[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6184-6186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about the 
bill that we are on, the State homeland security formula and the 
security bill. Certainly, I am hopeful that we will be able to complete 
that soon. I hope that we can continue to move forward at a

[[Page 6185]]

little faster pace, perhaps, and do some of the things that need to be 
done. I understand the complication of many of these bills and the 
importance of them, but I think we do need to consider some of the 
things that are ahead of us--immigration, for example, and health care, 
and some of those kinds of issues that are before us.
  This morning, I would like to spend a few minutes on one concern I 
have in the pending bill which has to do with rural America. During 
last week's debate, the Senate effectively voted a significant cut for 
rural States. Now, of course, I understand we have to consider the 
impact of homeland security, but the idea that rural States are not 
impacted I certainly don't think is completely true. Under the bill, my 
State stands to receive roughly $10 million out of $3 billion--$10 
million in Wyoming. Some people think all we have is cows and sheep and 
maybe an oil well or two, but the fact is that we do have a base of 
energy. As a matter of fact, in some ways that may be one of the most 
susceptible risks to security. So I do think there needs to be a little 
more discussion in that respect.
  For years now, the States of New York and California have used 
Wyoming as a poster child for wasteful homeland security because 
Wyoming receives a per capita amount. The per capita amount is 
relatively high. Why? Because we have a very small population, half a 
million compared to 30 or 35 million. So the per capita formula is not 
an indication of the need for the State. It is easy for New York and 
California to play with the numbers and sort of mislead the audience by 
leaving ouy the actual amount of money that Wyoming generally receives. 
We also rarely hear mentioned that their States, these large States, 
receive hundreds of millions of dollars through the same program, the 
homeland security grant program. But that is not even half the story. 
These same large States conveniently fail to disclose the fact that 
their States also qualify for funding from the urban grant program, a 
program that excludes my State and other rural States.
  So this is one of those times when you have to take a look at all the 
States and realize this idea just of population does not work. As we 
can see on the floor of the Senate, population is not the only 
condition for having two Senators here, fortunately. In any event, from 
fiscal year 2003 through 2006, homeland security funding for California 
has been $1.1 billion and New York received $932 million, compared to 
Wyoming receiving approximately $20 million its first year. In 4 years 
that figure has fallen to $10 million.
  At any rate, as I am suggesting, there is a certain amount of 
inequity in terms of the funding formula in this bill. When we do 
receive Federal assistance, that money goes a long way, of course. 
Unlike many of our urban counterparts, we make the best use of it and 
always have, but that doesn't mean that rural areas are not at risk. In 
fact, as I said, in many ways you can say it might be easier to attack 
the rural areas than some of the others.
  Most people don't know that Wyoming is the largest net exporter of 
energy in the United States. Our energy powers the Nation and is 
critical to maintaining our strong national security. So rail lines and 
transmission lines and refineries are very important not only to our 
State but to the Nation.
  There is no question that the economy favors dense areas. We have 
debated this, as a system, and I suppose we will continue to do that. 
As a matter of fact, we had a vote where I think we lost by only one in 
terms of increasing the basic amount States would receive. Hopefully, 
we can take another look at this as we go about working with the House.
  I would like to also comment on a pending amendment which is 
inconsistent with the majority's will to prohibit nongermane 
amendments. I don't recall the 9/11 Commission making this 
recommendation, but we have an amendment pending that would reroute 
hazardous materials through our Nation's small towns instead of through 
big cities. I don't in any way want to infer that it is the intention 
of this amendment to put small towns in harm's way. Unfortunately, the 
amendment has been filed and, indeed, will put individuals in rural 
areas at more risk than those in urban areas.
  There is no question that we need to secure the rails. Coming from a 
State where the economy relies to a large extent on railroads, I know 
all too well that security is critical to this infrastructure. It 
certainly is important to us, and we are making significant progress in 
that regard. The Federal Government and the railroads have agreements 
targeted at reducing the risk of hazardous materials that are in high-
threat urban areas around the Nation, and these arguments didn't happen 
overnight. I understand that, and that is proper. They are well thought 
out, with the input from security and industry professionals and all of 
the experts in Congress. Mandatory rerouting would not eliminate the 
risks. Instead, it shifts them from one population to another.
  Forced rerouting could also foreclose routes that are top performers 
in terms of overall safety and security and result in increased risk in 
exposure and reduced safety and security. If we force these trains to 
reroute, imagine the cost of the goods that will be passed along to the 
consumer. Railroads are required by the Federal Government to transport 
hazardous materials. They cannot pick up and abandon a line that is not 
profitable.
  Under this measure, railroads are going to have to build a new track 
and acquire a lot of land that bypasses major metropolitan areas. 
Imagine the demand for the use of eminent domain, which is one of the 
difficulties that we have, of course, and is necessary when you talk 
about this kind of infrastructure.
  Finally, I would like to respond a little bit to some of the 
arguments that the other side has made with respect to keeping this 
bill clear of extraneous and nongermane amendments.
  Last week, the minority leader requested that the Senate vote on a 
package of security-related amendments. The majority declined and 
decided to filibuster the package instead and block consideration. 
Instead of having these honest debates on amendments to improve the 
bill, the majority sent out a conflicting message. On the one hand, 
they argued the amendment to strengthen the security of the country was 
nongermane and partisan. On the other hand, they argued that a union-
backed elective bargaining provision was relevant to our Nation's 
security and wasn't partisan.
  Mr. President, I am very troubled by the inconsistency, particularly 
on this bill. I know many Members feel the same way. In fact, I would 
like to reference the comments made on the floor of the Senate last 
week by the Senator from Michigan, who came to the floor expressing 
frustration with the lack of progress on the bill. The Senator was 
concerned about amendments being offered by the Republicans that would 
strengthen our national security but were not relevant to the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. It was stated, and I quote:

       I find myself needing to express concern about the place in 
     which we find ourselves at this point--unable to move forward 
     with the final bill and the relevant 9/11 Commission 
     amendments that have been offered because of an effort by the 
     Senate Republican leader to offer a wide-ranging number of 
     unrelated amendments to the bill.

  Unfortunately, this frustration was directed at the wrong side of the 
aisle. Union collective bargaining is not an issue recommended by the 
9/11 Commission and should not be in this bill. It seems to me we are 
hearing mixed messages from the other side. It appears that they are 
willing to include provisions backed by the unions but not willing to 
debate and vote on tough security-related measures such as those 
contained in the Cornyn amendment.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas would do so much more 
to strengthen our national security than the labor measure, but Members 
on the other side have aggressively defended that amendment of last 
week. Of these two measures, there can be no debate as to which 
provision does more to protect our Nation. The other side of the aisle 
has it wrong.
  I generally agree with what the Senator from Michigan said last week, 
but

[[Page 6186]]

you cannot have it both ways when it comes to securing our Nation. If 
we want to limit this bill to debating and implementing the 9/11 
recommendations, let's not compromise national security at the same 
time by allowing collective bargaining of the TSA screeners. Setting 
this policy would greatly hinder TSA's flexibility to respond to 
terrorism threats, flesh intelligence, and emergencies as they arise. 
TSA needs to have the ability to move the screeners around as schedules 
and threats change.
  TSA was created to be a nimble agency. Let me give some examples of 
how TSA has proven its ability to quickly respond.
  During the August 2006 United Kingdom air bombing threat, TSA 
screeners were briefed and deployed where they were needed to respond 
to the threat.
  TSA has employed its flexibility to evacuate patients at the Texas VA 
Hospital in the path of Hurricane Rita and helped with the evacuation 
of people in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
  Last year, when Lebanon erupted into violence and fighting broke out, 
TSA was able to rapidly respond to expedite the evacuation of thousands 
of Americans in Lebanon and thousands of legitimate refugees.
  TSA deployed 27 of its officers to Cyprus when fighting broke out. 
TSA was able to quickly respond, assisting airport authorities with 
verifying passenger identification documents and screening the large 
volume of evacuees.
  This labor-backed provision has nothing to do with enhancing our 
homeland security, and the President has repeatedly said he will veto 
the bill if collective bargaining is included. If we are going to be 
sincere in improving homeland security, that is one thing, but moving 
forward with collective bargaining for TSA is unexplainable. The 9/11 
Commission made a lot of recommendations, most of which I support, but 
a collective bargaining provision didn't even make the list.
  I can only hope that when the bill passes and it goes to conference 
that conferees will do the right thing and drop the provision. Failure 
to do so will only delay our effort to strengthen this Nation's 
security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the time be controlled by this side of the aisle, that I be 
permitted to speak for 8 minutes, that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Obama, be permitted to speak for 8 minutes, and then we will see how 
much time we have remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________