[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9411-9417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROBERTS:
  S. 2994. A bill to provide for the mandatory revocation, in addition 
to the mandatory denial, of passports of individuals who have a certain 
level of child support arrearages; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
helps to prevent children from living in poverty and ensures that 
noncustodial parents pay child support, instead of fleeing off to hide 
from their responsibilities. I commend my fellow Kansas colleagues, 
Congressman Jerry Moran and Congressman Dennis Moore, for introducing 
similar legislation in the House.
  The problem is this: a noncustodial parent could potentially avoid 
paying their responsible share of child support by leaving the country. 
State child support enforcement agencies must certify cases to the 
State Department for passport denial if the child support debt is over 
$5,000. The $5,000 is slated to be reduced in October 2006 to $2,500 in 
accordance with Public Law 109-171. The loophole that emerges is for 
those deadbeat parents who already have a passport. Under current 
implementation of the law, the next opportunity point of enforcement is 
at the renewal of the passport, which could be several years down the 
road. The legislation I offer today closes that loophole, and simply 
instructs the State Department to revoke, in addition to denying, a 
noncustodial parent's passport once the individual's child support debt 
exceeds the amount set in law.
  Studies show that the receipt of child support is a key factor that 
keeps a child and single parent family from living in or near poverty. 
Beyond that financial security that steady child support provides, 
there is a greater likelihood that the noncustodial parent is 
personally involved in their child's life. If a parent shows 
responsibility financially, there is a bigger chance that he or she is 
involved emotionally. The impact of a noncustodial parent's involvement 
in his child's life, in many cases, results in better grades and fewer 
behavioral problems.
  In Kansas alone, there are currently 131,000 child support cases 
open, including those receiving public assistance, and those above that 
income bracket. Last year, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement program 
collected $156 million in child support. However, that number 
represents only 54 percent of all payments owed to children. 
Unfortunately, that missing 46 percent of child support overdue 
averages out to just over $7,000 per child. That is quite a loss for a 
single-parent's household budget to absorb.
  Now, you might ask: What percentage of the population will this help? 
I would concede that, although this may not impact a high percentage of 
those children and families receiving child support, the impact on an 
individual family is very significant. According to my State's limited 
records on this issue, approximately 50 passport applications and 
renewals are denied on a yearly basis. That figure does not include 
those passports that should be revoked. Coupled with the upcoming 
reduction in allowable debt, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement 
Program estimates that the number of deadbeat parents affected would 
increase to 250. The security afforded by the steady stream of child 
support could be the lone determinant of a family living in poverty or 
existing on adequate financial ground.
  I encourage my colleagues to add their support to this important fix. 
We must ensure that the tools provided to the States have the teeth 
necessary to discourage deadbeat parents from running out on their 
financial responsibilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 2999. A bill to improve protections for children and to hold 
States accountable for the safe and timely placement of children across 
State lines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DeWINE. Today I join with my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and 
Senator Domenici to introduce the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement 
of Foster Children Act of 2006. I am proud to have had the opportunity 
to again work with my friend, Senator Rockefeller, on the important 
issues affecting the most vulnerable and at risk children--children in 
foster care. This is an important bill and I hope we will be able to 
pass swiftly.
  In 1997, I worked on the Adoption and Safe Families Act, an important 
bill that worked to provide timelier placement of children in foster 
care. Since that time, it has been successful. Dramatically more 
children are being adopted. Children are spending less time languishing 
in foster care and have greater opportunities to find a permanent home 
or family. However, there are barriers that remain for children in 
foster care--particularly for children who are placed across state 
lines for various reasons--including trying to place them with family 
members or if a family in another state is looking to adopt that child. 
These children are shown to continue to remain in foster care for much 
longer periods of time. Through no fault of their own--they wait for 
placement and wait

[[Page 9412]]

for a permanency in their lives that children long for and deserve.
  I also want to thank the work that the States have done to alleviate 
the problems we currently find in interstate placement. This has been a 
problem for many years, but recently States have been active in 
creating and promulgating guidelines for dealing with complications 
that can arise related to interstate placement. I hope that we can see 
these guidelines soon implemented. The primary power to move these 
children to homes rests with the States, and we want to encourage their 
quick action.
  This bill will require and support States in the expeditious study of 
homes for children in foster care who may be placed or adopted across 
State lines. This bill would allow a 60-day period for such study to 
occur--while 2 months is a long time in the life of a child, we feel 
that it is an appropriate balance between the needs of the State and 
child welfare agencies to conduct thorough assessments and the needs of 
the child to be in a more permanent home.
  This bill also expresses the sense of the Congress that States should 
accept the home study evaluations done by another State. This would go 
a long way to reduce time waiting for placement and redundancy of 
effort in the child welfare system.
  Importantly, this bill is not just another mandate on States. This 
bill would provide resources to enhance and speed up their systems for 
interstate placement--but States do have to earn it. If passed, it 
would provide $1,500 per child who was placed within a 30-day period. 
States can use this money to improve their systems for placement, hire 
more staff to conduct placement, or otherwise use it for improvement of 
services for foster children in their State.
  This bill will also improve the rights of children and their foster, 
pre-adoptive parents, or family caregivers to be heard in court 
proceedings concerning their case within the child welfare system. It 
is important that a child's needs are appropriately represented and 
this bill will work to ensure that the parties most involved in the 
child's life are present when important matters are being considered. 
Courts will also be required to work more closely with their 
counterparts in other States when the situation warrants. The judges 
who work with the child welfare system hold so much power in so many 
children's lives. We must continue to encourage their cooperation with 
outside stakeholders, including child welfare systems and court systems 
in other States, to quickly move these children to permanent homes. 
There is no excuse for a child to languish in a system for months and 
sometimes years of their lives due to court inaction or delay.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work and support of 
these efforts. I am confident that we can work together to quickly pass 
this legislation and put it to work for our Nation's children.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Today, I rise to join my colleagues Senators DeWine 
and Domenici to introduce the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of 
Foster Children Act of 2006. This is a bipartisan initiative that I 
have been working on for several years.
  This legislation could help to deliver on the promises made in the 
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 which stated that geographic 
barriers should not delay or deny adoptions. Unfortunately, data 
continues to suggest that it can take twice as long for a child to 
leave foster care to an out-of-state placement. When a child leaves 
foster care and goes out of state, half of the time the child is being 
adopted and gaining a permanent home. In about twenty percent of the 
cases, a child is being placed with a parent or caretaker. These are 
good, permanent options for children, and it should not take twice as 
long to achieve such a placement.
  This new legislation could provide incentives for States to process 
these out-of-state claims more quickly. In my view, this complements 
and builds upon actions by many States to update the 1960 Interstate 
Compact for the Placement of Children. The purpose of this legislation 
is to add specific time-frames and to provide federal incentives to 
achieve the goal set in 1997 of reducing and eliminating geographic 
barriers.
  As technology has vastly improved, and more families seek to open 
their hearts and homes to children in foster care, we need improved 
regulations and policies to serve such families. This legislation is 
part of the DeWine-Rockefeller bill, called the ``We Care Kids Act''. 
Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Grassley, the major provisions of 
We Care Kids Act were included in the reconciliation package to invest 
in court training and data to help judges have insight and the 
information needed to care for the vulnerable children in foster care. 
But action could not be taken to improve interstate case planning 
within the reconciliation bill. In 2004, similar legislation passed the 
House of Representatives. Today, we are re-introducing the legislation 
for timely placements of children across state lines. Hopefully the 
Senate will act, and we can help children in foster care get a 
permanent home in a timely manner.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 3000. A bill to grant rights-of-way for electric transmission 
lines over certain Native allotments in the State of Alaska; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will resolve an ongoing dispute in our State concerning rights of 
way in the Copper River Valley region.
  In 1906, Congress passed the Alaska Native Allotment Act, which 
allowed Alaska Natives to each claim up to 160 acres of land. Between 
1906 and 1970, Alaska Natives filed allotment applications. The 
majority of these were filed in the late 1960s. In 1971, Congress 
repealed the Alaska Native Allotment Act as part of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act. Congress then resolved all outstanding land 
claims by approving pending applications in the 1980 Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act. This approval was subject to valid 
existing rights.
  When it settled the outstanding land claims in our State, Congress 
unintentionally created an issue which is now the subject of several 
lawsuits. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government and the State 
of Alaska granted rights of way to the Copper Valley Electric 
Association to run power lines across areas in our State which were 
later claimed by Alaska Natives. These rights were conveyed before 
Alaska Native allotment claims had been filed and processed.
  Since outstanding land claims were approved through ANILCA in 1980, 
several Native allottees have come forward and claimed the Copper 
Valley Electric Association is trespassing on their lands. In 1987, the 
Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed this position, finding Native 
allotees have priority over other competing uses of land--in this case, 
those of the utility company--regardless of the fact that the rights of 
way were granted prior to the conveyance of the property in question to 
the allotees. This situation is still unresolved and has resulted in 
years of litigation.
  We have been unable to settle these disputes through existing 
remedies. These conflicts now jeopardize existing transportation and 
utility corridors. This issue threatens future infrastructure 
development in the region.
  At my request, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, reviewed 
this situation. The GAO issued its report and recommended solutions. 
This bill incorporates the GAO's recommendation. It compensates the 
owners of the Native allotments, while ensuring that the utility 
companies are able to provide residents with the infrastructure and 
services they need. I believe this is the most equitable solution 
available, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 3001. A bill to ensure that all electronic surveillance of United 
States

[[Page 9413]]

persons for foreign intelligence purposes is conducted pursuant to 
individualized court-issued orders, to streamline the procedures of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 
2006.
  First, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and her staff for 
their work on what I believe is an excellent and much needed proposal.
  No one disputes that preserving our homeland must be our first 
priority. Without that, every other goal falls away. And no one can 
dispute that the enemy we face today is an enemy beyond negotiation. It 
is an enemy that believes it is on a mission from God to establish a 
worldwide theocracy and destroy all those who preach tolerance of other 
ideas. It is an enemy that regards mercy as a moral failing, and 
proudly plays videotapes of its followers beheading innocent civilians.
  At the same time, no one disputes that we must, in fighting to 
preserve America, ensure that we protect what is uniquely American--our 
way of life, our principles, and our belief in liberty. Throughout our 
history, we have balanced the need to protect our Nation with the need 
to preserve our freedom.
  No one disputes that we must continue to achieve both of these ends. 
The question is how to do so.
  I believe that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and 
Enhancement Act goes a long way to answering this question. It is a 
responsible bill that establishes a workable framework for the future.
  This bill eliminates some artificial and outdated constraints in 
FISA:
  It grants the executive branch 7 days, instead of 3 days, for seeking 
an emergency order--a change that the FISA judges who testified before 
the Judiciary Committee advocated; it cuts through redtape by 
confirming that applications for FISA orders may be made by delegees of 
the Attorney General, such as the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant 
Attorney General of the National Security; it creates new emergency 
provisions, allowing extended periods of surveillance in the event our 
Nation is once again attacked; and it allocates additional personnel to 
DOJ to prepare applications for FISA orders in a prompt and timely 
manner.
  This bill also ensures that our civil liberties are protected by 
strengthening oversight of the executive branch:
  It eliminates the current ambiguity in FISA and the National Security 
Act of 1947, and makes it clear the executive branch must inform all 
members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on all 
electronic surveillance programs; it requires the executive branch to 
submit an additional report to the congressional Intelligence 
Committees listing any recommendations for legislative or 
administrative improvements in FISA, so that we in Congress can update 
FISA as needed; it establishes rigorous reporting requirements for the 
exercise of emergency surveillance powers; and it establishes a 
document management system to ensure that information concerning 
electronic surveillance programs is readily available for review by the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Congress, to allow for 
short term decisions and long-term accountability.
  I do have one concern over the bill, a concern over 
constitutionality. The bill states that the only way the President may 
carry out electronic surveillance is through the procedures outlined in 
FISA or the Federal Criminal Code. During the four hearings I held in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, numerous scholars and five FISA judges 
called this provision into question. They testified that the President 
has certain inherent powers that we in Congress cannot take away. They 
explained that to the extent a bill purports to override the 
President's inherent powers, and tell the President that he may not use 
them, the bill might be unconstitutional.
  I think this is precisely the type of complex and weighty concern 
that we should work out in the Judiciary Committee, through study, 
analysis, and discussion. And I look forward to having those 
discussions with Senator Feinstein and the other members of the 
committee.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce 
legislation with Senator Specter to reaffirm the exclusivity of the 
Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act of 1978, FISA, and streamline the 
process by which it works.
  This measure brings the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program 
being conducted by the National Security Agency under the process 
required by FISA. The bill will enhance our national security and 
provide constitutional protections against government intrusion into 
the privacy of ordinary Americans.
  Specifically, the bill that we introduce today would:
  Restate, in no uncertain terms, that FISA is the exclusive means by 
which our Government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. 
persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes;
  Expressly state that there is no such thing as an ``implied'' repeal 
of our FISA laws. No future bill can be interpreted as authorizing an 
exception from FISA unless it expressly makes such exception;
  Increase flexibility under FISA by extending the period of emergency 
electronic surveillance from 72 hours to 7 days, which should cover all 
contingent needs; and
  Authorize designated supervisors at the NSA and the FBI to initiate 
emergency electronic surveillance, provided that the surveillance is 
reported to the Attorney General within 24 hours, and approved by the 
AG within 3 days and the FISA Court within 7 days. The purpose of this 
is to prevent bureaucratic delay in an emergency circumstance.
  In addition to these major provisions, the legislation we introduce 
today makes several additional changes to reinforce FISA's exclusivity 
and adapt existing FISA authorities and procedures.
  These changes are designed to allow applications to move faster from 
the field to the FISA Court, and to allow that Court to handle any 
increased caseload that will result from bringing the current NSA 
program into the FISA regime.
  These additional authorities, streamlined procedures, and additional 
resources respond directly to needs described by the Attorney General, 
current and former FISA Court judges, and outside experts. 
Specifically, the bill:
  Allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to approve 
applications going to the FISA Court to two other Senate-confirmed 
Justice Department officials;
  Takes FISA's current allowance for 15 days of warrantless electronic 
surveillance following a declaration of war and extend it to the 15 
days:
  1. Following a Congressional authorization to use military force, or
  2. A major terrorist attack against our nation for the same period of 
time.
  Authorizes additional personnel at the NSA, the FBI, the Department 
of Justice, and the FISA Court, to reduce the time it takes to 
initiate, review, and file a FISA application.
  Allows for additional judges to the FISA Court as needed to manage 
the caseload;
  Facilitates a review of the FISA application process, culminating in 
a report designed to eliminate any unnecessary delay in the filings; 
and
  Mandates the creation of a secure, classified document management 
system to facilitate electronic filing.
  In addition to reaffirming FISA's exclusivity, as I mentioned before, 
the legislation:
  Prohibits the use of Federal funds for any future electronic 
surveillance of U.S. Persons that does not fully comply with the law; 
and
  Requires that the full Intelligence Committees be briefed on all 
electronic surveillance, and related, programs.
  We are in a war against terrorists, who seek to attack us in 
unpredictable and asymmetric ways.

[[Page 9414]]

  Intelligence is the key to our defense; we must know about the 
terrorists' intentions and capabilities to do us harm if we are to stop 
them.
  Electronic surveillance, including surveillance conducted within the 
United States on U.S. persons, is part of our defense. The men and 
women at the NSA and the FBI who do this work are careful, dedicated 
officials.
  But even in this war on terror, we should not sacrifice basic 
protections enshrined in the Constitution, including the fourth 
amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.
  The FISA Court was created in 1978, following the Church Committee's 
investigation of some of our Government's worst civil rights 
violations--J. Edgar Hoover's spying on Martin Luther King, Jr., and 
Vietnam-era ``enemies lists,'' for example. These abuses were the 
result of domestic spying--electronic surveillance--under the guise of 
foreign intelligence.
  In response, Congress, working with both the Ford and Carter 
administrations, drafted and later enacted FISA in 1978 to be the 
exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons. It 
created a special court--operating in secret--that has to approve a 
warrant for every domestic wiretap, and provides for careful 
congressional oversight.
  Over the years, this FISA court has rejected only a small handful of 
thousands of warrant requests, and has never had a significant leak. 
After the PATRIOT Act was passed in October 2001, for example, the 
Justice Department stated that FISA has worked efficiently and well.
  In the past 28 years, technology has changed, as have our enemies. 
And from time to time, when requested by various administrations, we 
have made technical changes to FISA.
  But the need to protect privacy rights by requiring individual 
warrants from a FISA judge, and the exclusivity of FISA, have remained 
constant.
  The domestic electronic surveillance that has been conducted since 
October 2001 operates, for the most part, outside of the law. In 
addition, the way the administration has moved forward with this 
program has brought us to the brink of a constitutional confrontation.
  The legislation that Senator Specter and I are introducing today 
brings the surveillance program under appropriate supervision and 
restores the checks and balances between the branches of government.
  As one who has been briefed on the details of the NSA surveillance 
program, I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, 
without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued 
individualized warrants for all content collection of U.S. persons 
under the FISA process.
  Further, testimony and letters from the Attorney General, former 
Director of the NSA General Hayden, and other administration officials 
have provided no reason, other than that of timeliness, why the NSA 
program couldn't proceed under the FISA regime.
  This legislation would help transform the FISA process into one agile 
enough to meet the administration's need for timely action, while also 
preserving judicial oversight and our important constitutional privacy 
protections.
  In an April 6 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney 
General Gonzales openly suggested that warrants might have been 
obtainable for everything that the NSA is doing, and then testified 
that the main ``problem'' he saw with FISA was one of ``timing.''
  After the Attorney General's testimony, I wrote to him asking him why 
these timing problems could not be addressed directly, so that we could 
return to the FISA process followed by all Presidents since Jimmy 
Carter.
  The Justice Department's response does not provide a reason why 
FISA's timing problems are incapable of being fixed. All it 
demonstrates is that this administration is not interested in trying to 
fix them.
  This bill addresses all of the concerns noted in the Attorney 
General's letter.
  The primary concern raised was that current law requires the Attorney 
General to determine that FISA's factual predicates have been met 
before authorizing the surveillance to begin. In other words, he 
suggests that there is important surveillance he might delay, or even 
avoid, if he must determine in advance that a court will grant 
approval. But this bill eliminates the requirement for Attorney General 
approval before surveillance begins.
  Under this bill, if the circumstances warrant, an Attorney General-
designated supervisor of the NSA or FBI can begin emergency 
surveillance immediately. The designated officer would have to notify 
the Attorney General's office within 24 hours of starting, and then get 
approval from the AG within 72 hours. The Department of Justice would 
then need to obtain an emergency warrant from the FISA court within 7 
days of the initiation of surveillance.
  The Attorney General's role would simply be to decide whether to stop 
the surveillance--not authorize it on the front end. And even on this 
decision to stop surveillance, the bill allows him to delegate that 
decision to two other Department of Justice officials. If the Court 
does not issue a warrant, the information cannot be used in any legal 
proceeding.
  This provision is respectful of the administration's needs. The 7-day 
emergency window in this bill more than doubles the existing 3-day 
period that exists for emergencies now. It also extends substantial 
additional resources to the Department of Justice and the intelligence 
agencies. And as I say, our bill expressly authorizes a designated 
agent to go ahead with necessary surveillance right away.
  The Attorney General's letter also asserts that FISA is unworkable 
because prompt action increases the chance that the target of 
surveillance may ultimately be notified if the FISA Court later turns 
down the warrant.
  The risk here is no different than the risk every prior 
Administration has faced. And it is also infinitesimal, since only a 
small handful of FISA applications--only 4 out of 18,747 from 1979-
2005, according to press reports--have ever been refused by the FISA 
Court.
  Even in the extremely rare case of where a FISA Court denies an 
emergency warrant, and therefore directs notification of the target of 
surveillance, the FISA law has a provision that exempts the Attorney 
General from notifying the target if he certifies that doing so would 
imperil national security.
  Despite the remote chances of national security being compromised, 
the legislation gives the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt, 
and provides that if the Attorney General or his designees stops the 
NSA or FBI surveillance within 72 hours, the target of surveillance 
will not be notified.
  Beyond the Attorney's General letter, the White House, the Department 
of Justice, and intelligence officials say that court review of the 
surveillance is not necessary for three reasons:
  First, they argue that the President has the constitutional authority 
to order the surveillance, regardless of statutory prohibitions. This 
is a question for the courts to decide.
  It is highly debatable whether the President has plenary article II 
constitutional power, but even if he does, he clearly does not have 
plenary authority to decide which of his powers are plenary. If he did, 
any Executive Branch official could open mail, or enter homes at any 
time without a warrant in the name of national security, and the 
doctrine of separation of powers as we know it would end.
  Secondly, the administration argues that the NSA electronic 
surveillance program is subject to numerous reviews and safeguards at 
both the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency, thus 
making outside oversight unnecessary.
  This argument flies in the face of our system of government. We have 
three separate branches of government, each with checks and balances on 
the other two. The framers of the Constitution did not vest the 
Executive Branch with the right to oversee itself; that is the 
responsibility of the Congress and the Courts.

[[Page 9415]]

  We have also recently seen how this arrangement of internal reviews, 
even if it were acceptable, simply does not work. Within the Department 
of Justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility was recently 
asked to review the legality of the activities of those involved in the 
surveillance program outside of FISA, but we have learned that OPR was 
denied the security clearances needed to do their work.
  Finally, as I noted before, the Executive Branch says that outside 
review by the Congress and the courts would hamstring their ability to 
prevent terrorist attacks. I do not believe that is true, based on the 
briefings I have received, but even if it were, the answer is to amend 
FISA, not to throw it out. The FISA law has been changed since 
September 11 through the PATRIOT Act and the renewal of the PATRIOT 
Act. It can be done again. In short, if the President sees problems 
with an existing law, the simple answer is that he should ask to change 
it--not refuse to follow the law.
  This war on terror will be a long war, and it will be mostly fought 
in the shadows.
  It is thus especially important that the Congress and the American 
people be assured that we are waging that war in a way that upholds our 
principles and follows the Constitution.
  I believe that our national security and core privacy interests can 
both be protected, given the right tools and authorities, if each 
branch of government will work together to fulfill their respective 
roles and obligations.
  Congress was able to do that more than 25 years ago when it first 
enacted FISA, and I am confident we can do it again today.
  I have been waiting for the NSA to submit views regarding metadata--
that is, information about communications that does not include 
content. It is my strong belief that any and all metadata collection 
programs should be approved by FISA on a program basis. I would hope to 
add such a provision to this bill at a later time or to introduce a new 
bill to cover this subject.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. 
        Chafee):
  S.J. Res. 37. A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to 
the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of 
Understanding; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my 
distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, 
the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and Senator Chafee in 
introducing this joint resolution, which would affirm the Senate's 
commitment to recognize the International Emergency Management 
Assistance Compact, IEMAC. The purpose of IEMAC is to provide mutual 
assistance among the States of the Northeastern United States and the 
Provinces of eastern Canada for responding to any type of disaster, 
whether arising from natural or manmade causes.
  A number of recent disasters and emergencies have necessitated mutual 
aid and assistance among the Northeastern States and eastern Canadian 
Provinces. For example, both the January 1998 ice storm and the August 
2003 blackout left millions of people without electrical power, knocked 
out public water supplies and other essential services, and caused 
billions of dollars in property damage or business losses. In the past 
quarter century alone, there have been more than 100 presidentially 
declared disasters and emergencies in the Northeast, or, on average, 
about four per year. Many of these events required State and Provincial 
emergency management organizations to request out-of- jurisdiction 
mutual assistance to deal with the emergency.
  The importance of mutual assistance was made clear by Hurricane 
Katrina, in which 44 States and the District of Columbia received 
presidential emergency declarations. This was the largest number of 
declarations ever made for a single disaster in FEMA history. Most of 
these declarations were not the result of States receiving direct 
damage from the storm but rather because they reached out to assist the 
devastated States through the nationwide Emergency Management 
Assistance Compact, EMAC, sending personnel, equipment and supplies 
into the stricken areas. In addition, numerous host States opened 
shelters to assist hurricane evacuees.
  The genesis of IEMAC was the 1998 ice storm. The worst ice storm in 
our region's history demolished power lines from Quebec, through 
upstate New York, across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. As many as 4 
million people were without electricity, some 700,000 people for as 
long as 3 weeks, and damage topped $6 billion.
  The following June, the New England Governors Conference and Eastern 
Canadian Premiers signed Resolution No. 23-5 to adopt an International 
Emergency Management Assistance Agreement. The resulting memorandum of 
understanding was adopted by the conference in July 2000. In October of 
2004, the memorandum of understanding was the renamed International 
Emergency Management Assistance Compact. The Governors and Premiers 
established the International Emergency-Management Group, IEMG, to 
implement the compact and to work closely developing plans to train and 
exercise for disasters and emergencies that could affect the 
Northeastern States and Provinces. The Management Group meets regularly 
and has recently developed a draft operational manual to fully 
implement the compact, which is slated to be approved at the IEMG 
meeting in Quebec this month.
  The members of the compact are the States of Maine, New Hampshire, 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the 
Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, 
and Newfoundland. Other States and Provinces may join the compact in 
the future.
  IEMAC provides form and structure to international mutual aid between 
the Northeastern States and eastern Canadian Provinces. It addresses 
such issues as liability, payment, and credentialing before the 
emergency occurs, which allows for expedited deployment of resources 
and personnel in time of emergency. Working out the myriad legal and 
technical details in advance is especially important when resources and 
personnel must cross international boundaries.
  The value of the compact already has been demonstrated. When 
Hurricane Juan slammed into Nova Scotia in late September of 2003, 
partners in the existing memorandum of understanding provided quick and 
substantial aid to the stricken province. When Nova Scotia, still 
recovering from the hurricane, was hit again just a few months later by 
``White Juan,'' a powerful blizzard, effective mutual aid again 
alleviated the suffering.
  The compact was formed in the aftermath of a powerful ice storm, but 
the terrorist attacks of 9/11 amplified its importance. The 
Northeastern United States and eastern Canada are home to major 
population centers, vast industrial facilities, major cargo ports, and 
nuclear power plants--all potential terrorist targets. In the event of 
an attack, tighter border security would be both inevitable and 
necessary, and the prearrangements made through the compact would be 
invaluable.
  The role of the compact is ever expanding. There are a multitude of 
threats facing the Northeast States and eastern Canadian Provinces 
today, and the close working relationship of the member jurisdictions 
fosters a cooperative environment and creates a strong partnership. 
These strong bonds contribute to the goals of a more secure region and 
an effective response capability when a disaster or emergency does 
occur.
  As has been seen numerous times in the past, disasters know no 
boundaries--municipal, State, provincial or international. I ask you to 
join me in adopting the International Emergency Management Assistance 
Compact so that in a time of disaster the boundaries that separate 
jurisdictions are not barriers to cooperation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page 9416]]



                              S.J. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

       Congress consents to the International Emergency Management 
     Assistance Memorandum of Understanding entered into between 
     the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 
     Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the Provinces of Quebec, 
     New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and 
     Newfoundland. The compact is substantially as follows:

     ``Article I--International Emergency Management Assistance 
       Memorandum of Understanding Purpose and Authorities

       ``The International Emergency Management Assistance 
     Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as the 
     `compact,' is made and entered into by and among such of the 
     jurisdictions as shall enact or adopt this compact, 
     hereinafter referred to as `party jurisdictions.' For the 
     purposes of this agreement, the term `jurisdictions' may 
     include any or all of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, 
     Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the 
     Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, 
     Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and such other states and 
     provinces as may hereafter become a party to this compact.
       ``The purpose of this compact is to provide for the 
     possibility of mutual assistance among the jurisdictions 
     entering into this compact in managing any emergency or 
     disaster when the affected jurisdiction or jurisdictions ask 
     for assistance, whether arising from natural disaster, 
     technological hazard, manmade disaster or civil emergency 
     aspects of resources shortages.
       ``This compact also provides for the process of planning 
     mechanisms among the agencies responsible and for mutual 
     cooperation, including, if need be, emergency-related 
     exercises, testing, or other training activities using 
     equipment and personnel simulating performance of any aspect 
     of the giving and receiving of aid by party jurisdictions or 
     subdivisions of party jurisdictions during emergencies, with 
     such actions occurring outside actual declared emergency 
     periods. Mutual assistance in this compact may include the 
     use of emergency forces by mutual agreement among party 
     jurisdictions.

     ``Article II--General Implementation

       ``Each party jurisdiction entering into this compact 
     recognizes that many emergencies may exceed the capabilities 
     of a party jurisdiction and that intergovernmental 
     cooperation is essential in such circumstances. Each 
     jurisdiction further recognizes that there will be 
     emergencies that may require immediate access and present 
     procedures to apply outside resources to make a prompt and 
     effective response to such an emergency because few, if any, 
     individual jurisdictions have all the resources they need in 
     all types of emergencies or the capability of delivering 
     resources to areas where emergencies exist.
       ``The prompt, full, and effective utilization of resources 
     of the participating jurisdictions, including any resources 
     on hand or available from any other source that are essential 
     to the safety, care, and welfare of the people in the event 
     of any emergency or disaster, shall be the underlying 
     principle on which all articles of this compact are 
     understood.
       ``On behalf of the party jurisdictions participating in the 
     compact, the legally designated official who is assigned 
     responsibility for emergency management is responsible for 
     formulation of the appropriate inter-jurisdictional mutual 
     aid plans and procedures necessary to implement this compact, 
     and for recommendations to the jurisdiction concerned with 
     respect to the amendment of any statutes, regulations, or 
     ordinances required for that purpose.

     ``Article III--Party Jurisdiction Responsibilities

       ``(a) Formulate Plans and Programs.--It is the 
     responsibility of each party jurisdiction to formulate 
     procedural plans and programs for inter-jurisdictional 
     cooperation in the performance of the responsibilities listed 
     in this section. In formulating and implementing such plans 
     and programs the party jurisdictions, to the extent 
     practical, shall--
       ``(1) review individual jurisdiction hazards analyses that 
     are available and, to the extent reasonably possible, 
     determine all those potential emergencies the party 
     jurisdictions might jointly suffer, whether due to natural 
     disaster, technological hazard, man-made disaster or 
     emergency aspects of resource shortages;
       ``(2) initiate a process to review party jurisdictions' 
     individual emergency plans and develop a plan that will 
     determine the mechanism for the inter-jurisdictional 
     cooperation;
       ``(3) develop inter-jurisdictional procedures to fill any 
     identified gaps and to resolve any identified inconsistencies 
     or overlaps in existing or developed plans;
       ``(4) assist in warning communities adjacent to or crossing 
     jurisdictional boundaries;
       ``(5) protect and ensure delivery of services, medicines, 
     water, food, energy and fuel, search and rescue, and critical 
     lifeline equipment, services and resources, both human and 
     material to the extent authorized by law;
       ``(6) inventory and agree upon procedures for the inter-
     jurisdictional loan and delivery of human and material 
     resources, together with procedures for reimbursement or 
     forgiveness; and
       ``(7) provide, to the extent authorized by law, for 
     temporary suspension of any statutes or ordinances, over 
     which the province or state has jurisdiction, that impede the 
     implementation of the responsibilities described in this 
     subsection.
       ``(b) Request Assistance.--The authorized representative of 
     a party jurisdiction may request assistance of another party 
     jurisdiction by contacting the authorized representative of 
     that jurisdiction. These provisions only apply to requests 
     for assistance made by and to authorized representatives. 
     Requests may be verbal or in writing. If verbal, the request 
     must be confirmed in writing within 15 days of the verbal 
     request. Requests must provide the following information:
       ``(1) A description of the emergency service function for 
     which assistance is needed and of the mission or missions, 
     including but not limited to fire services, emergency 
     medical, transportation, communications, public works and 
     engineering, building inspection, planning and information 
     assistance, mass care, resource support, health and medical 
     services, and search and rescue.
       ``(2) The amount and type of personnel, equipment, 
     materials, and supplies needed and a reasonable estimate of 
     the length of time they will be needed.
       ``(3) The specific place and time for staging of the 
     assisting party's response and a point of contact at the 
     location.
       ``(c) Consultation among party jurisdiction officials.--
     There shall be frequent consultation among the party 
     jurisdiction officials who have assigned emergency management 
     responsibilities, such officials collectively known 
     hereinafter as the International Emergency Management Group, 
     and other appropriate representatives of the party 
     jurisdictions with free exchange of information, plans, and 
     resource records relating to emergency capabilities to the 
     extent authorized by law.

     ``Article IV--Limitation

       ``Any party jurisdiction requested to render mutual aid or 
     conduct exercises and training for mutual aid shall undertake 
     to respond as soon as possible, except that it is understood 
     that the jurisdiction rendering aid may withhold or recall 
     resources to the extent necessary to provide reasonable 
     protection for that jurisdiction. Each party jurisdiction 
     shall afford to the personnel of the emergency forces of any 
     party jurisdiction, while operating within its jurisdictional 
     limits under the terms and conditions of this compact and 
     under the operational control of an officer of the requesting 
     party, the same powers, duties, rights, privileges, and 
     immunities as are afforded similar or like forces of the 
     jurisdiction in which they are performing emergency services. 
     Emergency forces continue under the command and control of 
     their regular leaders, but the organizational units come 
     under the operational control of the emergency services 
     authorities of the jurisdiction receiving assistance. These 
     conditions may be activated, as needed, by the jurisdiction 
     that is to receive assistance or upon commencement of 
     exercises or training for mutual aid and continue as long as 
     the exercises or training for mutual aid are in progress, the 
     emergency or disaster remains in effect or loaned resources 
     remain in the receiving jurisdiction or jurisdictions, 
     whichever is longer. The receiving jurisdiction is 
     responsible for informing the assisting jurisdictions of the 
     specific moment when services will no longer be required.

     ``Article V--Licenses and Permits

       ``Whenever a person holds a license, certificate, or other 
     permit issued by any jurisdiction party to the compact 
     evidencing the meeting of qualifications for professional, 
     mechanical, or other skills, and when such assistance is 
     requested by the receiving party jurisdiction, such person is 
     deemed to be licensed, certified, or permitted by the 
     jurisdiction requesting assistance to render aid involving 
     such skill to meet an emergency or disaster, subject to such 
     limitations and conditions as the requesting jurisdiction 
     prescribes by Executive order or otherwise.

     ``Article VI--Liability

       ``Any person or entity of a party jurisdiction rendering 
     aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this compact are 
     considered agents of the requesting jurisdiction for tort 
     liability and immunity purposes. Any person or entity 
     rendering aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this 
     compact are not liable on account of any act or omission in 
     good faith on the part of such forces while so engaged or on 
     account of the maintenance or use of any equipment or 
     supplies in connection therewith. Good faith in this article 
     does not include willful misconduct, gross negligence, or 
     recklessness.

     ``Article VII--Supplementary Agreements

       ``Because it is probable that the pattern and detail of the 
     machinery for mutual aid among 2 or more jurisdictions may 
     differ from that among the jurisdictions that are party to 
     this compact, this compact contains

[[Page 9417]]

     elements of a broad base common to all jurisdictions, and 
     nothing in this compact precludes any jurisdiction from 
     entering into supplementary agreements with another 
     jurisdiction or affects any other agreements already in force 
     among jurisdictions. Supplementary agreements may include, 
     but are not limited to, provisions for evacuation and 
     reception of injured and other persons and the exchange of 
     medical, fire, public utility, reconnaissance, welfare, 
     transportation and communications personnel, equipment, and 
     supplies.

     ``Article VIII--Workers' Compensation and Death Benefits

       ``Each party jurisdiction shall provide, in accordance with 
     its own laws, for the payment of workers' compensation and 
     death benefits to injured members of the emergency forces of 
     that jurisdiction and to representatives of deceased members 
     of those forces if the members sustain injuries or are killed 
     while rendering aid pursuant to this compact, in the same 
     manner and on the same terms as if the injury or death were 
     sustained within their own jurisdiction.

     ``Article IX--Reimbursement

       ``Any party jurisdiction rendering aid in another 
     jurisdiction pursuant to this compact shall, if requested, be 
     reimbursed by the party jurisdiction receiving such aid for 
     any loss or damage to, or expense incurred in, the operation 
     of any equipment and the provision of any service in 
     answering a request for aid and for the costs incurred in 
     connection with those requests. An aiding party jurisdiction 
     may assume in whole or in part any such loss, damage, 
     expense, or other cost or may loan such equipment or donate 
     such services to the receiving party jurisdiction without 
     charge or cost. Any 2 or more party jurisdictions may enter 
     into supplementary agreements establishing a different 
     allocation of costs among those jurisdictions. Expenses under 
     article VIII are not reimbursable under this section.

     ``Article X--Evacuation

       ``Each party jurisdiction shall initiate a process to 
     prepare and maintain plans to facilitate the movement of and 
     reception of evacuees into its territory or across its 
     territory, according to its capabilities and powers. The 
     party jurisdiction from which the evacuees came shall assume 
     the ultimate responsibility for the support of the evacuees, 
     and after the termination of the emergency or disaster, for 
     the repatriation of such evacuees.

     ``Article XI--Implementation

       ``(a) This compact is effective upon its execution or 
     adoption by any 2 jurisdictions, and is effective as to any 
     other jurisdiction upon its execution or adoption thereby: 
     subject to approval or authorization by the United States 
     Congress, if required, and subject to enactment of provincial 
     or State legislation that may be required for the 
     effectiveness of the Memorandum of Understanding.
       ``(b) Any party jurisdiction may withdraw from this 
     compact, but the withdrawal does not take effect until 30 
     days after the governor or premier of the withdrawing 
     jurisdiction has given notice in writing of such withdrawal 
     to the governors or premiers of all other party 
     jurisdictions. The action does not relieve the withdrawing 
     jurisdiction from obligations assumed under this compact 
     prior to the effective date of withdrawal.
       ``(c) Duly authenticated copies of this compact in the 
     French and English languages and of such supplementary 
     agreements as may be entered into shall, at the time of their 
     approval, be deposited with each of the party jurisdictions.

     ``Article XII--Severability

       ``This compact is construed to effectuate the purposes 
     stated in Article I. If any provision of this compact is 
     declared unconstitutional or the applicability of the compact 
     to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity 
     of the remainder of this compact and the applicability of the 
     compact to other persons and circumstances are not affected.

     ``Article XIII--Consistency of Language

       ``The validity of the arrangements and agreements consented 
     to in this compact shall not be affected by any insubstantial 
     difference in form or language as may be adopted by the 
     various states and provinces.

     ``Article XIV--Amendment

       ``This compact may be amended by agreement of the party 
     jurisdictions.''.

     SEC. 2. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.

       The validity of the arrangements consented to by this Act 
     shall not be affected by any insubstantial difference in 
     their form or language as adopted by the States and 
     provinces.

     SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
     expressly reserved.

                          ____________________