[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4651-4659]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY BY IMPLEMENTING UNFINISHED RECOMMENDATIONS 
         OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 4 and send a

[[Page 4652]]

cloture motion to the desk for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 4, a bill to implement recommendations of the 
     9/11 Commission.
         Joe Lieberman, Russell D. Feingold, Ben Cardin, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Maria Cantwell, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Ben 
           Nelson, Carl Levin, Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Mark Pryor.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote occur at 2:30 p.m., with the time between now and then equally 
divided, and that the live quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with 
the quorum being equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of cloture on 
the upcoming vote on S. 4, which is the bill relating to the 9/11 
Commission implementation.
  I just saw, as I came into the Senate Chamber, outside in the 
reception room a handful of people whom I would call American heroes. 
These are women who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001, when 
terrorists brutally attacked innocent Americans here on our shores, in 
our homeland. They have taken their grief and worked very hard with 
many of us here, first to get the Congress and the administration to 
agree on the 9/11 Commission and then, when that Commission came in 
with its extraordinary findings and report, worked with us to see that 
legislation was passed which would implement so many of its 
recommendations. That was a remarkable bipartisan achievement which I 
believe has made our Nation safer from terrorist attack but not as safe 
as we need to be.
  In the time that followed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves asked us 
to come back and implement the unimplemented parts of their original 
report or to go back and take another look at the parts they believed 
and we believed were not adequately implemented or funded, such as 
homeland security grants or money for interoperable communication 
systems that in a time of emergency, after a terrorist attack or a 
natural disaster, enable our first responders to speak to each other in 
order to adequately and promptly protect us.
  These women who are outside the Chamber, whom I saw as I came in, are 
here today to persuade the Senate to begin debate on legislation to 
fulfill the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. The 
legislation, S. 4, came out of our committee, and it was an honor and a 
pleasure, as always, to work with Senator Collins. The bill passed our 
committee with 16 votes in the affirmative and one abstention. It is a 
very significant, solid piece of work and will make America and the 
American people even safer.
  Is it a perfect piece of work? No. We expect that many of our 
colleagues will look at different parts of the bill and will want to 
offer amendments. That is the nature of this process, and we look 
forward to a good, healthy debate. There is a sense of urgency, 
however. We are talking about homeland security. We are talking about 
continuing to raise our guard against the terrorists who attacked us on 
September 11th, 2001 and who we know are planning and intending to 
attack us again in this most unconventional and deadly warfare on 
behalf of a totalitarian ideology, radical Islam, which threatens us as 
much as the totalitarian ideologies we defeated in the last century. 
Together, both here at home and throughout the world, we will defeat 
this threat.
  I wish to indicate that most of the bill before us, S. 4, came out of 
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. There are 
other parts that came out of the Commerce and Banking Committees, and 
they, in the ongoing process, will be blended with our bill.
  I hope all of the Members of the Senate will vote for cloture so we 
can proceed to the debate, consider the amendments, get the bill 
passed, meet with the House in conference, and get a good bill to the 
President to sign that will build on the security enhancements we have 
achieved since that dark day of
9/11.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of invoking cloture on 
the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 
2007. This legislation will strengthen our homeland security and will 
do so in the spirit that shaped the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission.
  I have worked very closely with the committee's chairman, Senator 
Lieberman, as well as with the Presiding Officer, a valued member of 
the committee, and with all of our committee members to shape this 
important legislation. Indeed, the committee voted unanimously on 
February 15 to report this bill. The bill before the Senate now is the 
product of careful collaboration among the members of our committee, 
State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response providers, the 
private sector, the administration, and other stakeholders. It has 
produced legislation that builds on the earlier work of the Committee 
on Homeland Security over the last 3 years.
  During that time, the committee has produced numerous pieces of 
legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and 
otherwise strengthening our homeland security. In the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress enacted many 
significant measures to achieve the goals of the 9/11 Commission. In 
fact, that bill implemented the most sweeping changes in our 
intelligence community in more than 50 years.
  More recently, in the last Congress, we passed measures that greatly 
strengthened protections for America's cargo ports and chemical 
facilities--again addressing vulnerabilities highlighted in the 
Commission report. We also approved an overhaul and reform of FEMA that 
will help improve our emergency response and prepared negotiation, 
whether it is through terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
  As reported by the Homeland Security Committee, S. 4 builds upon 
these past successes. It would authorize a comprehensive homeland 
security grant program that includes four vital programs to assist 
State, local, and tribal governments in safeguarding our lives and 
property. Our approach to this bill reflects our belief that homeland 
security is a partnership and that our State and local partners are 
vital to accomplishing this goal.
  I will have much more to say about this bill as the debate proceeds. 
I will reserve the remainder of my time, if any does remain, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to 
this important bill.
  As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with the committee 
chairman and others, including the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield back all the remaining time, 
and I ask for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield back the remaining time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Without objection, the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 
184 is vitiated.

[[Page 4653]]




                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the motion to invoke cloture, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 4, a bill to implement recommendations of the 
     9/11 Commission.
         Joe Lieberman, Russell D. Feingold, Ben Cardin, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Maria Cantwell, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Ben 
           Nelson, Carl Levin, Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Mark Pryor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 4, a bill improving America's security by 
implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Dodd
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if no one is seeking the floor, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              trip to iraq

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, a colleague of mine asked a little earlier 
if I would give a brief report of a trip to Iraq, from which I just 
returned, and I thought I would take this time to do that. Several of 
my colleagues, both from the House of Representatives and the Senate, 
Democrat and Republican, were able to make this trip, and I want to 
report primarily on what we found when we went to Iraq.
  I will start by saying we were in Israel the same day Secretary Rice 
met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud 
Abbas, and so we had an opportunity to speak with a lot of leaders in 
Israel as well about the status of the negotiations that had been 
thought to proceed there, but with Hamas now likely being a part of the 
Palestinian Government they are likely going to come to a halt. This is 
most unfortunate.
  Obviously, neither Israel nor the United States can have direct 
dealings with a government which is dominated by a faction that refuses 
to recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce terrorism or agree to 
previous Palestinian agreements. This will complicate the process of 
reaching a permanent accord that the people in the Palestinian areas 
particularly want to have and the people of Israel also want to have in 
order to bring violence to a close against them.
  So, unfortunately, the news out of Israel is pretty much the same as 
it has been year after year after year after year: Israel simply does 
not have a partner for peace at this time. Obviously, Secretary of 
State Rice is continuing to pursue the situation as best she can to try 
to help the Israelis achieve that situation.
  With regard to the Iraq situation, I took away three primary points 
from our visit, and I want to discuss them briefly. The first is that 
after having talked to our commanders on the ground, General Petraeus 
and General Odierno, and a variety of other general officers as well as 
troops of other rank, and Iraqi leaders, there is a sense of cautious 
optimism about the new plan that has been announced and, in fact, is 
already being implemented. Our troops have begun to arrive, Iraqi 
troops arriving in greater numbers than before, primarily in the city 
of Baghdad, and a new military strategy and a political, economic, and 
diplomatic strategy has begun to play out.
  Early signs are encouraging, though everyone cautioned that there 
will be signs of progress, because they think it is a plan that can 
succeed, but there will also be bad days.
  Nobody should declare victory simply because things seem to be going 
well for a while. An illustration of this is for about 3 days prior to 
our arrival there had been no major incidences of violence in the city 
of Baghdad, yet they were not willing to applaud that too loudly. Good 
thing, because as we were leaving the country, a couple of car bombs 
exploded. Clearly, it will be a matter of progress that is not 
necessarily obvious and certainly will take a while to achieve.
  Nonetheless, progress is possible this time because things are now 
different. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq told us that in 
his visits with people on the streets of Baghdad he was seeing 
something new, and he said it was an attitude that this time things are 
different; that there is an opportunity here for success, for a plan to 
succeed, where it didn't exist before. It is not simply because of 
greater American presence, it is also because the Iraqis are beginning 
to do things differently than they had done in the past.
  Whereas some people call this a troop surge, I think it is important 
to note there are many other factors involved in addition to the 
addition of Iraqi and American troops. For example, the Iraqis are now 
going to be much more involved in maintaining control of an area after 
it has been secured. Sometimes in the past the Iraqi or American troops 
would take an area, would clear it of terrorists or militias, only to 
have those people infiltrate back when we left. Clearly, an Iraqi 
presence must be maintained in order for stability to be preserved, and 
that is what we are now beginning to see.
  The Iraqi Shiite death squads and militia activity have gone way 
down. Again, this is, we believe, partially because of some things the 
Iraqi Government has done, rounding up about 600 of the Shiite 
troublemakers and working with the people in places such as Sadr City 
to persuade them it is better to not resist control by the Iraqi Army 
than it would be to fight. These are positive signs, but they are 
certainly not an end of the problems.
  There are little things that are being done, for example, to prevent 
car bombs from going into marketplaces

[[Page 4654]]

and blowing up a lot of people. They are beginning now to create what 
are in effect pedestrian malls such as we have in the United States, 
where vehicles are not permitted. It might still be possible for a 
single suicide bomber to go into a market and cause destruction but 
certainly not as much as a car bomb.
  The point is, from a military tactical standpoint, the rules of 
engagement, the activities of the Iraqis, as well as what the United 
States is doing, all are working together to consolidate the gains that 
have been made there and to preserve them.
  There is also a diplomatic, economic, and political aspect. The newly 
announced legislation to distribute the oil revenues of the nation to 
the people of the country is a very important political step that will 
give the people of Iraq more confidence in their Government. This was 
mentioned by our Ambassador Khalilzad when we were there. So from the 
military standpoint there are some signs this is already beginning to 
work, and I certainly hope our colleagues here in the Congress will do 
their best to allow this plan to work.
  That brings me to the second point. Our commanders, both in Kuwait 
and Iraq, were very clear that it was important the Congress pass the 
supplemental appropriations bill to provide the necessary equipment and 
reinforcements and not to tie down the tactics of the people on the 
ground. They are very concerned that we will somehow put limits on the 
kind of equipment that goes into theater or the number of troops or 
where the troops go or how they are deployed. Clearly, Congress should 
not be trying to micromanage a war, and I hope my colleagues who have 
discussed that in some preliminary way will see the detriment to such 
an action and will not offer resolutions that would change the way 
these commanders are able to do their job. This is something 
specifically that General Petraeus asked of us.
  The third and final point is the Iranian influence in Iraq cannot be 
denied. It is true, I cannot read Farsi, the language of Iran. On the 
other hand, when General Odierno holds up an item, one of those 
explosive devices, and says, in Farsi this says ``made in Iran,'' I 
can't verify that, but I believe General Odierno. He pointed to batch 
and serial numbers on a variety of other weaponry and said, this can 
all be traced back to Iran.
  We are clearly in a situation where we must make it crystal clear to 
the Iranian leaders this will not be tolerated. We have a right to 
protect our troops in Iraq and their interference will be intolerable. 
We have to find a way to get the Iranians to back off of that.
  Those were three of the key impressions we took from our trip to 
Iraq, and I think it boils down to this: Some of our colleagues like to 
point to the Baker-Hamilton report and say that is what we should be 
doing instead of what we are doing. Remember what Lee Hamilton said in 
testimony before the Senate not too long ago. He said, the President's 
announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. He specifically 
said, give it a chance to succeed.
  I think there was some discussion of elements of the study 
commission's recommendations, such as a temporary troop surge, which is 
not inconsistent with what we are now doing. That is what I think we 
should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, 
our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early 
signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and 
they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be 
unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, 
to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our 
troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission.
  I deliberately did not raise the question of the debate back here in 
Washington with the troops I met, but they raised it with me. They can 
see what is going on. They watch television. They are very well aware 
of what is being debated here. They are proud of what they are 
accomplishing. Their morale is high. Yet I submit to my colleagues that 
were we to pass legislation that would undercut their ability to 
perform their mission as they see it, clearly that situation could 
change, and this bothers our troops. It certainly, I think, would have 
the effect of causing our enemies to ask whether we have the will to 
see this through. As General Petraeus said, this is all about a test of 
will. Secretary Gates, I believe, and General Petraeus said it as 
well--in this war, it is a test of wills, and the United States has to 
make it clear we have the will to see it through.
  From our perspective as legislators, we can take the example of the 
young men and women whom we put in harm's way to achieve a message. The 
example I take from them is they have the will. They understand what is 
at stake. They are proud of what they are doing, and they want us to 
help them achieve the mission. I think that is the least we can do 
under these circumstances. I hope my colleagues, as we debate in the 
ensuing days, will keep in mind what these folks in Iraq who are on the 
ground looking at this every day have to say about the situation and 
that we won't do anything to undercut them but that we will do 
everything in our power to support their mission.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 4, but I 
thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his 
report. It was very interesting for me to hear, and he will probably 
not be surprised to hear I was both encouraged and in agreement with a 
lot of what he had to say. I particularly heard that Senator Kyl found 
in the field the first reactions to the implementation of the new plan 
for Iraq have been encouraging. We all understand it is early, but it 
conforms with what I have heard from people I have spoken to from Iraq, 
in that particularly in the neighborhoods in which the joint United 
States-Iraqi security forces have established dominance in Baghdad, 
there has been a remarkable and significant drop in the sectarian 
violence via death squads. Obviously, it is still possible, if someone 
is crazy enough to be prepared to blow themselves up in a car in a 
crowd, that the bombings will occur, but I appreciate that 
encouragement.
  I also agree with Senator Kyl that both Houses of Congress spoke on 
these nonbinding resolutions. My colleague and I were both against 
them. So I suppose what it shows is at this point there is a majority 
in both Chambers, although not 60 votes here, that is prepared to say 
in a nonbinding resolution they don't support the new plan, which 
Senator Kyl and I would say is a new plan to achieve success in Iraq, 
but that there clearly, in my opinion, are not the votes, not a 
majority in either Chamber, to do anything else, and certainly not to 
cut off funding for the new plan, which is the specific authority 
Congress is given in the Constitution.
  So I want to echo what I heard Senator Kyl say, which is that I think 
this is the moment for a pause over on this side for what I have called 
a truce in the political war here about the war in Iraq.
  Let's give General Petraeus and his troops an opportunity to make 
this work. If, God forbid, they don't, then there will be plenty of 
time for amendments and resolutions and all the rest because between 
now and then--General Petraeus said to us, when he was here before the 
Armed Services Committee, that by the summer he would have an idea, 
based on some evidence, of whether the new plan was working, and he 
would report to us. He will begin to report quite soon, I think, on 
what he is seeing.
  Since I don't see that there is anything that will pass both Houses, 
certainly nothing that will pass both Houses and be signed by the 
President to try to block the carrying out of this new strategy, then I 
think everybody would gain if we just did something that doesn't come 
naturally to us, which is to remain silent for a while--particularly if 
the sound and the fury will ultimately accomplish nothing between now 
and then.
  I thank my friend from Arizona.
  Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 4. I thank my colleagues 
for

[[Page 4655]]

voting overwhelmingly to invoke cloture on S. 4. The bill, if I 
understand the state of parliamentary play now, actually will not be 
formally before the Senate for debate and amendments until tomorrow 
morning. But I thought I might expedite the matter--because this is a 
big bill, it is an important bill, there will be many amendments; I 
think we will be on it several days--if I came over and offered my 
opening statement on the bill today. I believe Senator Collins, the 
ranking Republican member on the committee, may intend, as her schedule 
allows, to do the same.
  Incidentally, Senator Collins and I have--what was for me an honor--
worked very closely together on this bill to bring it out of committee. 
I am very pleased the final vote was across party lines: 16 in favor, 1 
abstention. So we bring the bill to the floor with a real sense of 
bipartisanship.
  The bill represents the hard work of the membership of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and includes provisions 
that are in the jurisdictions of other key committees as well, 
particularly Commerce and Banking, during which occasions Senator 
Inouye and Senator Dodd may exercise their right, with my 
encouragement, to manage those parts of the debate.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for working with all of 
the committees that have contributed to this effort in bringing before 
the Senate this comprehensive legislation that I am convinced will make 
our country safer. I look forward to working in the days ahead with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move the legislation through 
the Senate, into conference committee, and then ultimately to the 
President's desk for signature.
  September 11, 2001, shocked us. It was a tragedy of unspeakable 
proportions and human loss. It showed us, in that loss, how we had 
suffered from what the 9/11 Commission itself called a failure of 
imagination. By that they meant an inability to imagine that there were 
people in the world who would do something this outrageously inhuman, 
striking buildings, symbols of America, but without regard to the 
diversity of human beings in those buildings and the lives that they 
were leading.
  Someone said that on 9/11 the terrorists showed that they hate us 
more than they love their own lives. That awakened us to our 
vulnerability and brought us into a new age.
  I spoke, when I spoke on behalf of cloture, of the families of those 
we lost on 9/11 who have been persistent and honorable and inspiring 
advocates for closing the vulnerabilities that compromised and ended 
the lives of so many of their loved ones. They fought with us on behalf 
of the bill that Senator McCain and I introduced to create the 9/11 
Commission. They then worked very hard to advocate for the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They deserve a lot of credit, 
as do a lot of other people in Congress and in the administration, for 
the passage of the 2004 intelligence reform legislation that adopted so 
many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  In that bill we created a strong Director of National Intelligence to 
forge greater unity of effort among our intelligence agencies as they 
moved forward to inform us about the plans and activities and 
intentions of our enemies, to stop them before they strike us again.
  There are many reasons on this day we can be grateful that America 
has not been the victim of terrorist acts again. Some of it is just 
plain good fortune. Some of it, however, I think is the work of the 
agencies created by the 9/11 legislation in 2004. Some of it is, 
without doubt, a result of the grace of God. We created in that bill 
also a National Counterterrorism Center to improve interagency planning 
to achieve goals in the war against terrorism.
  One of the most exciting moments I have had as a Senator was to go 
out to the National Counterterrorism Center. I urge my colleagues to 
take the time. Established by the 9/11 legislation in 2004 to make 
sure, to use a very simplistic metaphor for a very complicated 
situation, that never again would our Government fail to connect the 
dots that would have presented the warning that a terrorist attack was 
coming.
  This National Counterterrorism Center is out there. It has all the 
relevant agencies, they are constantly streaming information, receiving 
information from around the country, around the world, and cooperating 
with one another to protect our security. We mandated in the 2004 
legislation the development of an information sharing environment to 
facilitate the sharing of national-security-related information among 
the different branches and agencies of the Federal Government and also 
to make sure that the Federal, State, and local governments were 
cooperating. When you think about it, State and local first responders 
are not just first responders, they have the ability, with the hundreds 
of thousands of eyes and ears that they bring to law enforcement, to be 
also first preventers. That was a goal of the information sharing 
environment we established.
  In the 2004 legislation we made significant improvements to border 
and transportation security, focusing on aviation security, of course; 
building on legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, 
because of our obvious anger that the existing systems of our aviation 
structure were used to attack the American people directly.
  This is only a partial list of some of the significant achievements 
that resulted from that legislation that I am convinced improved our 
Nation's intelligence capability and the security of the American 
people at home. But we know from ongoing congressional oversight, from 
the work of the members of the 9/11 Commission who continued to be 
focused on our homeland security, and from common sense, that there is 
more to be done. Senator Reid made adoption of this 9/11 implementation 
legislation a priority for this Congress.
  At a hearing in January that I was privileged to call as the new 
chairman of our committee, Homeland Security, 9/11 Commissioners and 
family members of 9/11 victims urged us to go forward and finish the 
job that we started with the 2004 legislation: to implement parts of 
the report that were unimplemented by that legislation and to go back 
and look at some things that were not quite working right or were not 
fully implemented and see if we could do a better job to close some of 
the gaps that we left after 2004.
  Some of the important Commission recommendations we included in the 
Senate legislation in 2004 were taken out or diluted in conference. 
Other provisions that Congress did enact have unfortunately been 
implemented poorly.
  How important is it that we go ahead with this legislation to finish 
the job we started after the 9/11 Commission report? Let me quote from 
the 9/11 Report:

       The men and women of the World War II generation rose to 
     the challenges of the 1940s and 1950s. They restructured the 
     government so it could protect the country.
       That is now the job of the generation that experienced 9/
     11. Those attacks showed emphatically, that ways of doing 
     business rooted in a different era are just not good enough. 
     Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc, 
     adjustments to a system designed generations ago for a world 
     that no longer exists.

  This bill that we will begin considering in the Senate tomorrow 
continues the process of securing our Nation in this new era where our 
enemies don't wear the uniforms of soldiers or follow any traditional 
laws of combat but, rather, move silently among us, probing for 
weaknesses while plotting attacks on innocent civilians.
  This bill will strengthen our ability to respond to not just 
terrorist attacks but also preparing our Federal, State, and local 
governments to better respond to natural disasters. We are trying to 
create an attitude in this bill, an ``all hazards'' attitude that 
increases our homeland security against the threat of terrorist attack, 
but also, in doing so, prepares our Government to respond better to 
natural disasters--of course, thinking now of the extent to which our 
Government at all levels showed that it was incapable of responding 
adequately during Hurricane Katrina.

[[Page 4656]]

  Let me now discuss some of the important provisions in the bill. The 
first I want to talk about is information sharing. The 9/11 Report 
showed us that the different agencies had different pieces of 
information that should have aroused suspicion about the attack that 
came on 9/11, but because those pieces were never pulled together, 
there was no way to assemble that monstrous mosaic and to see the full 
picture it created so as to be able to stop it. One of the most 
important innovations since 9/11 is the establishment of fusion centers 
to share information within and between States. This legislation would 
improve the crucial sharing of intelligence and information both within 
the Federal Government and with State, local, and tribal governments, 
as well as creating standards for those State, local, and regional 
fusion centers that will be tied to the allocation of homeland security 
grants.
  While preserving the authority of State and local governments over 
fusion centers, this legislation, S. 4, requires DHS, the Department of 
Homeland Security, to provide essential elements of support and 
coordination to the centers. It authorizes the assignment of homeland 
security intelligence analysts to the centers to lend their expertise 
and to serve as a channel for information to and from the Federal 
Government. It also creates a program for State, local, and tribal 
officials to spend time at the Department of Homeland Security's Office 
of Intelligence and Analysis to learn about its intelligence 
information sharing functions and to serve as a link to the State and 
local governments.
  This legislation also will strengthen the information sharing 
environment which we created in the 2004 legislation. It will enhance 
the authority of the Program Manager for that environment by allowing 
the issuance of Government-wide standards whereby all agencies of the 
Federal Government would be required to operate under the same rules 
and guidelines and would not be permitted to conceal information.
  The legislation, S. 4, would encourage the elimination of principles 
such as ``need to know'' which allow the holder of information in a 
given Federal agency to control its dissemination to other governmental 
agencies and, thus, act as a bureaucratic barrier to effective 
information sharing. We, instead, aim to encourage, through this 
legislation, the development of a ``need to share information'' culture 
in which information is made available--with appropriate safeguards, of 
course--to all who could make use of it in the war against terror.
  Let me go now to homeland security grants. This legislation will 
enhance homeland security grants to State and local governments and 
first responders. We simply have underfunded this critical element of 
homeland security. The first responders, first preventers, need more 
help to better protect their constituents, those who live in the areas 
they serve, from potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
  Our proposal, S. 4, would authorize over $3.5 billion for each of the 
next 3 years for key grant programs. It turns around a precipitous 
decline in funding for homeland security. It provides for a 
comprehensive system of both terrorism-oriented and all-hazards grants. 
It will ensure that grants primarily intended to bolster prevention of 
and preparedness for terrorist attacks will be distributed 
overwhelmingly based on the risk to an area from a terrorist attack.
  Our committee believes we have achieved a balanced proposal that 
gives most of the money out based on risk but still recognizes there is 
risk in this new post-9/11 age everywhere and that in an all-hazards 
approach, first responders everywhere need to be assisted to protect 
their citizens not just from a potential terrorist attack but from the 
consequences of a natural disaster.
  Interoperable communications: We have known for decades we needed to 
improve communications operability and interoperability at the 
different levels of Government. Yet tragically the inability of fire 
and police to communicate with one another at the World Trade Center 
after the attacks of 9/11 cost lives. That is a painful fact. Hurricane 
Katrina showed us once again how important it is to have communications 
that can both survive the initial disaster and have the capabilities to 
allow different first responding agencies to talk to each other by 
sharing voice as well as data communications.
  Under this grant program, States would be required to demonstrate 
that the grants they are applying for and receive would be used in a 
way that is consistent with their statewide communications 
interoperability plans and the National Emergency Communications Plan. 
In other words, this is not going to be just ad hoc proposals from 
every first responder for some money to use as he or she desires for 
their vision of interoperability. It has to be part of a statewide plan 
connected to the national plan.
  The States receiving the money would be required to pass at least 80 
percent of the total amount of the grants they receive on to local and 
tribal governments. The legislation authorizes $400 million for 
interoperability improvements--lifesaving, in my opinion--in 2008; $500 
million in 2009; $600 million in 2010; $800 million in 2011; and $1 
billion in 2012.
  Let me go on to terrorist travel. The legislation contains provisions 
to improve our ability to disrupt terrorists' travel and infiltration 
of the United States, which the 9/11 Commission said was just as 
important as crippling their financial networks. That certainly makes 
sense.
  It requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
State to implement security enhancements to the so-called visa waiver 
program. It also is increasingly clear that serious vulnerabilities 
exist within the visa waiver program. There are enhancements to the 
program that, if adopted in this bill, will close many of those 
vulnerabilities, including mandating improved reporting by foreign 
countries on the visa waiver program of lost or stolen passports, 
requiring countries to share information about prospective visitors who 
may pose a threat to the U.S., and authorizing an electronic travel 
authorization system which would require travelers to apply in advance 
for authorization to visit America, thus allowing their names to be 
checked against terrorist watch lists well before they board airplanes.
  I note Senator Collins is on the floor of the Senate, our ranking 
member. I am going to yield to her in a few minutes. But she has 
considerably strengthened this section of the bill to protect America 
from people with the intent to harm us through acts of terrorism using 
this visa waiver program.
  Next, privacy and civil liberties: This legislation also makes 
important steps forward to ensure that as we fight terrorism, we do not 
trample on the rights of Americans we are pledged to defend. The 
legislation includes provisions very similar to those included in the 
Senate-passed version of the Terrorism Prevention Act with regard to 
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board.
  I now move on to biosurveillance. The legislation enhances sharing of 
critical information by authorizing and improving upon an existing 
effort within the Department of Homeland Security to establish a 
National Biosurveillance Integration Center.
  Next, private sector preparedness: The 9/11 Commission found that the 
private sector remains largely unprepared and that ignoring private 
sector preparedness could come at a huge cost because so much 
infrastructure, so many targets of terrorists are in private hands. To 
address this critical problem, S. 4 will promote private sector 
preparedness, without a mandate, by creating a voluntary certification 
program that will allow private sector entities to become certified as 
being in compliance with recommended national preparedness standards. 
This is an important step forward and will quite sensibly promote, for 
instance, evacuation plans and steps beyond that.
  The legislation also strengthens private sector preparedness by 
requiring that the Department of Homeland Security establish and report 
on a list of

[[Page 4657]]

critical infrastructure across the Nation that would cause catastrophic 
damage if disrupted, or destroyed. This will strengthen and clarify 
what is a murky process right now and will focus our attention on 
protecting those parts of critical infrastructure.
  Our legislation also improves upon the existing National Strategy for 
Transportation Security by ensuring that risk-based priorities 
identified by the Department are based on the risk assessments 
conducted by the Department.
  The legislation also requires the President and Congress to publicly 
disclose the total amounts of appropriations requested, authorized, and 
ultimately appropriated for the American intelligence community. This 
responds directly to a recommendation of the 
9/11 Commission and will improve Congress's ability to oversee the 
conduct and progress of our intelligence agencies creating standards of 
accountability.
  I stress, this is the bottom line of the budget: to give Members of 
Congress and the American people an idea of how much we are investing 
in intelligence to protect their security and give us some sense of the 
accountability that we should apply to the intelligence community in 
delivering that funding.
  TSA screeners: This will be debated at some length, I am sure. The 
legislation includes a provision which I was pleased to cosponsor with 
the occupant of the Chair, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, which will 
ensure that screeners at the Transportation Security Administration--
with whom we have become very familiar as we come and go from 
airports--have the same employment rights as others in TSA and the 
Department of Homeland Security. There is no good reason to deny these 
rights to these people. We are only applying to them the same rights as 
other people within TSA and others in law enforcement in the Department 
of Homeland Security have, with no negative effect on their performance 
of those responsibilities.
  Madam President, as you can see, this is a very comprehensive bill. I 
have not touched on many parts of it in this statement. I have tried to 
focus on the most important. What I am convinced of is that if this 
bill passes and becomes law, the American people will be safer from 
both terrorism and the consequences of natural disasters, such as 
Hurricane Katrina, than they are today.
  All of the hard work of the committee members, including particularly 
my ranking member, Senator Collins, gives me some sense of confidence, 
along with the work done by our staffs on both sides of the aisle, that 
this bill really will achieve the goals the 9/11 Commission stated in 
their report and the hopes that the families of those who were lost on 
9/11 have that we act in a way on their behalf and on behalf of all the 
American people to be able to say we have done everything possible to 
make sure no other Americans suffer the tragic pain and continuing loss 
that these American heroes suffered when their loved ones' lives were 
ended in the brutal terrorist attacks of 9/11.
  I have a sense of urgency about this bill. I believe every day we do 
not do some of the things this bill would enable and establish and 
support financially is another day in which we are not as secure at 
home as we should be. This is the carrying out of the first 
constitutional responsibility we have to ensure domestic tranquility 
and provide for the common defense, to do so in a way that those who 
wrote the Constitution could never have dreamed we would have to do. 
But that is the world we live in today. That is the reality we must 
face. This is the action we must summon and carry out together to 
dispatch our responsibility.
  Madam President, in the preface to the 9/11 Report, Chairman Kean and 
Vice Chairman Hamilton wrote:

       We hope our report will encourage our fellow citizens to 
     study, reflect--and act.

  Well, we have studied and we have reflected. Now is the time, once 
again, to act to build a safer and more secure America for the 
generations to come.
  I look forward to a good, spirited debate. I hope when we are done, 
the bill will be even stronger than it is today. We will start 
tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor, even this 
afternoon, to file amendments because Senator Collins and I would like, 
when we move to this bill tomorrow morning--having carried out our 
managers' responsibility to make opening statements--to move right to 
the amendments.
  I thank the Chair.
  I think Senator Collins was called from the Senate floor momentarily, 
but I know she will be back before I yield.
  Madam President, the consent request I am about to propound has been 
cleared on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that following morning business on Wednesday, 
February 28, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 
57, S. 4, the 9/11 Commission recommendations legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I am happy 
to announce there will be no further rollcall votes today. I know 
Senator Collins will return soon and make her opening statement on the 
bill.
  I thank the Chair very much, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to support S. 4, the Improving 
America's Security Act of 2007. This legislation would strengthen our 
homeland security and would do so in the spirit that shaped the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  As my colleague and friend Senator Lieberman has already indicated, 
the Committee on Homeland Security voted unanimously on February 15 to 
report this bill. The bill before us is the product of careful 
collaboration among members of our committee; State, local, and tribal 
governments; emergency response providers; the private sector; the 
Administration, particularly the Department of Homeland Security; and 
other stakeholders. This collaboration has produced legislation that 
builds on the work of the Homeland Security Committee over the last 3 
years. During that time, the committee has produced numerous bills 
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and otherwise 
strengthening our homeland security. This bill helps to complete the 
picture.
  The vast majority of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were 
enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act. There were, however, some recommendations that did not 
make it through the process or were not incorporated into that bill, 
and those are reflected in the legislation before us.
  The Intelligence Reform Act was a bipartisan effort by the Homeland 
Security Committee, and it made possible the most significant reforms 
in the structure and operations of our intelligence community in more 
than 50 years--in fact, since the CIA was created after World War II. 
Indeed, approximately 39 of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations 
have been acted on in one form or another. More recently, Congress 
passed measures that greatly strengthen the protections for America's 
cargo ports and its chemical facilities--again addressing 
vulnerabilities highlighted in the Commission's report and by other 
experts on terrorism. So during the past 3 years, in fact, a great deal 
has been done to help make our Nation more secure and to improve our 
defenses and capacity to respond to terrorism attacks.
  The Homeland Security Committee also conducted a comprehensive, 
bipartisan investigation of the Federal, State, and local preparation 
for and response to Hurricane Katrina, our country's first real test of 
its homeland security apparatus since the attacks on September 11 of 
2001. Our investigation found significant failures in emergency

[[Page 4658]]

planning, preparation, and response at all levels of government. As a 
result, we issued a comprehensive report that summarized our 
investigation. Our investigation included 24 public hearings, 
interviews of more than 400 people, and the review of literally 
hundreds of thousands of investigations. It also included the issuance 
of subpoenas because we wanted to make sure we had access to all the 
information we needed. As a result of this investigation, the committee 
issued a detailed report and drafted legislation based on those 
recommendations. That legislation was incorporated into the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill which the President signed into law last 
year.
  The FEMA Reform Act built upon the 9/11 Commission recommendations 
already enacted by reforming the structure of FEMA, enhancing its 
regional role throughout the country, and giving FEMA a primary place 
within the Federal Government for planning, training, and exercising 
with State and local officials.
  As reported by the Homeland Security Committee then, S. 4 builds upon 
our past successes. The legislation before the Senate would authorize a 
comprehensive homeland security grant program. It includes four vital 
grant programs to assist State, local, and tribal governments in 
safeguarding our lives and properties in all catastrophes, whether 
natural or manmade. Taken together, these four grant programs--the 
Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant 
Program, the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, and the 
Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grant Program--will 
ensure significant and predictable Federal funding for our State and 
local partners.
  The program will support error-prevention activities such as fusion 
centers, all-hazards planning, training exercises, and the installation 
of reliable interoperable emergency communications systems. The bill 
will help to strengthen emergency preparedness and response. It also 
strikes the right balance between targeting funding to jurisdictions 
the Department determines to be at the highest risk and ensuring a 
baseline of adequate funding for prevention and preparedness across the 
country because we know that our Nation's homeland security is only as 
strong as its weakest link.
  Let me comment in more detail on these programs. With respect to the 
Urban Area Security Initiative, also known as UASI, the bill retains 
the current practice directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
award grants based solely on risk of terrorist attacks. Clearly, our 
largest urban areas present attractive, high-value targets to 
terrorists. Our legislation, the Lieberman-Collins legislation, 
recognizes that fact, but it makes one sensible change. The 
Department's eligibility criteria for UASI grant applications has been, 
to say the least, arbitrary and controversial. For that reason, our 
bill would expand the potential pool of applicants beyond the current 
limit of 45. Instead of requiring the Department to select which cities 
are eligible to apply, S. 4 would expressly permit the largest 100 
metropolitan areas to make their case for funding.
  Unfortunately, terrorist attacks do not respect city limits. A major 
attack could affect--or at least require--responses from many 
neighboring or regional jurisdictions. We also know that when we take a 
more regional approach, we have a more effective response. Our bill 
raises funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to $913 
million from the $525 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007. This 
funding increase would also correct a serious deficiency in the 
proposed budget for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, the administration 
is calling for only $250 million for this important program. As with 
the UASI grants, each State would receive funding on the basis of risk 
but with a minimum award of 0.45 percent of the program funds. This 
will, once again, ensure a baseline level of preparedness and response 
activities across the country.
  Hurricane Katrina illustrated that many of the actions required to 
respond to terrorist attacks are identical to those required for 
natural disasters. That is precisely why S. 4 would expand the 
emergency management performance grants. The EMPG has been a vital part 
of our national preparedness for years. Our bill seeks to increase its 
stature and importance by providing more funding and by authorizing 
States to use EMPG funds to construct and enhance emergency operation 
centers. The EMPG emphasizes all-hazards preparation, and the .75 
percent minimum allocation and the population-based distribution of the 
remainder ensures that every State will receive assistance with 
planning, training, and exercises for vital functions such as 
evacuation, logistics, continuity of operations of government, and 
recovery. Those are skills which all States need to develop. Those are 
minimal levels of preparedness and response essential for every State. 
Every State has the potential for either a natural disaster or a 
terrorist attack or some other catastrophe or emergency. That is why it 
is important we develop that capacity in every State.
  It is important for me to emphasize that S. 4 does not change EMPG's 
allocation formula; it merely codifies existing practice. The EMPG is 
basic insurance. As the DHS manual for the program observes:

       An all hazards approach to preparedness, including the 
     development of a comprehensive program of planning, training, 
     and exercises, encourages an effective and consistent 
     response to any threatened or actual disaster or emergency 
     regardless of the cause.

  This view is consistent with the expert testimony before the Homeland 
Security Committee during our investigation of the failed response to 
Hurricane Katrina.
  Now, some people have suggested that guaranteeing minimum funding for 
State and local preparedness is just another example of pork barrel 
politics. These people could not be more mistaken. As the Rand 
Corporation noted in a 2004 report on the preparedness of State and 
local law enforcement after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001:

       Homeland security experts and first responders have 
     cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the 
     preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller 
     communities or rural areas.

  Again, I make the point that we need to bring up all areas to a 
certain baseline level of preparedness. That doesn't mean we don't 
factor in risk; we do. Indeed, the majority of the funds in this bill 
would be allocated based on risk, and we provide more risk-based 
funding than is the case in current law.
  The RAND report went on to recognize that much of our Nation's 
infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural 
areas. We also cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal 
building in Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist 
bombing. Yet, we know a tragic attack occurred in that city. Rural 
flight schools were not obvious training grounds for hijackers, nor was 
the Portland, ME, jetport an obvious departure point for terrorist 
pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on 
September 11.
  My point is that terrorists can shelter, train, recruit, prepare, or 
attack in unlikely places. In view of this cold reality, our bill 
requires that at least 25 percent of the funding from the UASI and 
State homeland security grant programs--that is at least $548 million--
be used for terrorism prevention activities by law enforcement 
agencies.
  Sometimes I think we forget the basic truth that if we can prevent a 
terrorist attack from happening in the first place, that is the best 
possible approach. We do need to be prepared to respond effectively, 
but how much better if we can detect and interdict the attack before it 
occurs. We know from experience here, as well as in other countries, 
that terrorists can be spotted and attacks intercepted by well-trained 
local police. The prevention of attacks through better policing must be 
a focus of our grant programs. The last grant program our bill creates 
is an emergency communications and interoperability grants program. 
These grants will help to close the alarming and persistent gaps in our 
first responders' ability to simply communicate with one another. As 
the tragic

[[Page 4659]]

events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, this is often not 
the case.
  Before the second tower of the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, 
the police received a radio message to evacuate, but, tragically, the 
firefighters never received that message because they used different 
radios and an incompatible frequency. The result was even more loss of 
lives. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the first 
responders resorted to the use of runners to carry messages by hand 
from one command center to another because the communications 
infrastructure was so badly damaged. Well, the events of the magnitude 
of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, fortunately, do not occur every day. 
There are daily incidents, such as fires, rescues, and hazardous 
material spills that require different agencies and different 
jurisdictions to communicate with one another in real time and on 
demand. This is precisely why the emergency communications grants 
program is so important.
  I will tell you it was very disturbing to hear, during our 
investigation of Hurricane Katrina, the same kinds of interoperability 
problems that occurred during 9/11. This is a problem we simply must 
solve.
  Let me comment on some other important features of the bill. It 
improves protection against terrorists traveling to our country under 
the visa waiver program by requiring more timely notice from 
participating countries of lost or stolen passports. It also requires 
those countries to share more information about travelers who could 
pose a threat to our security. The bill improves information sharing, 
establishes multijurisdiction fusion centers in order to encourage 
information to be shared, and allows the assignment of DHS intelligence 
analysts to those centers. The bill expands upon a requirement in the 
Homeland Security Act by requiring DHS to create a prioritized list of 
critical infrastructure and highest risks for terrorist attacks and 
other disasters. This list will help protect these critical assets from 
attacks and enable more effective response when disaster strikes.
  The bill also requires that risk assessments be completed for each 
sector of the economy. Recognizing the need to exercise good 
stewardship of our taxpayers' money, our bill also includes strong 
protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. By now, we have all heard 
the disturbing stories of misspent homeland security grants. In fact, 
when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, we held 
hearings looking at how homeland security grants have been spent in 
some States. Along with Senator Lieberman, I asked the GAO to do an 
investigation into this area, and GAO testified before our committee. 
At a time when the needs are so great for equipment, for training, and 
for more preparedness to strengthen our homeland security, it was very 
disturbing to hear the GAO testify that money had been wasted.
  Let me give you a couple of examples. In the District of Columbia--
yes, right here in Washington, DC, surely a high-risk area, an area 
attacked on 
9/11--we found that leather jackets were purchased for the local police 
using homeland security grant money. In Newark, NJ, homeland security 
funds were used to purchase air-conditioned garbage trucks. This is 
totally inexcusable, when we have such great needs for new 
communications equipment, for training and exercises, and for help for 
our first responders. We simply cannot afford to have money frittered 
away. It is outrageous.
  Our bill would help to eliminate those abuses. It would strictly 
prohibit the use of grant funds on items that don't relate to securing 
our homeland. It requires States to have an approved plan and for funds 
to be allocated, distributed, and spent according to that plan, and to 
achieve certain baseline preparedness goals. It requires DHS to set 
minimum performance standards for agency grants, and it provides for 
audits to ensure accountability.
  I know that last safeguard is near and dear to the Presiding 
Officer's heart and that she understands, perhaps better than anyone in 
this body, the importance of regular, thorough, and timely audits.
  Madam President, I acknowledge the work of Senator Coburn, and many 
other members of our committee, to strengthen the provisions of our 
bill. I offered an amendment to make sure that homeland security funds 
were not used for social or recreational purposes. In short, I think we 
have tightened up the safeguards and put new measures in to ensure 
accountability.
  I mentioned earlier that our bill proceeds in the spirit of the 9/11 
Commission; its provisions for increased and more effective information 
sharing, for strengthening the privacy and civil liberties oversight 
board, and for disclosing the total sums requested, authorized, and 
appropriated for intelligence programs all testified to that amendment.
  There are many provisions of the bill reported by the Homeland 
Security Committee that will improve our security in other ways. I want 
to note once again, however, that this bill is not a sudden, new, or 
unusual manifestation of congressional determination to strengthen our 
security. The bill before us today continues the work of Congress in 
taking proper notice of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I am 
proud to be part of the bipartisan deliberations that shaped this bill, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  I want to also acknowledge the tireless efforts of the families of 
the victims of 9/11. They have worked with Senator Lieberman and me 
every step of the way when we were drafting the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorist Prevention Act in 2004. They were our inspiration and they 
kept us going. They ensured that the bill got through to the 
President's desk and signed into law. They have continued to work with 
us on the bill before us today. I want to publicly thank them for their 
effort. They inspired our work.
  Our legislation's broad-front attack on the threats we face will 
ensure good value for every dollar our Nation spends to improve our 
defenses at the Federal and State and local levels. It will provide 
appropriate transparency and accountability into the Government's 
security decisions, and it will strike an appropriate balance between 
increased security and our cherished civil liberties. The passage of 
this bill will benefit every American.
  Let me close by saying I am certain this bill will be improved even 
further as we proceed with the deliberations this week. I do not 
support every single provision in this bill. But on balance, it is yet 
another step forward as we seek to protect the American people.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________