is 
absolutely critical. Without putting new Customs and Border Patrol 
agents in place to do the functions we are asking for in this bill, we 
simply will be sending an empty promise to America.
  The funding also will improve the tracking and data collection of 
every container coming into our ports. That

[[Page 17696]]

is essential funding which will make sure what we put into those 
containers is sealed, that someone is watching to make sure they 
haven't been tampered with, that no one has gotten into them, and that 
those containers have not gone someplace they are not supposed to. Just 
putting a tracking seal on it isn't going to make sure we know a 
container has not been tampered with. We need the personnel in place to 
do the tracking. That is an important item for funding in this bill. 
The current bill doesn't have the funding for it. The amendment I am 
offering will make sure we have eyes on those tracking systems.
  The funding will also establish incentive programs for shippers who 
voluntarily agree to these standards. That is the GreenLane section of 
this bill that is very important to make sure we know we can reduce the 
number of cargo containers coming into our ports that could produce a 
danger for American citizens and for America's economy.
  The funding will also establish protocols for the resumption of cargo 
shipments after a disruptive incident. We put in place a system which 
assures, should an incident occur on one of our ports, that we have a 
resumption strategy in place so we know which cargo, which containers 
can begin to move off of our ports in an expeditious manner. The reason 
this is so important is if we don't have a protocol in place, it will 
take weeks, if not months, to get that cargo moving again. That will 
have a tremendous impact on our economy not just in our port cities but 
throughout the Nation, as stores would not have any retail goods on 
their shelves. The economic impact of that has been outlined in this 
debate, but it would be devastating. We absolutely need to have a 
protocol in place, and this funding stream will assure it is not just 
empty rhetoric but actually a funding source.
  Finally, the funding is important for authorizing and appropriating 
money for a grant system for our ports, critical funding infrastructure 
for gates, for fencing, for making sure people are in place to know who 
is coming onto our ports--critical infrastructure that we have known is 
lacking and needs a real funding stream, not just rhetoric saying we 
are requiring it.
  I am very pleased to bring this amendment to the Senate, and I hope 
it is agreed to overwhelmingly because it is critical that we put in 
place not just an authorizing bill to tell the American public we are 
putting in place a port security bill but that we actually have the 
funding so we can accomplish what I think everyone believes is an 
important goal.
  I have presented this amendment and ask for its consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Washington I be 
added as a cosponsor of her amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank Senator Murray for her efforts to reconcile what 
we believe to be the most glaring vulnerability of this bill--how to 
pay for it.
  As I noted in my opening statement, authorizing security programs for 
our ports and supply chain is the first step. We also must provide the 
actual funding to implement these new initiatives. While we have rushed 
to debate this security bill this week as the country remembers those 
who lost their lives 5 years ago, the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee is in conference struggling to find the necessary funds to 
pay for existing programs. The security enhancements we are debating 
this week provide our constituents no benefit if we do not give the 
agencies we have tasked with these new responsibilities the necessary 
funds to do their job.
  Despite a vulnerable maritime system and a very real threat to the 
physical and economic security of all Americans, the President has 
provided little support to help secure our Nation's ports from 
terrorist attacks. Even though the Congress has enacted two port 
security laws, the White House has included limited port security 
funding in their annual budget requests, proving their support for port 
security has been all talk and no action.
  In 2003, when the President's budget failed to provide a fraction of 
the funding necessary for port security programs, Democrats offered an 
amendment to the Budget Resolution to provide $1 billion per year for 2 
years to help ports meet the new security mandates. The amendment 
closely followed the Coast Guard's estimates on the immediate, first 
year costs for ports to meet the mandates. The amendment received 
unanimous approval in the Senate. During the conference committee's 
consideration of the budget resolution, the Republican leadership 
eliminated the provision.
  Recognizing this inadequacy and lost opportunity to deliver funds to 
the ports quickly, the Democrats offered an amendment to add $1 billion 
to the 2003 supplemental again to help ports meet the new security 
mandates. Despite unanimous approval in the Senate 3 weeks earlier, 
when it came time to put the real dollars behind the budget commitment, 
the amendment was opposed by the administration and defeated on the 
Senate floor on a party-line vote.
  Unfortunately, this year we saw history repeat itself. A Democratic 
amendment offered by Senator Byrd to increase funds for port security 
programs by $648 million was offered and agreed to by unanimous consent 
during committee consideration of the fiscal year 2006 supplemental 
appropriations bill. Yet again when it came time to put real dollars 
behind their commitment to port security programs to make them a 
reality, the additional funds were opposed by the administration and 
were eliminated in conference.
  If history is any guide, the additional funding provided by the 
Senate in the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill is likely to be eliminated again during this 
ongoing conference.
  It has become evident that only by identifying a revenue source other 
than appropriated funds to pay for the new initiatives authorized in 
this Port Security Improvement Act can we truly overcome this cycle of 
all talk and no action. And that is exactly what the Murray amendment 
does.
  The Murray amendment raises $2.5 billion by extending customs fees. 
It goes a long way toward covering the costs for the $3.2 billion 
authorized in this legislation. This is a tremendous step in the right 
direction to pay for more than 78 percent of the authorized levels in 
the underlying bill. I hope my colleagues will join with me in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Murray amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. I understand that other Senators may be coming to speak on 
the amendment. But I wish to speak in general in support of the bill 
itself.
  Mr. President, yesterday, Monday, September 11, 2006, marked the 
fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of our country, on September 
11, 2001. It was an emotional day for all of us. There were feelings of 
remembering the unity that it brought to all of us even here in this 
institution after that dreadful day. It was a day of mourning and 
sadness and a lot of mixed emotions. But I also think it reminded us 
once again that the terrible threat we saw come to fruition on that 
fateful day is still with us and we have more work to do.
  I think it is important for those of us in Congress to point out that 
we have done a lot to address the terrorist threat to try to make our 
country safer from a variety of security vulnerabilities since then. I 
don't think we

[[Page 17697]]

talk enough about what we do. But I remember very well the months after 
September 11, 2001, the fall of that year on into the next year, for a 
period of weeks--yes, even months--when we worked together. We put 
aside partisanship, we put aside political interests, and we decided we 
were going to do what was right for our country. It was a great time.
  I note that the approval rating of the Congress during that period 
went to the highest level it has ever been before or since. The people 
liked it when they saw us working together and doing the right thing 
for our country. Of course, I should note that it has probably fallen 
steadily ever since then. But we have more to do.
  I took the time last month to go to the west coast and look at ports, 
to look at ships that come in and their cargo, how the targeting works, 
how the random selection works, how the scanning works, how the 
intermodule systems work. It is an incredible thing to see, all the 
cargo coming into and going out of our west coast port--in fact, all of 
our ports.
  I represent ports that serve the Gulf of Mexico and, of course, we 
have our very important east coast ports, too. It is a phenomenal thing 
to see where good progress has been made, but more needs be done.
  I do not know if it is fiscally possible or physically possible to 
guarantee that our ports are secure. But we have done some, and we need 
to do more.
  I point out that we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
of 2002. This was major legislation. And I was very pleased we were 
able to get it done. It has made a difference. It has a number of 
provisions in it that have helped us to move toward more sophisticated 
analysis of cargo shipment data; cooperative arrangements between 
foreign ports and businesses involved; targeted deployment of 
nonintrusive scanning and radiation detection equipment. Great progress 
is being made in this area.
  The next generation of these scanners is ready to come onto the 
market. I took a look at how one of them works. It scans a container in 
12 seconds. You can pick up something as small as a pistol snuggled 
among the cargo. You can pick it out because I saw it. If I picked it 
out, just about anybody can pick it out.
  But that was a good piece of legislation. Now we have this next step, 
the Port Security Act of 2006. I thank the chairman of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins of Maine, 
and her ranking member, Senator Lieberman. They deserve great credit 
for having produced a good bill--and then they took it beyond that. 
They worked with the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, on 
which I serve, to address concerns of that committee and some of their 
jurisdictional interests.
  Then we had to go another step and work with the Finance Committee. 
Good work has been done. It has been done by three different committees 
and in a bipartisan way.
  Now we have an opportunity to do something good and something that is 
needed, but more is needed. There is no question about that.
  This bill will improve security at our seaports by including waterway 
salvage operations in port security plans. It calls for unannounced 
inspections of port facilities to verify the effectiveness of facility 
security plans.
  I want to reemphasize I was a little surprised and impressed at what 
I saw at the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma--the security operation, the 
way the port officials work with Government officials and work with our 
security officials, DEA and Customs, and all the rest of them where 
there is a maze of entities that are involved. It seems to be working 
pretty well, I say to the Senator from Washington State. I went out 
there, frankly, not expecting much, and I was surprised and relatively 
pleased.
  Am I still concerned and nervous? When you look at the Port of 
Seattle, as the Senator said on the floor, you have a city, two 
stadiums right there in a pretty compact area. You have ships coming in 
from all over the world at a steady stream. The risk of danger is 
unsettling, to say the least.
  We need to do more. This legislation provides additional direction on 
the implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Card 
Program. We can do that. In fact, they have already done it in the 
private sector. It is just the Government that is lagging behind.
  It mandates the establishment of interagency operation centers to 
coordinate the security activities of the many Federal, State and local 
agencies.
  I get a little nervous because I have dealt with this, too, where you 
have a major event. I remember one time when we had a drug cargo coming 
into my hometown. A pretty good fracas broke out about what was going 
to be the lead agency and take the credit. Was it going to be the local 
sheriff, was it going to be port authority, FBI, Customs or DEA?
  Here is my answer: Who cares? Somebody needs to get the job done. 
Quit squabbling over who is the lead agency or who gets the credit or 
who gets the blame and make sure it is done seamlessly and effectively. 
I think we do that with this bill.
  This bill mandates the establishment of interagency operations 
centers to coordinate the security activities of all these different 
agencies.
  It mandates the establishment of an exercise program to test 
interagency cooperation.
  It establishes a training program for ports and their workers.
  It improves security in the international supply chain. That is what 
a lot of people say: Wait a minute, once it gets to Seattle, it is too 
late. Right. So what is happening at the port of embarcation? Who is 
looking at the situation there?
  The bill ensures that following any maritime transportation security 
incident there will be an orderly resumption of cargo movement through 
our ports. It authorizes the Container Security Initiative, which 
examines containers at foreign ports prior to their shipment to the 
United States. It authorizes the Customs-Trade Partnership Against 
Terrorism Program to improve information sharing and cooperation 
between the private sector and the Department of Homeland Security.
  Everything I was concerned about, while I was looking at these ports 
and ports in my hometown and gulf ports and other ports, I think this 
legislation addresses or moves in the right direction.
  Now, I admit, some of it will include pilot programs or we are going 
to study this or that, and we waste so much money and so much time with 
that sort of thing. But when you are talking about very sophisticated, 
integrated, voluminous programs, like what is going on in our ports, a 
little thought might be a good idea.
  Now, my complaint would be, why did we not do that a year ago, two 
years ago, three years ago? Well, sometimes the problem is us. We have 
to legislate. We have to do something. It is not enough that we just 
stand around and complain about our concerns, and then, when we have a 
chance to do something, we cannot follow through.
  So I urge the leaders of these committees to press forward. Do it 
now. Let's not drag this out. There will be some good amendments that 
will be offered. Probably we ought to take them. Some of them are 
already being considered. Some of them have already been taken. There 
will be some amendments, really, that are just grandstanding.
  Hey, that is our right. We are Senators. But I would just say we need 
to get this done. There is not a lot we can take credit for in terms of 
security in this particular Congress. This would be good. And besides 
that, I would hate to be the Senator who dragged this bill out or voted 
against this bill when an incident occurs.
  This is a plus for the institution. When you do the right thing for 
the American people, there is plenty of credit to go around. Let's get 
this legislation passed and let's do it now. We do not need to be 
working on this at 6 o'clock Thursday night. We can finish this tonight 
or tomorrow. And then let's move on because it is well considered. It 
is bipartisan. There are some

[[Page 17698]]

legitimate amendments. Let's take them up. Let's deal with them, and 
then let's go to another subject.
  But overall, I feel good about the work that has been done on this 
bill, and I think we need to do more, and we need to do it very 
quickly. This will be a step in that direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate the individuals 
responsible for bringing this bill to the floor. No one is more 
responsible than the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. She 
has talked about this for years. This was a difficult bill because it 
had multiple jurisdictions--the Homeland Security Committee, the 
Finance Committee, and the Commerce Committee. The bill is here and I 
am glad it is here. It is long overdue. But this is a small slice of 
what we need to do to make America safe. We need to do much more. Five 
years after 9/11, America is not as safe as it could be and should be. 
In my opinion, failures by this White House and inaction by this 
Republican-dominated Congress have left our ports and borders 
vulnerable, our chemical plants open to attack, our nuclear power 
facilities unsafe, our mass transit systems unsecure, and our military 
stretched to levels not seen since Vietnam. We need a new direction to 
keep America safe, and we need it now.


                           Amendment No. 4936

  (Purpose: To provide real national security, restore United States 
 leadership, and implement tough and smart policies to win the war on 
                                terror)

  Today, I intend to offer the Real Security Act of 2006 as an 
amendment to the port security bill. The Real Security Act provides an 
aggressive plan to make America safe. It takes nothing away from the 
port security legislation before this body. It is based on the real 
lessons of 9/11, more than 5 years ago, that occurred, lessons that for 
too long have been ignored by this Congress. This Democratic amendment 
would get serious about all facets of security--not only on port 
security but also on rail, aviation, and mass transit.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk tough about 
national security. Today we will see if they are serious about taking 
the required steps to actually keep America safe by joining with us in 
supporting a tough and smart plan to protect our families.
  This Real Security Act would, first of all, implement all 41 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  In a report card last year, the 9/11 Commission gave Republicans in 
Congress and the Bush administration D's and F's in implementing its 
recommendations. The amendment would provide the adequate resources for 
first responders, improve intelligence oversight and homeland security 
funding, and improve our tracking of material that can be used in 
nuclear weapons.
  An additional section would equip our intelligence community to fight 
against terrorists. With all the tough talk from this Republican 
Congress about terrorism, it is striking, stunning to find that for the 
first time in 27 years, this Congress did not authorize the 
Intelligence bill for our intelligence community--the first time in 27 
years. This year, again, there is no authorization, and we have 18 days 
remaining in this session of Congress. This Real Security Act would, in 
fact, adopt the Intelligence authorization bill that needs to be 
passed.
  Third, the amendment will secure not only our ports but our rails, 
our airports, and our mass transit systems. In addition to that, it 
would protect our chemical plants. And this is real money here to 
protect our chemical plants, real money to protect our nuclear power 
facilities. Our nuclear generating facilities--it is no secret--have 
their independent security systems. Some have referred to them as 
``rent-a-cop'' programs. What they do is put out the security of these 
nuclear power facilities to the lowest bidder. We have to have standard 
protection for our nuclear power facilities. That would be done with 
this amendment which we are going to offer.
  As I indicated, this legislation will do some good things, in section 
3, that I have talked about.
  Customs and Border Protection, which we talk about a lot--this would 
actually give a half a billion dollars, $571 million, for necessary 
expenses for border security, including for air asset replacement and 
air operations facilities upgrade, the acquisition, lease, maintenance, 
and operation of vehicles, construction, and radiation portal monitors 
that Border Patrol tells us are absolutely essential, and they do not 
have them after 5 years.
  It would give $87 million to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services. As I have indicated, it would give an additional $55 million 
for air cargo security, including cargo canine teams and inspectors. It 
would give $250 million for aviation security, including--very 
importantly--after all these years after 9/11, we still do not have 
explosives monitoring equipment. The Coast Guard would be given $184 
million--these are real dollars; these are not authorized dollars--for 
necessary expenses for the Integrated Deepwater Systems Program. The 
Coast Guard says this is essential. This section is important, as I 
have indicated, for making our country safer.
  The fourth provision of this amendment would focus resources on the 
war on terror. Bin Laden's trail has gone cold, as we have seen in the 
papers in recent days. The administration has taken its eye off the war 
on terror and gotten our country bogged down in Iraq. This amendment 
will change this by increasing substantially our special forces 
operations to capture terrorists, to kill terrorists. It would improve 
our relationships with the Muslim world so we can help stop recruitment 
of new terrorists.
  Fifth, the amendment would provide better, updated tools to bring 
terrorists to justice. We have a sense of the Senate on FISA. As we 
speak, there is good bipartisan work being done on domestic 
surveillance. Senator Feinstein and others have worked on a bipartisan 
basis. It is my understanding she has, on the Judiciary Committee, at 
least two Republican Senators who will support her amendment. That is 
important.
  As to the Hamden decision, the Supreme Court said we need to do 
something. And we do need to do something. Senators Levin and Warner 
and others have worked on a bipartisan basis to do something about 
that. It would bring terrorists and detainees in Guantanamo Bay and 
other places to justice by listening to our military experts and 
helping to create tough tribunals that will lock up terrorists while 
respecting the Constitution and maintaining America's integrity. It is 
important we do this.
  Finally, this amendment would change the course in Iraq. Our 
amendment would include the Levin-Reed resolution to move in a new 
direction in Iraq. There would be a transition of the U.S. mission in 
Iraq to counterterrorism, training, logistics, and force protection. No 
immediate withdrawal, nothing like that. It would begin a phased 
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year, as 
called for by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We 
would work with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and develop a 
broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending 
the Iraqi Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and 
resources.
  We would convene an international conference--which has been called 
for by Senator Biden for years now, and others--and contact group to 
support a political settlement in Iraq, preserve Iraq sovereignty.
  It is very important that this amendment be adopted. We have talked a 
lot about terrorism, homeland security, talked about doing something 
about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment would do 
that. I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
allow us to adopt this amendment. I believe it is essential. We have 
waited too long. It needs to be done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that is now 
pending be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 17699]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4936.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I now yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. I will 
ask that the pending amendment be set aside in a moment. I am not able 
to debate my amendment at this point because there is a large group of 
farmers who are in town to talk about disaster relief, and I am 
expected to be with them at 11:30. I am going to offer the amendment, 
go over and be a part of what they are doing, and then come back.
  But before I offer this amendment, I want to say, just for a moment, 
this morning the new trade deficit figures were released. The highest 
trade deficit in America's history was announced this morning: $68 
billion. That is the highest trade deficit in our history: $68 billion 
for 1 month.
  This is the most incompetent, unbelievably dangerous trade strategy, 
and yet all we get from anybody is this talk about free trade, free 
trade, how wonderful it is. Well, this last month alone, we are up to 
our necks in $68 billion of debt, the majority of which is held by the 
Chinese and the Japanese. If this month's trade deficit does not 
persuade some people to finally decide the current trade strategy is 
not working, then I guess nothing ever will.
  But let me just, from this 1 month, extrapolate what our yearly trade 
deficit is with these various countries. We are running a trade deficit 
at a $240 billion-a-year level with China. Our trade deficit with the 
European Union is at a $140 billion-a-year level; OPEC, $120 billion a 
year; Japan, $90 billion a year; Canada, $70 billion a year; Mexico, 
$60 billion a year. It is unbelievable what is happening--$68 billion a 
month in trade deficits.
  Now, I understand there are a lot of people who vote for all these 
trade agreements and think this is wonderful. This is not wonderful. It 
is undermining this country's economy, it will injure our economic 
future, and I think it will consign our children to an economic future 
and opportunities that are much less than we have experienced. I would 
expect and hope that one of these days this Congress and this President 
will wake up and decide that this trade strategy isn't working. We are 
choking on trade debt, moving millions of jobs overseas, and tens of 
millions more are poised to go.
  If this doesn't persuade people to decide to stand up for this 
country's economic interests, I guess nothing ever will. At this point, 
we need, on an emergency basis, the understanding that we should create 
a fair trade commission in this country that leads us toward trade 
balance, getting rid of deficits, and standing up for American jobs and 
American interests. That hasn't been the case for a long time.
  This morning's announcement simply underscores once again the 
dramatic failure of this trade strategy, the failure of this Government 
to stand up for this country's economic interests. I will talk about 
that more later.


                           Amendment No. 4937

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4937.

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

   (Purpose: To prohibit the United States Trade Representative from 
negotiating any future trade agreement that limits the Congress in its 
ability to restrict the operations or ownership of United States ports 
        by a foreign country or person, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF PORTS.

       (a) In General.--On and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the United States Trade Representative may not 
     negotiate any bilateral or multilateral trade agreement that 
     limits the Congress in its ability to restrict the operations 
     or ownership of United States ports by a foreign country or 
     person.
       (b) Operations and Ownership.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``operations and ownership'' includes--
       (1) operating and maintaining docks;
       (2) loading and unloading vessels directly to or from land;
       (3) handling marine cargo;
       (4) operating and maintaining piers;
       (5) ship cleaning;
       (6) stevedoring;
       (7) transferring cargo between vessels and trucks, trains, 
     pipelines, and wharves; and
       (8) waterfront terminal operations.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It relates to 
the issue of port security, which is the bill we are on. As you know, 
earlier this year we had a substantial amount of controversy about port 
security, at a time when the Bush administration gave the green light 
for Dubai Ports World, which was a government-owned company in the 
United Arab Emirates, to have the opportunity to take over management 
of seaports in our country--in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, 
Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Miami, among others.
  In February of this year, the Bush administration said that was fine 
for a company called Dubai Ports World to take over the management of 
these ports. It had been given official sanction to do so, and the 
President indicated that if the Congress didn't like it, and if the 
Congress passed legislation to do something about it, he would veto any 
bill Congress might approve to block the agreement that would allow the 
United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage American seaports.
  Well, the UAE then indicated it was going to back away, and Dubai 
Ports World has now moved to try to find a way to sell its interest to 
others. My understanding is that it has not yet done so. But the 
circumstances are that the Oman Free Trade Agreement, which will come 
to the floor of the Senate this week we are told by the majority 
leader, includes a provision--I will describe it in greater depth 
later--that would prevent the Congress from interfering in any way with 
a foreign company from Oman from managing our ports.
  My amendment is very simple. It would say that trade officials would 
be prohibited from agreeing to any trade agreement that would preclude 
the Congress from blocking a takeover of U.S. port operations by 
foreign companies. In recent trade agreements they have actually 
included--which we have negotiated with other countries--the 
opportunity for those countries and their companies to come in and run 
America's ports.
  When we are talking about port security, don't tell me about security 
if we decide we are going to allow other countries, and companies owned 
in many cases by countries, to take over the management of America's 
ports. That is not port security and not, in my judgment, improving the 
security interests of this country.
  We went through this debate about Dubai Ports World and United Arab 
Emirates. That issue is not resolved. It is being raised again in every 
trade agreement that is being negotiated and is included in the one 
with Oman that will be debated later this week. The majority leader 
wishes to take up that trade agreement. I believe there is a 20-hour 
requirement or debate provision with respect to that agreement.
  I intend to talk at some length about what that agreement provides 
with respect to this provision. The provision in this trade agreement 
once again is that it is going to be just fine for foreign interests to 
come in and provide management and many other functions at America's 
seaports. Tell me how

[[Page 17700]]

that will make this country more secure.
  I don't think anybody can talk about security when at the same time, 
in trade agreements, we are saying we want other countries, and 
companies that are owned by these countries, in fact, to come in and 
manage America's seaports. That is a recipe for disaster, in my 
judgment.
  I will speak more about it later. I wanted to at least lay the 
amendment down and have the opportunity to be in line after lunch and 
talk about this amendment at greater length.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everyone in this Chamber understands 
that we are in a political season. And that means we are going to be 
taking political votes. The amendment offered by the Senator from North 
Dakota is indeed one of those votes.
  Now, Senator Dorgan is a friend of mine. We have worked together on a 
number of important issues. But let's face it. This amendment doesn't 
really do anything. It creates the appearance of a problem and then 
purports to resolve that illusory problem. So there really isn't any 
point to the amendment. But we also know, that no Member wants to be 
portrayed in a 3O-second television commercial as having voted against 
U.S. ownership of port operations. So I recommend to my colleagues that 
they support this do-nothing amendment.
  Let me explain why this amendment doesn't really do anything. This 
amendment says that after the date of enactment, the U.S. Trade 
Representative may not negotiate any bilateral or multilateral trade 
agreement that limits the Congress in its ability to restrict the 
operations or ownership of U.S. ports by a foreign country or person. 
But the fact is, our trade agreements do not prevent Congress from 
legislating on any matter, including ports.
  First off, Congress can always override an international agreement by 
passing subsequent legislation. That is an elementary principle of 
constitutional law. Moreover, our standard implementing legislation for 
trade agreements expressly states that if a provision of a trade 
agreement is inconsistent with any provision of U.S. law, then that 
provision in the trade agreement shall not have effect. In other words, 
in the event of an inconsistency between a trade agreement and U.S. 
law, Federal law prevails over the trade agreement. Yet this amendment 
suggests that the U.S. Trade Representative can somehow transcend our 
Constitution and Federal law by negotiating a trade agreement.
  That is ridiculous. It is false. But as I said, we are in a political 
season. So I suggest we accept this do-nothing amendment, recognizing 
it for the political act that it is, and we move on. It is critical 
that we move this important legislation through the Senate as soon as 
possible and avoid getting bogged down in politics.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment, and I call up my amendment, which I believe is at 
the desk, No. 4930.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4930.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 improve maritime container security by ensuring that 
 foreign ports participating in the Container Security Initiative scan 
      all containers shipped to the United States for nuclear and 
                  radiological weapons before loading)

       On page 5, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (9) Integrated scanning system.--The term ``integrated 
     scanning system'' means a system for scanning containers with 
     the following elements:
       (A) The container passes through a radiation detection 
     device.
       (B) The container is scanned using gamma-ray, x-ray, or 
     another internal imaging system.
       (C) The container is tagged and catalogued using an on-
     container label, radio frequency identification, or global 
     positioning system tracking device.
       (D) The images created by the scans required under 
     subparagraph (B) are reviewed and approved by the Secretary, 
     or the designee of the Secretary.
       (E) Every radiation alarm is resolved according to 
     established Department procedures.
       (F) The information collected is utilized to enhance the 
     Automated Targeting System or other relevant programs.
       (G) The information is stored for later retrieval and 
     analysis.
       On page 43, strike lines 11 through 14 and insert ``enter 
     into agreements with the governments of foreign countries 
     participating in the Container Security Initiative that 
     establish criteria and procedures for an integrated scanning 
     system and shall monitor oper-''.
       On page 44, line 5, strike ``and''.
       On page 44, line 9, strike the period at the end and insert 
     the following: ``; and''.
       On page 44, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (5) shall prohibit, beginning on October 1, 2008, the 
     shipment of any container from a foreign seaport designated 
     under Container Security Initiative to a port in the United 
     States unless the container has passed through an integrated 
     scanning system.
       On page 60, strike lines 9 through 15.
       On page 62, lines 7 and 8, strike ``As soon as practicable 
     and possible after the date of enactment of this Act'' and 
     insert ``Not later than October 1, 2010''

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of the most 
critical gaps in our homeland security, and that is port security. This 
week, everyone in my home State of New York--certainly there but also 
everywhere in America--is asking if we are safer since 9/11. I have to 
say, if you look at port security, the answer is an unfortunate no.
  In this week of remembering the attacks on 9/11, I am pleased that 
the critical issue of port security is under consideration by the 
Senate. I think the Port Security Act of 2006 is a good start. I 
commend my colleagues, and particularly my friend from Washington 
State, who worked so long and hard on this issue. But I also want to be 
sure the legislation we pass provides real teeth and resources for port 
security.
  The United States is the leading maritime trading Nation in the 
world. At any given moment our seaports are full of container ships, 
warships, cruise ships, and oil tankers. Every one of these ships is an 
opportunity for terrorists to strike at our industry, our 
infrastructure, and our lives. We know these enemies will wait 
patiently and plan carefully in order to create maximum panic and 
damage.
  Our greatest risk is that a terrorist could easily smuggle a nuclear 
weapon through our ports, God forbid, and bring it into the United 
States. Once it gets out of the port, it will be gone, and we would not 
know about it until it is too late.
  Yet, unfortunately, our vulnerable seaports have long been neglected 
by the administration. Programs to screen for nuclear materials are 
delayed and delayed and delayed. I have been pushing amendments such as 
this for years and, frankly, the administration, in lockstep with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, generally talks the talk, 
but they do not walk the walk. They do not say we should not do 
research to guard against nuclear weapons being smuggled into our 
country, but then when it comes time to allocate resources to get it 
done, when the need is $500 million, they might allocate $50 million or 
$35 million. That is what has happened in years past. That is a 
disgrace. That is letting our guard down.
  Mr. President, we need to fight the war on terror overseas, no 
question about that. But as any high school basketball coach will tell 
you, to win a game--in this case, a war on terror--you need both a good 
offense and a good defense. We have woefully neglected the defense. An 
example is the spending by this administration, DHS,

[[Page 17701]]

and by the Senate and this Congress on port security.
  By the end of this month, DHS will have provided $876 million in port 
security grants since 9/11. This is a fraction of what we have spent on 
aviation security, and it is far less than what is needed.
  Maritime trade is booming. The Coast Guard estimates port owners will 
need $7.2 billion over the next 10 years to bring ports in line with 
Federal security requirements, and we need to give more funding and 
more attention to vulnerable seaports. If we ever needed convincing 
that this administration is asleep at the switch when it comes to port 
security, turn back the clock a few months to the fiasco over Dubai 
Ports World. That company, a government company from the United Arab 
Emirates, was cleared to take over operations at more than 20 ports 
along our eastern and gulf coasts without any serious review.
  It was hard to believe. And then when the President learned there 
wasn't serious review, he still said we don't need it. Now that shows a 
profound and very disturbing unawareness of what we need for port 
security.
  The Dubai Ports World takeover almost snuck under the radar, after 
getting scanty review from the CFIUS committee. There is only one bit 
of good that came from this Dubai Ports World fiasco. It revealed how 
little we had done to protect our ports and focused the Nation, and 
hopefully this administration, on bolstering port security in the 
United States and around the world.
  I am inclined to support the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, 
but I am also very concerned that this bill does not go nearly far 
enough toward securing our seaports and shipping vessels, especially 
against the unspeakable danger of a nuclear weapon.
  This is our great nightmare. God forbid--God forbid--a nuclear weapon 
is shipped into this country and exploded. Nothing could be worse.
  So instead of doing little baby steps, instead of saying this is a 
10- or 15-year project, why aren't we moving with alacrity to make 
ourselves safer against the greater danger we could face?
  I know my colleague from Connecticut, who has just walked in, has 
been very active on this issue and has been very helpful to me when I 
have offered amendments in this regard.
  We need to do much more to guard against nuclear weapons being 
smuggled into our country by sea, and we can't have any holes in our 
defenses. Today I am offering two amendments that will strengthen port 
security improvement in these key aspects.
  The first amendment is the amendment that is pending, No. 4930. This 
amendment secures our ports by screening all cargo containers that 
reach our shores to make sure they do not contain a nuclear or 
radiological weapon.
  More than 9 million cargo containers enter the country through our 
ports each year, and as we all know--it is sad, it is woeful--only 5 
percent of these containers have been thoroughly screened by Customs 
agents. That is nothing short of an outrage. It would truly be a 
nightmare scenario if one of these unchecked containers had a nuclear 
weapon smuggled in by a terrorist group.
  The latest I heard from some on the other side is: We can't guard 
against every single terrorist act. We don't have the resources or the 
focus to do it.
  I disagree. But even if one believed in that philosophy, one would 
have to put nuclear weapons and the danger of them being smuggled into 
this country at the very top of the list of dangers. So even if one's 
view is we can't do everything, we certainly should do everything we 
can to prevent this nightmare scenario.
  Terrorists, unfortunately, could detonate a nuclear bomb in a port or 
the bomb could be loaded on a truck or railcar and be sent anywhere in 
our country or terrorists could combine radioactive material with 
conventional explosives to make a so-called dirty bomb.
  Any attack of this kind would cause unspeakable casualties, 
destruction, and panic. We know our enemies are ruthless and determined 
enough to plan this type of attack. Yet the administration has waited 
years and years, and I have been trying to importune them to take 
significant action on port security.
  We know terrorists have tried to purchase nuclear materials on the 
black market, and we know that any shipping container could be used as 
a Trojan horse to smuggle deadly radioactive material into our country. 
But this country has not stepped up to the plate to fund port security 
at the levels that are necessary or to pass laws with real teeth.
  This amendment will end this shocking state of affairs and make 
America safer by requiring that within 4 years, every container coming 
into the United States will pass an advanced nuclear detection system 
known as integrated scanning.
  Integrated scanning is used now. I have visited--and so has my 
colleague; I visited, with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey 
Graham, Hong Kong about 6 months ago. It is an amazing system. The 
containers are not slowed down. They simply are required to drive 
through a portal with two detection devices, each on a side, that do 
two things: They first check for nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. 
The only good news is--they are terrible and dangerous--they emit gamma 
rays which pass through just about anything but lead. Even if they are 
hidden in an engine block, the detection device works.
  At the same time, because lead may cover them, there is a scanning 
device that will reveal large chunks of lead. Once these trucks go 
through the devices with these containers, we will know if they have 
nuclear weapons or nuclear radiation, nuclear materials or, 
alternatively, a significant enough amount of lead that could shield 
those, and we could then inspect the container.
  An integrated scanning system works. I have seen it with my own eyes. 
I salute the firm of Hutchison Wampoa, the largest shipping company in 
the world, for on their own instituting this system in the Port of Hong 
Kong. They do the checks using nonintrusive imaging technology. Then it 
is checked with a tracking device, as well as, of course, the nuclear 
device. And if the checks don't match up, Customs inspectors know 
something is wrong and can stop the container.
  Isn't it a shame that China and Hong Kong have better port security 
than we have in the United States? Integrated scanning for nuclear 
weapons is a model of what it means to make a true commitment to port 
security.
  We don't need to study this any more. My amendment sets firm 
deadlines for containers entering the United States to meet this mark. 
If it is working in Hong Kong, there is no reason why America shouldn't 
hold other ports that handle our commerce to the same high standard of 
safety.
  There are some critics who say this is an unrealistic deadline; let's 
study it some more. It is working. It is there. It has been working for 
a year without flaws. Why do we have to study it when the danger is so 
great and the technology is there?
  The Department of Homeland Security has wasted enough time securing 
our ports. It is time for Congress to hold DHS accountable and time for 
us to demand real security at our seaports.
  Under this pending amendment, by October 2008, integrated scanning 
must be used to check all containers that arrive on U.S. shores from 
foreign ports participating in what is known as CSI, the Container 
Security Initiative.
  There are 40 ports in the CSI in 22 countries. U.S. Customs agents, 
under the program, work directly to inspect containers bound for 
America.
  But it is not enough to extend integrated scanning only to the ports 
in the voluntary CSI program. So my amendment also sets a deadline of 
October 2010 for every single container entering the United States to 
pass an integrated scan.
  We have waited long enough for port security to receive the attention 
it deserves. While the Department of Homeland Security drags its feet, 
it is time

[[Page 17702]]

to put our safety first by voting for a measure that will actually stop 
nuclear weapons before they ever get near the United States.
  This does not cost the taxpayers a plug nickel. We simply require the 
shipping companies to do it. When Senator Graham and I visited Hong 
Kong--and Senator Coleman, who has been very interested in this issue, 
will confirm it--they told us it costs about $8 to scan a container; 
whereas, the cost of shipping that container from Hong Kong to the west 
coast is $2,000. That is .2 percent.
  Shipping companies will have to put these scanners in. They will then 
have to pass along the costs to their customers. But I doubt the U.S. 
consumer would see any increase, the amount is so small and competition 
in the shipping industry is so large.
  I support this amendment and urge bipartisan support so we can once 
and for all say we are keeping our world safe.


                           Amendment No. 4938

  I have another amendment which I am not going to ask to call up at 
the desk right now because we don't have anyone on the other side, and 
they haven't seen it yet. I don't think there will be any objection to 
calling it up, but I am going to talk about it now, and then we can get 
unanimous consent to call it up. It is amendment No. 4938. Let's talk 
about that.
  This is the Apollo project amendment. Here is what it does.
  Forty-four years ago today, John Kennedy vowed to put a man on the 
Moon by the end of the decade. That was a bold and visionary promise. 
NASA succeeded with time to spare because it was backed by the full 
extent of American resources and ingenuity. John Kennedy called for us 
to do it, and we went forward and did it. It was a bold and visionary 
promise.
  Now it is time for Congress to make the same bold commitment to 
homeland security. Too often since 9/11 we have said this has to be 
done; here is $5 million when the job takes $100 million. As a result, 
5 years after the attacks on our country, we are still far behind where 
we need to be. We must stop shortchanging port security.
  This amendment dedicates $500 million over the next 2 years in 
competitive grants to public and private researchers who have 
innovative and realistic ideas for nuclear detection devices that will 
keep us ahead of our enemies. The funding is sorely needed.
  We have to develop better portal monitoring devices. We need devices 
that can be positioned on cranes. We need devices that can be placed 
under water. In all of these areas, we need devices accurate and 
effective enough to keep commerce moving smoothly.
  The model Hong Kong uses will work for big ports, but it may not work 
for small ports. In all these areas, we need the devices to be accurate 
enough and effective enough not only to detect radiation but to not 
have so many false positives that they interfere with commerce.
  So many times in the past, this Congress has authorized 
appropriations for port security. They are simply hollow promises and 
do not go anywhere. This amendment is different. It makes a meaningful 
and long-term commitment of a worthy goal of keeping our seaports safe. 
Funding for the grant process will come from a port-related user fee 
that will be a dedicated source of revenue. It is only fair to ask 
those who will benefit most from port security improvements to 
contribute to this task.
  We have spent $18 billion on aviation security in the past 5 years. 
Mr. President, $500 million is not too much to devote against the 
horrifying threat of a nuclear attack on our soil. The first amendment 
doesn't cost us any money. This amendment does. I imagine that is why 
there is a temporary holdup on the other side to offering it.
  The bottom line is the leaders of the 9/11 Commission called a 
nuclear weapon being smuggled into this country ``the most urgent 
threat to the American people.'' Congress has done far too little for 
far too long in this area. We are running a marathon against a ruthless 
enemy. We haven't taken any more than a few halting steps. We can no 
longer afford to fail in securing our ports.
  I ask my colleagues to support both amendments, when we have a chance 
to vote on them, to strengthen this important bill.
  Once again, she wasn't here earlier. I praise my colleague from 
Washington for the good work she has done on this bill, a bill I am 
strongly inclined to support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the overall bill 
before the Senate to express my strong support for it and to say I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of the Port Security Improvement Act 
of 2006 and its predecessor, the GreenLane Cargo Act.
  Seeing that the clock is reaching noon, I ask unanimous consent we 
extend the time for the scheduled vote by 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to express my 
support for the bill and say I am proud to be a cosponsor with Senator 
Collins, Senator Murray, and Senator Coleman. This is a comprehensive, 
bipartisan port security bill. I would also like to thank Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye of the Commerce Committee, and Senator 
Grassley and Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee, for their hard 
work, leadership, and commitment to passing a port security bill this 
Congress. This is really important. In the midst of a Congress and a 
Capitol that has become all too reflexively and destructively--I might 
say self-destructively--partisan, and that partisanship getting in the 
way of us getting anything done, this is a bill on which members of our 
Homeland Security Committee and the other relevant committees have 
risen above partisanship and focused on a real threat to our security, 
a terrorist threat that would come to us in containers moving through 
our ports or in terrorist acts at our ports.
  I know there will be many amendments offered this week. I hope we 
will consider them in the fullness of debate that is part of the Senate 
but that we always ask ourselves the question: Will this amendment 
stand in the way of this bill passing and making it through conference 
committee to be signed by the President? This is urgent and this bill 
responds comprehensively to the urgent terrorist threat that we face.
  Ninety-five percent of our international trade flows through our 
ports. Prior to 9/11, the main goal was to move these millions of tons 
through our ports efficiently, quickly, for reasons obviously of 
commerce, jobs, and employment. Since 9/11, we have realized that we 
need to bring security into the equation but without inflicting on 
ourselves the precise economic harm that the terrorists intend to do to 
us. This is a difficult but imperative balance we must achieve.
  The 9/11 Commission report said that ``major vulnerabilities still 
exist in cargo security,'' and that, since aviation security has been 
significantly improved since 9/11, ``terrorists may turn their 
attention to other modes. Opportunities to do harm are as great, or 
greater, in maritime and surface transportation''--i.e. ports.
  Just last month, RAND's Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy 
published a report entitled ``Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic 
Terrorist Attack'' that considered the effects of a nuclear weapon 
smuggled in a shipping container sent to the Port of Long Beach in 
California and detonated on a pier. This is chilling.
  But I remember that the 9/11 Commission, in its conclusions, said one 
of the great shortcomings we had prior to 9/11 was a failure of 
imagination. Imagination is usually thought to be a wonderful thing, 
but what they meant by that is our inability to imagine how brutal, 
inhumane, and murderous terrorists could be.
  The potential short- and long-term effects of a nuclear weapon 
smuggled in a shipping container sent to the Port of Long Beach and 
detonated on a pier are devastating. The report estimated that up to 
60,000 people might die instantly from the blast or radiation 
poisoning, with 150,000 more exposed to hazardous levels of radiation.

[[Page 17703]]

  The blast and fires could completely destroy both the Port of Long 
Beach and the Port of Los Angeles and every ship in the port. As many 
as 6 million people might have to be evacuated from the Los Angeles 
area, and another 2 to 3 million people from the surrounding area might 
have to relocate due to the fallout. Gasoline supplies would quickly 
dry up because one-third of all the gas used on the west coast is 
processed at the refineries of the Port of Long Beach.
  Short-term costs for medical care, insurance claims, workers' 
compensation, and evacuation and reconstruction could exceed $1 
trillion. By comparison, the cost in similar categories resulting from 
the attacks on America on September 11, 2001 were between $50 billion 
and $100 billion. Besides damage to the United States, the attack would 
cause economic effects that would ripple across the globe.
  That is devastating and chilling. I hesitate to even speak it on the 
floor of the Senate, and yet it is the world in which we live, and the 
threat is real.
  The unsettling fact is, we still have too little idea about the 
contents of thousands of containers that are shipped into and across 
the heart of America every day. It is strange to say, but perhaps the 
controversy over the Dubai Ports World incident raised the collective 
consciousness of the American people and Members of Congress to the 
vulnerabilities that we face at our ports. Following that incident, the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee marked up the 
GreenLane bill, and later Senators Collins, Murray, and I started 
working with the Senate Commerce and Finance Committees to craft the 
comprehensive port security legislation that is before the Senate 
today.
  The Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 builds on these foundations 
for homeland security by strengthening key port security programs by 
providing both direction and much-needed resources. I would like to 
focus my colleagues' attention on a few critically important parts of 
the bill.
  First, the bill moves us closer to the goal of inspecting all of the 
containers entering the United States through our ports. The 
legislation requires DHS to establish a pilot program to inspect 100 
percent of all containers bound for the U.S. from three foreign ports 
within 1 year and then report to Congress on how DHS can expand that 
system.
  There is legitimate concern that inspecting 100 percent of containers 
would be so burdensome that it would bring commerce to a halt. However, 
technology companies have been working for several years to build more 
efficient inspection systems. The Port of Hong Kong is currently 
testing an integrated inspection system to scan every container 
entering the two largest terminals at that port, while the research and 
development offices of DHS have begun work on developing automated 
systems to analyze this data. We should move towards 100 percent 
inspection as fast as we can get there, understanding that we can not 
afford to bring commerce to a halt. This legislation will provide us 
critical information about how soon we can achieve this goal.
  Second, this bill authorizes comprehensive and robust port security 
grant, training, and exercise programs, with a $400 million grant 
program available to all ports. Third, this legislation requires DHS to 
deploy both radiation detection and imaging equipment to improve our 
ability to find dangerous goods and people being smuggled into the 
United States.
  DHS has committed to deploying radiation portal monitors at all of 
our largest seaports by the end of 2007. Unfortunately, this 
``solution'' is, in fact, only half of the equation. To provide real 
port security, radiation detection equipment capable of detecting 
unshielded radiological materials, as these portal monitors do, must be 
paired with imaging equipment capable of detecting dense objects, like 
shielding.
  This legislation requires DHS to develop a strategy for deploying 
both types of equipment, and the pilot program for screening 100 
percent of containers at three ports similarly requires that both types 
of equipment be used.
  Fourth, this bill requires DHS to develop a strategic port and cargo 
security plan, and it creates an Office of Cargo Security Policy in DHS 
to ensure Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector 
coordinate their policies.
  Currently, the Coast Guard is responsible for the waterside security 
of our ports. U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulates the flow of 
commerce through our ports. The Transportation Security Administration 
is responsible for overseeing the movement of cargo domestically. And 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office has been working with the Defense 
Department and the Department of Energy to strengthen our ability to 
detect radiological materials anywhere in the country.
  It is imperative that these agencies, offices, and departments are 
working closely with each other, as well as State and local government 
and the private sector to develop and coordinate port security policies 
and programs.
  Lastly, this bill requires DHS to develop a plan to deal with the 
effects of a maritime security incident, including developing protocols 
for resuming trade and identifying specific responsibilities for 
different agencies.
  This is critically important to ensuring the private sector and our 
global partners have enough confidence in our system, so that we can 
mitigate any economic disruption and foil a terrorist's plan to hurt 
our economy.
  Moving the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 forward will take us 
one giant step closer to where we ought to be by building a robust port 
security regime, domestically and abroad, and provide the resources 
necessary to protect the American people.
  I look forward to continuing to work with Senators Collins, Stevens, 
Inouye, Grassley and Baucus, and our colleagues in the House, to 
finalizing meaningful port security legislation.
  Yesterday was a day of remembrance and requiem. Today is a day to 
resolve that we will do everything in our capacity to make sure that no 
terrorist attack against our country and our people succeeds in the 
future. That is the intention of this bill. I urge Members of the 
Senate to adopt it by this week's end.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote on amendment No. 4921 
offered by Senator DeMint, as amended.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 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 amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. 
Mikulski), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama

[[Page 17704]]


     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Chafee
     Mikulski
     Sarbanes
  The amendment (No. 4921) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

                          ____________________