[Pages S8154-S8179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

[[Page S8155]]

Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2360, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Byrd amendment No. 1200, to provide funds for certain
programs authorized by the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974.
Akaka amendment No. 1112, to increase funding for State and
local grant programs.
Akaka amendment No. 1113, to increase funding for State and
local grant programs and firefighter assistance grants.
Dorgan amendment No. 1111, to prohibit the use of funds
appropriated under this Act to promulgate the regulations to
implement the plan developed pursuant to section 7209(b) of
the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
Durbin (for Boxer) amendment No. 1216, to provide for the
strengthening of security at nuclear power plants.
Durbin (for Stabenow) amendment No. 1217, to provide
funding for interoperable communications equipment grants.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order under the bill?
What is the pending amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending amendment is amendment
No. 1217 offered on behalf of Senator Stabenow.
Mr. GREGG. Thank you. Today, Mr. President, we are going to try to
continue to move forward on the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
I hope Members, if they have amendments, will bring them to the floor
so we can expedite this bill. I understand there are a number of
Members who do intend to come to the floor, and we will look forward to
entertaining their ideas.

Amendment No. 1124

Initially, Mr. President, let me send to the desk an amendment on
behalf of Senator Ensign. I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I ask that the amendment be reported.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] for Mr. Ensign,
proposes an amendment numbered 1124.

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

(Purpose: To transfer appropriated funds from the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection for the purpose of hiring 1,000 additional border
agents and related expenditures)

On page 77, line 20, insert ``of which $367,552,000 shall
be transferred to Customs and Border Protection for hiring an
additional 1,000 border agents and for other necessary
support activities for such agency; and'' after ``local
grants,''.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have sent the amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Ensign. I do not necessarily support this amendment
as the chairman of the subcommittee, but as a courtesy to the Senator,
I wanted to send it up to get him in the queue. We look forward to
having other Senators bring amendments forward, and we will try to
assist them in getting time and votes.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1207, 1209, and 1210, En Bloc

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk three amendments en
bloc, Nos. 1207, 1209, and 1210.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes amendments
numbered 1207, 1209, and 1210, en bloc.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1207

(Purpose: To provide for a report on the effectiveness of programs
concerning State and local government emergency officials, and for
other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Not later than September 30, 2006, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives that
includes--
(1) the results of the survey under subsection (c); and
(2) a plan to implement changes to address problems
identified in the survey.
(b) Not later than June 30, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit an interim report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives on the
specific design of the survey under subsection (c).
(c) In preparing the report under subsection (a), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a survey of
State and local government emergency officials that--
(1) involve enough respondents to get an adequate,
representational response from police, fire, medical, and
emergency planners on the regional, State, county, and
municipal levels, and other State and local homeland security
officials as determined by the Secretary; and
(2) identifies problems relating to the effectiveness and
user-friendliness of programs in which the Department of
Homeland Security interacts with State and local officials,
including grant management, intelligence sharing, training,
incident management, regional coordination, critical
infrastructure prioritization, and long-term homeland
security planning.

amendment no. 1209

(Purpose: To require a quadrennial review by the Department of Homeland
Security)

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 519. QUADRENNIAL HOMELAND DEFENSE REVIEW.

(a) In General.--
(1) Frequency and scope.--Beginning in fiscal year 2008,
and every 4 years thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall conduct every 4 years, during a year following
a year evenly divisible by 4, a comprehensive examination of
the national homeland defense strategy, inter-agency
cooperation, preparedness of Federal response assets,
infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the
homeland defense program and policies of the United States
with a view toward determining and expressing the homeland
defense strategy of the United States and establishing a
homeland defense program for the next 20 years. Each review
under this paragraph shall be known as the ``quadrennial
homeland defense review''.
(2) Consultation.--Each quadrennial homeland defense review
under paragraph (1) shall be conducted in consultation with
the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretaries
of State, Defense, Health and Human Services, and the
Treasury.
(b) Contents of Review.--Each quadrennial homeland defense
review shall--
(1) delineate a national homeland defense strategy
consistent with the most recent National Response Plan
prepared under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 or
any directive meant to replace or augment that directive;
(2) describe the inter-agency cooperation, preparedness of
Federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and
other elements of the homeland defense program and policies
of the United States associated with that national homeland
defense strategy required to execute successfully the full
range of missions called for in the national homeland defense
strategy delineated under paragraph (1); and
(3) identify--
(A) the budget plan required to provide sufficient
resources to successfully execute the full range of missions
called for in that national homeland defense strategy at a
low-to-moderate level of risk, and
(B) any additional resources required to achieve such a
level of risk.
(c) Level of Risk.--The assessment of the level of risk for
purposes of subsection (b)(3) shall be conducted by the
Director of National Intelligence.
(d) Reporting.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
submit a report regarding each quadrennial homeland defense
review to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security
of the House of Representatives. The report shall be
submitted not later than September 30 of the year in which
the review is conducted.
(2) Contents of report.--The report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall include--

[[Page S8156]]

(A) the results of the quadrennial homeland defense review;
(B) the threats to the assumed or defined national homeland
security interests of the United States that were examined
for the purposes of the review and the scenarios developed in
the examination of those threats;
(C) the status of cooperation among Federal agencies in the
effort to promote national homeland security;
(D) the status of cooperation between the Federal
Government and State governments in preparing for emergency
response to threats to national homeland security, and
(E) any other matter the Secretary of Homeland Security
considers appropriate.

amendment no. 1210

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding rail tunnel
security research)

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 519. RAIL TUNNEL SECURITY RESEARCH.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) railroad tunnels, and underground stations have been
identified as particularly high risk terrorist targets
because of the potential for large passenger volumes,
confined spaces, relatively unrestricted access, and the
potential for network disruptions and significant economic,
political and social impact;
(2) many rail tunnels have safety problems including
structural deficiencies, ventilation problems, lack of
communications equipment and insufficient emergency access
and exits;
(3) there are more than 898 miles of rail tunnels in
transit systems across the country;
(4)(A) security experts have identified a number of
technology and training needs to prevent attacks on tunnels
and to mitigate and remediate the impact of such attacks;
(B) technological needs include detection systems,
dispersal control, and decontamination techniques; and
(C) training for emergency response to a variety of
scenarios is also needed; and
(5) the Department of Transportations Transportation
Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado--
(A) is one of the Nation's largest and most advanced rail
safety research centers in the Nation; and
(B) offers full-scale testing, dynamic modeling,
performance monitoring, technical analyses, feasibility and
economic studies as well as training classes to prepare first
responders and test new safety technologies.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Department of Homeland Security is urged to invest
in research to promote tunnel rail safety as well as training
to ensure first responders are prepared to respond to rail
tunnel emergencies; and
(2) employing existing Federal facilities in this effort
can result in efficiencies and permit this important research
to proceed at decreased cost to the taxpayer and with minimal
interference with ongoing passenger and freight rail traffic.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that is
perhaps the most important challenge of our National Government, and
that is protecting the security of our people in this Nation, securing
our borders, and making sure we have a homeland security that addresses
the concerns of the post-9/11 world in which we live.
For 6 years, I had the honor of serving with 14,000 men and women who
are peace officers in the State of Colorado. I worked with them to
ensure that we had public safety on our streets and to help in the
development of the best strategies we could develop in creating a
homeland security that addressed the war on terror and the threats from
terrorism within the State of Colorado.
The legislation we are currently considering is legislation that is
specifically intended to address that issue on a national level. While
there can be no doubt we have spent billions of dollars on the issue of
homeland security since 9/11, the recent events in London remind us all
that we can never be too far from having this issue at the forefront of
our radar screens.
It is with that approach that I would like to speak about these
amendments, as well as the amendment I cosponsored with Senators
Lieberman and Collins yesterday.
I commend Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman on their efforts to
dramatically improve our Nation's homeland security grant process. I
also would like to discuss my three simple and straightforward
amendments to the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
Before I arrived in the Senate, I was Colorado's attorney general. I
worked hard to establish greater coordination between law enforcement
agencies at the local, regional, and State level. This is a complicated
task because often what happens with law enforcement agencies is they
work within the stovepipes of their own jurisdictions. So bringing law
enforcement agencies together to make sure they are coordinating and
providing the greatest degree of public safety has been one of the
monumental challenges of the last several years.
Unfortunately, at a national level, there is often very little
consultation with local officials. Too often, lawmakers in Washington
develop Federal policy without taking advantage of the expertise of the
people who are on the ground. Too many local emergency officials in my
State feel that the Department of Homeland Security policies are
dictated to them from above.
One of the first things I did when I came to Washington was to survey
Colorado's emergency response officials to ask them what they thought
about a variety of issues. Those responses were alarming. Those chiefs
of police and sheriffs told me that 66 percent of Colorado's first
responders faced significant problems using radio equipment to
communicate with other agencies. Fifty-nine percent said that Federal
grants are not going to the right priorities. Fifty-nine percent said
that the Federal grants were not going to the right priorities. And by
a 4-to-1 margin, Colorado officials feel unprepared to handle a weapon
of mass destruction. That is 4 to 1 of people on the ground in my State
feel they are unprepared to handle a weapon-of-mass-destruction attack
within my State.
By a 3-to-1 margin, responders feel that antiterrorism information
they receive from the Federal Government is insufficient or not
actionable. That is a 3-to-1 margin. So my survey at the bottom line
says that we must do better in preparing our homeland to be more
secure.
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have sponsored, and we in this
Senate last night adopted, a thoughtful and comprehensive piece of
legislation that will make Americans safer. It will significantly
increase the amount of Federal money targeted to high-risk States and
cities while assuring that first responders in all States receive the
necessary equipment and training to prevent and to be prepared for
potential terrorist acts. That is an important balance.
We obviously have to focus money where there has historically been a
greater threat. New York and Washington in the past have been targets,
and there are other areas of the Nation that have been impacted.
Likewise, in California, an attack on the ports of Los Angeles could
cost the Nation's economy billions of dollars. We clearly need to step
up security efforts in America's largest cities and in the port cities
of our Nation.
However, in the past, we also have seen that the terrorists are
constantly looking for targets of opportunity no matter where they lie.
Whether it was the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen or the Oklahoma
City bombing or the hostage takeover in the Russian schoolhouse in
Beslan or the bombing of hotels in Bali, the terrorists struck, and
they will strike where they can. We cannot, therefore, make any
assumptions about where the enemy will strike. If we can make New York
a fortress, the terrorists may hit Philadelphia or Seattle or Denver or
any of the rural communities which span the countryside of America. Our
national security is only as strong as our weakest link.
This amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor, succeeds in
maintaining that critical balance between assuring that our Nation's
top cities are protected and that the entire Nation has the resources
and infrastructure to keep us safe.

The amendment also takes huge steps toward reducing waste in Federal
homeland security spending and giving State and local officials
guidance and resources needed to improve long-term planning and grant
administration. Its focus on essential capabilities and coordination of
homeland security grants across the Federal agencies will help make
sure we get the most bang for our homeland security bucks.
I was proud to work with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman to
improve their already good amendment. My proposals included in this
amendment would ensure that State and local officials have a seat at
the table when Federal officials review the Homeland Security Grant
Program. We task the Department of Homeland Security to

[[Page S8157]]

make grant applications as user-friendly as possible, especially for
the smaller police and fire departments of our Nation. My changes would
also stiffen requirements on States that they do proper long-term
planning and administration.
Together these changes will make it much easier for State and local
officials to work with the Department of Homeland Security. They should
ease the burdens on local first responders and help make America safer.
My amendments to the underlying appropriations bill build on the
spirit of Collins-Lieberman and on the knowledge I have gained from
Colorado's first responders.
My first amendment would improve the Department of Homeland
Security's long-term planning. Every 4 years, the Department of Defense
conducts a Quadrennial Defense Review. This invaluable document paints
a detailed picture of the threats our country faces and a comprehensive
plan for how to confront those threats in the future. My amendment
would simply require the Department of Homeland Security to do the
same.
The Homeland Security Secretary would work with the Director of
National Intelligence to identify the greatest threats to our homeland
security. The Secretary also would consult with the Department of
Defense and other Federal agencies on how best to work together.
This is not just another reporting requirement. It is a move toward
rational, strategic, long-term planning that will empower the
Department of Homeland Security and Congress to make better decisions
to protect the American people.
My second amendment would build on the knowledge I gained from the
recent survey in Colorado. It would require the Department of Homeland
Security to conduct a nationwide survey of police, fire, medical, and
emergency management officials about the problems they are experiencing
with Federal grants, intelligence sharing, infrastructure protection,
and regional coordination. The Department of Homeland Security would
have to report the results to Congress and come up with a plan on how
to address the problems the locals have identified. This survey would
help ensure that our significant investments in homeland security are
going to the right priorities and that local officials are getting
better direction to guide their efforts.
This sounds like a simple task, and it is, but I promise you that
when we get this survey back, we will all learn something new that will
help us improve America's security.
My last amendment is a sense of the Senate in support of research on
tunnel rail safety. We have known for some time that subway and rail
tunnels are particularly tempting terrorist targets. For the cost of a
subway fare, a would-be bomber has access to thousands of people
crammed into a very small space. A relatively small amount of
explosives can cause many deaths and bring an entire city to a halt, as
we have recently seen in London. That carnage in London last week
showed that a handful of terrorists can strike subway tunnels and cause
grave havoc for a city. Our prayers go out to the more than 50 people
who perished during that cowardly attack. America has known the
terrible pain of terrorism, and last week, Americans were all
Londoners.

In America, there are more than 898 miles of rail tunnels and transit
systems across the country. Many of our rail tunnels have structural
deficiencies, ventilation problems, lack of communications equipment,
and insufficient emergency access and exits. Detection systems,
dispersal control, and decontamination techniques can greatly mitigate
the effects of an attack, as can adequate training for emergency
responders.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the need to
improve rail safety and has invested millions of dollars in researching
new technologies and training first responders. The Department of
Transportation's Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, CO, is one
of the largest and most advanced safety centers in the world. The
Transportation Technology Center offers full-scale testing, dynamic
modeling, performance monitoring, technical analyses, feasibility and
economic studies, as well as training classes to prepare first
responders and test new safety technologies. The center features 48
miles of test track and a variety of freight, passenger, and hazardous
material cars, as well as other test vehicles. What the center does not
yet have is the capability to simulate rail tunnel accidents. That is
why the Transportation Technology Center's backers are now hoping to
build a facility for underground rail security testing. This proposed
complex of 1.5 miles of aboveground tunnels would simulate every major
rail tunnel system in the country.
My amendment would not single out this or any particular facility. It
simply encourages investment in research to promote tunnel rail safety
as well as training to ensure first responders are prepared to respond
to rail tunnel emergencies. It would put the Senate on record for
taking a small step forward in protecting the millions of Americans who
depend on subways and passenger trains all across the country.
I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments, and I urge my
colleagues to move forward in working on what is our most important
agenda, and that is making sure we are doing everything we can to
protect America's homeland from the kinds of attacks we saw on 9/11 or
the attacks we saw last week in London.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I congratulate my friend and
colleague from Colorado for his excellent statement and his leadership
on this issue and so many other issues. Since coming to the Senate 6
months ago, the Senator from Colorado has demonstrated his compassion,
intelligence, and ability to speak to the issues that people in this
country desperately care about and desperately need. I congratulate
him, once again, on having amendments that are very important for the
families of our country.

Amendment No. 1217

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside and call up my amendment No. 1217.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is pending.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that
Senators Levin, Corzine, Akaka, Dodd, and Lautenberg be added as
cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, one of the most important appropriations
bills is before us now, and that is our Homeland Security bill.
Certainly we are reminded again, because of what happened in London
last week, that we on our soil are vulnerable and are looking to stop
terrorists overseas.
Our goal, certainly the goal of our caucus, our goal as Democrats,
has been to make sure Americans are prepared and protected both at home
and abroad. That is what this bill is really all about. It is not a
partisan issue. This is an American issue. All of us I know care about
this issue, and we need to make sure this budget reflects the goals of
making sure that our first responders are prepared, that all Americans
are prepared, and that we are protected from terrorism in America. My
amendment addresses a very important piece of that. We have come
together in a bipartisan way to make sure that soldiers in America and
Afghanistan have the most sophisticated technology so that they can be
prepared to protect themselves and fight successfully abroad.
Unfortunately, the same is not true at home for our police officers,
our firefighters, and our emergency responders. Too many of them rely
on outdated technology and equipment that is not integrated with our
State departments, our transportation departments and our homeland
security departments.

Even if we are defeating terrorists in Iraq, we are not providing the
resources and the equipment at home to make sure that we are fully
prepared to fight, succeed and, most importantly, protect our families
and communities at home.
Too many of our police officers, our firefighters, our emergency
medical services personnel and transportation officials are not able to
communicate with each other. They have the basics.

[[Page S8158]]

That is what my amendment speaks to, the ability to make sure that
every part of our emergency preparedness system has the ability to
communicate with each other. Interoperability is the term often used.
Right now, they are not able to communicate with each other. How much
more basic can we get than creating a way for everyone to be able to
talk to each other, to literally be on the same wavelength as well as
figuratively. Too many first responders, whom I have spoken to as I
have moved around Michigan in the last 4 years, have said to me that
their communications, alerts going up or down, often come from CNN. The
communications are received from CNN before they actually receive them
directly to their departments. This does not make any sense.
A June 2004 survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 80
percent of the cities that responded do not have communications
equipment and the ability to communicate with the Department of
Homeland Security or the Justice Department. My guess is that the
people we represent in our States assume something very different, as
they should. After September 11, 2001, everyone assumes that these
things have been addressed, and yet they have not been addressed.
The survey also found that 94 percent of cities do not have
interoperable capability between their rail facilities, their police,
their fire, and their emergency responders. This is especially
troubling, given what just happened and the tragic attacks on London's
subway system last week.
Their survey also said almost half of the cities said that a lack of
interoperable communications had made a response to an incident within
the last year very difficult. Sixty percent of the cities said they do
not have the communications capability within the State emergency
operations center. I have spoken with police and fire chiefs across my
State, and overwhelmingly they have expressed concern about this issue,
as well as the fact that they actually have fewer police and
firefighters in their departments now than they did before 9/11.
I believe we find ourselves in a very vulnerable situation for a
number of reasons as it relates to homeland security, but a basic area
that needs improvement, in terms of infrastructure, is our ability to
have our communications systems connected so that our emergency
responders can talk to each other and can respond quickly, both before
something happens and during an emergency, and do it effectively.
This is a crisis now, not just a nagging inconvenience. Our lack of
interoperable communications is a crisis in this country.
The September 11 attacks highlighted this crisis when New York police
and fire personnel were on different radio systems and could not
communicate. Over 50 different public safety organizations from
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia reported to the
Pentagon that they could not talk to each other.
On more than one occasion now, we have had circumstances where we
have been on the Senate floor, and there has come an alert to evacuate
this very Chamber. We have been asked to move out away from the Capital
complex over to Union Station or to other places around the city. We
assume that folks are able to talk to each other, are able to
communicate what is going on. Yet, unfortunately, the communication
systems that need to be in place are not in place for full
interoperable communications.
Nearly 4 years after September 11, 2001, the No. 1 request for
appropriations that I receive each year from communities is on
communication systems. This year, Michigan communities made over 41
requests. They requested over $75 million for interoperable
communications in this bill and in the CJS appropriations bill alone.
My guess is, if I went to every community, they would gladly have a
request for help to be able to be connected. We can do something about
it, and that is what this amendment does.
Most estimates place the cost of equipping America's first responders
with interoperable communications in excess of $15 billion. In November
2003, the Congressional Budget Office testified before Congress that
there is insufficient funding in place to solve our Nation's
communications problems, and it would cost over $15 billion to begin to
fix the problem.

So my amendment begins that process by suggesting a 3-year funding
stream. My amendment would provide the first year funding for that, $5
billion for interoperable communications grants for America's first
responders to provide a strong Federal commitment to the safety of our
citizens. I might add, while that is a substantial sum of dollars, that
is approximately what we are investing in Iraq each month. So my
amendment would ask that we commit 1 month for America; 1 month for
America's preparedness to protect the people of America; 1 month to be
able to say that we have provided the resources, we have begun to make
sure that we are prepared, that we are protected, that our
communications systems are connected, and that we are doing all we can
do to keep our families safe.
I urge the support of the Stabenow amendment on communications.
I see my colleague standing, I assume to make a motion, but I want to
speak to one other amendment, briefly.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Michigan yield?
Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to yield while retaining the floor,
yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. My hope is that we can accept the amendments of the
Senator from Colorado, then we will have further discussion of the
pending amendment of the Senator from Michigan, probably with a point
of order being made at that point, and then we would turn to the
Senator from Massachusetts for up to 15 minutes. That is the game plan,
hopefully. So when the Senator from Michigan completes her statement, I
will proceed with that proposal.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment that
Senator Dodd will be offering on his and my behalf in the next hour, I
am sure. This relates to the other piece of what needs to happen to
make sure that we are thoroughly prepared and protected. Again, that is
our goal, to be prepared and protected. That is what we are fighting
for. That is what we are working toward. That is what we need to do
together.
My amendment would invest in the interoperable communication so that
everyone could speak to each other and be able to respond.
There is another amendment that Senator Dodd and I are introducing
that speaks to the larger question of whether we are providing all that
we need to, to invest at home in our first responders and what they
need to be successful. We know that right now, based on a report that
was done back in the spring of 2003, there was a blue ribbon panel of
experts, led by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, that found the
United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders
and, in their words, remains dangerously unprepared to handle a
catastrophic attack on American soil. They recommended at that time a
major investment over a 5-year period to fully prepare us so that our
families and communities are protected.
After that report was given to us, Senator Dodd and I came to the
Senate floor 2 years ago and offered an amendment for the first year of
that 5-year funding.
It was not passed. We came last year and offered it again. We stand
today asking our colleagues, with an even greater sense of urgency, to
finally pass this amendment so that we can begin that 5-year process of
fully preparing our first responders and supporting them so that our
families are protected. It is a major investment of $15 billion this
year. But when we look at what we are spending abroad, we cannot be
just concerned about fighting terrorism in somebody else's country. We
know we have to be prepared to fight it here. Yet we see hundreds of
billions being spent in Iraq, being spent overseas. I supported those
dollars so our troops are successful, so they have what they need, but
that is not enough. If the troops on the ground in America--our police
officers, our firefighters, our emergency responders--do not have the
same commitment from us, why would we say we are going to make sure our
troops have what they need overseas and then dramatically underfund
what they need at home? It makes absolutely no sense.

[[Page S8159]]

This is way beyond anything that is viewed as a partisan issue
because it does not matter, Democrat or Republican, when we look at the
vulnerabilities for our families and communities for us right now, this
is something we should all be rallying around. I hope that we are not
in a situation looking back at some point and saying we should have
done this but, rather, aren't we glad that we did.
The Rudman report that was given to us in the spring of 2003 found
that, on average, our fire departments have only half the number of
radios they need, and I spoke to that in my other amendment, only
enough breathing apparatus for one-third of their firefighters. So one
out of three gets breathing equipment. Police departments across
America do not have the protective gear to respond to a WMD attack. Our
public health laboratories lack the basic equipment to respond to a
chemical or biological attack and most report that they are overwhelmed
with testing requests.
Finally, our first responders do not have the equipment they need to
determine what kind of hazardous material they may be facing. The
administration's support for first responders has been on a steady
decline. It is less in this budget than it was in last year's budget.
That makes no sense.
For example, last year's funding for Michigan State homeland security
grants dropped from $47 million to $29.7 million. In this budget, the
administration eliminates the law enforcement terrorism training
program, cutting another $400 million from our first responders.
Last week's tragedy in London has again shown how important it is to
be able to respond quickly and effectively, for them to be able to
speak to each other, for us to be able to have enough personnel who can
respond. Michigan has three of the busiest commercial crossings in the
United States--approximately 3,200 miles of coastline, three nuclear
powerplants, ports, and other numerous critical infrastructure that we
must protect. Our homeland security needs are somewhere between $1.4
billion and $2.7 billion that we need to invest in every year, yet the
allocation in this budget is less than $30 million--again, down from
$47 million. That is not even close to what we need to be prepared and
protected--not even close.
I have also spoken with police and fire chiefs across the State.
Again, it is amazing to me. I do not believe the average person would
believe what is happening until they talk to local law enforcement
officials. When I talk to them, there are fewer police officers on the
beat today than 9/11/2001. It is shocking. It is truly shocking, and I
believe it is truly irresponsible.
Last month we spent about $5 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need
to put this in perspective. If we take 3 months of what we are spending
there, we can fully fund what the Rudman report says is necessary for
our first responders. I believe we cannot afford another day without
acting on this and other critical areas of infrastructure need. This is
about whether we are going to be committed to protect the people of
America.
The two amendments about which I have spoken today address and would
make sure that we begin to invest in being fully prepared in case of a
terrorist attack here at home, and that our families are truly
protected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from
Michigan, but prior to doing that, I yield to the Senator from Colorado
so we can straighten out his amendments.

Amendments Nos. 1209 and 1210, As Modified

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent amendments Nos. 1209 and 1210 be
modified with the changes I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1209, AS MODIFIED

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 519. QUADRENNIAL HOMELAND DEFENSE REVIEW.

(a) In General.--
(1) Frequency and scope.--Beginning in fiscal year 2008,
and every 4 years thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall conduct every 4 years, during a year following
a year evenly divisible by 4, a comprehensive examination of
the national homeland defense strategy, inter-agency
cooperation, preparedness of Federal response assets,
infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the
homeland defense program and policies of the United States
with a view toward determining and expressing the homeland
defense strategy of the United States and establishing a
homeland defense program for the next 20 years. Each review
under this paragraph shall be known as the ``quadrennial
homeland defense review''.
(2) Consultation.--Each quadrennial homeland defense review
under paragraph (1) shall be conducted in consultation with
the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretaries
of State, Defense, Health and Human Services, and the
Treasury.
(b) Contents of Review.--Each quadrennial homeland defense
review shall--
(1) delineate a national homeland defense strategy
consistent with the most recent National Response Plan
prepared under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 or
any directive meant to replace or augment that directive;
(2) describe the inter-agency cooperation, preparedness of
Federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and
other elements of the homeland defense program and policies
of the United States associated with that national homeland
defense strategy required to execute successfully the full
range of missions called for in the national homeland defense
strategy delineated under paragraph (1); and
(3) identify--
(A) the budget plan required to provide sufficient
resources to successfully execute the full range of missions
called for in that national homeland defense strategy at a
low-to-moderate level of risk, and
(B) any additional resources required to achieve such a
level of risk.
(c) Level of Risk.--The assessment of the level of risk for
purposes of subsection (b)(3) shall be conducted by the
Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the
Director of National Intelligence.
(d) Reporting.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
submit a report regarding each quadrennial homeland defense
review to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security
of the House of Representatives. The report shall be
submitted not later than September 30 of the year in which
the review is conducted.
(2) Contents of report.--The report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the results of the quadrennial homeland defense review;
(B) the threats to the assumed or defined national homeland
security interests of the United States that were examined
for the purposes of the review and the scenarios developed in
the examination of those threats;
(C) the status of cooperation among Federal agencies in the
effort to promote national homeland security;
(D) the status of cooperation between the Federal
Government and State governments in preparing for emergency
response to threats to national homeland security, and
(E) any other matter the Secretary of Homeland Security
considers appropriate.

AMENDMENT NO. 1210, AS MODIFIED

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 519. RAIL TUNNEL SECURITY RESEARCH.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) railroad tunnels, and underground stations have been
identified as particularly high risk terrorist targets
because of the potential for large passenger volumes,
confined spaces, relatively unrestricted access, and the
potential for network disruptions and significant economic,
political and social impact;
(2) many rail tunnels have safety problems including
structural deficiencies, ventilation problems, lack of
communications equipment and insufficient emergency access
and exits;
(3) there are more than 898 miles of rail tunnels in
transit systems across the country;
(4)(A) security experts have identified a number of
technology and training needs to prevent attacks on tunnels
and to mitigate and remediate the impact of such attacks;
(B) technological needs include detection systems,
dispersal control, and decontamination techniques; and
(C) training for emergency response to a variety of
scenarios is also needed; and
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Department of Homeland Security is urged to invest
in research to promote tunnel rail safety as well as training
to ensure first responders are prepared to respond to rail
tunnel emergencies; and
(2) employing existing Federal facilities in this effort
can result in efficiencies and permit this important research
to proceed at decreased cost to the taxpayer and with minimal
interference with ongoing passenger and freight rail traffic.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the three amendments which are
pending, by the Senator from Colorado, 1207, 1209, and 1210 be agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (No. 1207); (No. 1209), as modified; and (No. 1210),
as modified, were agreed to.

[[Page S8160]]

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan has offered one
amendment and intends to offer another amendment. The first amendment
that is pending is her amendment relative to interoperability which
would increase spending in this account by $5 billion next year. The
entire budget for homeland security, of course, is $30 billion, so this
would be a 20-percent plus-up in her amendment for the entire budget in
one line item which line item does not exist. Interoperability is
obviously a major issue of concern.
It should be noted, however, that the purchasing of communication
equipment has traditionally fallen to the responsibility of and to the
decisionmaking process of the local departments, whether they be fire,
police, or first responders in the area of health. Equipment purchasing
has been done by those departments over the years, city by city, town
by town, State by State. The failure to have interoperability is not so
much a Federal failure, it is a decision made at the local level for
local reasons not to have interoperability. If a local police
department wants to buy a type of communications equipment and the
local fire department in the same town wants to buy a type of
communications equipment and they decide to buy communications
equipment that does not communicate with each other, that is a local
decision. That equipment is physically in place. It is not as if these
departments don't have the equipment. They purchased the equipment.
It is not the Federal role to come in and rebuy equipment for every
police, fire, and health first responder in this country. That still
remains a local responsibility to a large degree. However, we do as a
Federal Government request that States put forward what is known as a
plan of action relative to first responder coordination.
As part of their plan of action, a State can decide to fund
interoperability grants to local communities. As part of the first
responder initiative, that has occurred and is occurring across the
country. In fact, within the first responder grants that have gone out
so far, approximately $1.8 or $1.9 billion of that has been spent on
interoperability activity by States deciding they wanted to pursue
interoperability or communities deciding they wanted to pursue
interoperability.
However, the concept that we should increase funding in this
interoperability initiative by $5 billion in 1 year is essentially an
extraordinary statement as to what the priorities should be for the
Federal Government in fighting terrorism. The Department of Homeland
Security has a lot of issues of responsibility. The Federal Government
has priority responsibility, for example, for protecting our borders.
It has priority responsibility, for example, for protecting our
airlines and air travel. It has priority responsibility for making sure
we are ready to fight and address the threat of weapons of mass
destruction.
It does not necessarily have, as a first responsibility, making sure
that every police department and fire department in this country buys
new radio equipment that can communicate with every other police and
fire department. In fact, this effort is, and always has been, a State
and local effort. In fact, there is still no consensus as to how
interoperability should occur. There has been an attempt to reach a
standard agreement on interoperability going on for 25 years, called
the P-25 standards, and those standards simply have not been reached. I
know from my experience in New Hampshire we had a problem in Vermont.
The New Hampshire police couldn't talk to the Vermont police and our
State police couldn't talk to our local police and our Fish and Game
people couldn't talk to our State Police and our Customs officers along
the borders couldn't talk to anybody other than the other Customs
officers, so we sat down in a room and figured out how to do it and we
got everybody on the same page. But that was a State decision on the
issue of interoperability. Then the State decided to take funds and use
them to fund interoperability coming through the State grants.

That is the way you approach this problem. But by taking the Homeland
Security budget and increasing it 20 percent for a line item that
doesn't exist to fund interoperability grants is, in my opinion, not
the best way to spend dollars in this present context. It should be put
in the fuller context, which is this: These funds would go into a pot
of money which presently exists, first responder money, of which $7
billion still has not been spent. Seven billion dollars is still
sitting here in the Federal Treasury waiting to be spent because the
plans are not in place for how to efficiently spend it at the State and
local level. So to put another $5 billion on top of that, and then I
understand Senator Dodd and the Senator from Michigan are going to come
forward with another $15 billion or $20 billion plus-up of State and
local grants for next year when we still have $7 billion in the
pipeline that hasn't been spent is, to say the least, I think not good
management of our dollars in the area of how we protect our Nation.
Much higher priorities exist. To the extent we can find additional
resources, those high priorities such as the borders, such as fighting
weapons of mass destruction, such as hardening our systems in the area
of chemical plants, in the area of nuclear plants, in the area of
intelligence gathering--which is the key to this whole exercise--are
priorities.
Yesterday Secretary Chertoff outlined how he intends to refocus the
priorities of the Homeland Security agency and, yes, first responders
are a key part of this. But a 20-percent plus-up makes no sense.
This amendment has, as part of its elements, an emergency
designation. Under the Budget Act an emergency is something that is
sudden, urgent, and unforeseen. The failure of the police department to
be able to talk to the fire department in Epping, NH, has been
occurring for a long time. It is not a sudden, urgent, unforeseen
event. It is actually something that should have been planned for. I am
not picking Epping out, because I suspect Epping actually has everybody
speaking to each other, knowing it is a very well-run town. But
interoperability is not a sudden, unforeseen, urgent event. It is an
event that needs to be addressed, it needs to be managed, and needs to
be managed within the context of the plans the States have for
developing their first responder response.
We know it is a big issue. Each State is hopefully grappling with
this and coming forward with their plans. But clearly it does not fall
within the context of an emergency designation as the budget perceives
emergency designations. So this amendment as proposed is clearly
outside the emergency designation qualification and it does represent a
$5 billion plus-up, which would be an addition to our deficit of $5
billion were it to pass, and therefore is subject to a point of order
and is not, in my humble opinion, good policy to pursue at this time.
Therefore, pursuant to section 401(b)(5) of H. Con. Res. 95 for the
fiscal year 2006 Budget Resolution, I raise a point of order against
the emergency designation provisions contained in this amendment and
make that point of order.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections
of the Congressional Budget Act for purposes of considering my
amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at a later time today we will set up this
motion to waive the Budget Act vote. It looks as if we are not going to
have votes until quite late this evening, probably not starting until
7:30 or 8 o'clock. This will obviously be one of those votes, should
the leader decide he wants to hold votes at that time, and I appreciate
the courtesy of the Senator from Michigan.
Pursuant to the prior discussion, I yield the floor to the Senator
from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
(The remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, are
printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S8161]]

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will speak for a few minutes and
highlight some of the important provisions of this appropriations bill,
specifically as they pertain to the issue of border security. The
Senator from New Hampshire, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Homeland Security, along with the entire Appropriations Committee, have
done much good that should be heralded. But those steps should also be
seen as just a first step toward getting us in the right direction,
which is to obtain operational security of our Nation's borders,
something we do not have now and something which represents a clear
threat to our national security.
As the Senate Committee on Appropriations recognized, these resources
are just a first step toward true reform of our immigration system.
Additional enforcement resources along the border will be needed. In
that connection, Senator Kyl, the junior Senator from Arizona, and I
will be filing a bill within the next couple of weeks that will
authorize additional resources to secure our border.
Our Nation's immigration and border security system is badly broken.
It leaves our borders unprotected and threatens our national security.
It makes a mockery of the rule of law. This system unfortunately has
suffered from years of neglect. But in a post-September 11 world we
simply cannot tolerate this situation any longer. We stand here today
almost 4 years from that terrible date, and we are reminded as recently
as just last week--with the attacks in London--that terrorism is a real
and tangible threat to the free world.
National security demands a comprehensive solution to our immigration
system. That means both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of
our immigration laws. We have to confess that we have not devoted the
funds, the resources, and the manpower necessary to enforce our
immigration laws and protect our borders.
Representing a border State with about 1,600 miles of border with
Mexico, I can state that for too long Washington has simply taken the
attitude that this is a local or State problem. If it is not the duty
of the Federal Government to deal with the security of our borders,
whose responsibility is it? It is a Federal responsibility, and it is
one that has simply been abdicated for far too long.
No discussion of comprehensive immigration reform, however, is
possible without a clear commitment to and a substantial and dramatic
escalation of our efforts to enforce the law. In my capacity as the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have held a number of
hearings on this issue of border security and immigration enforcement.
They have been quite revealing. I will share some of the information
with our colleagues because it supports the direction in which this
Homeland Security appropriations bill takes us, and puts us one step
closer to the final goal: control of our borders and a secure, orderly
immigration process.
The Department of Homeland Security has testified recently that they
do not have operational control over parts of the southern border. That
is obvious to those who live and work along that border and represent
those States.
My constituents have told me as recently as last week when I traveled
to south Texas, to Laredo, TX, when I traveled to McAllen, TX, and the
Rio Grande Valley that the nature of the immigrants coming across our
southern border is vastly different from what it has historically been.
For example, over the last 3 years, the number of apprehensions of
those designated as ``OTM,''--other than Mexican--has doubled from
37,316 in 2002 to 75,000-plus in 2004. This year, it is currently
96,000. It is likely that the number will be twice this year what is
was last year.
The vast majority of these individuals who are apprehended as they
come across the border are from countries that you would expect: Mexico
and countries in Central and South America. However, the Border Patrol
chief, Chief Aguilar, has testified at one of our hearings that 400
aliens from special-interest countries had been apprehended last year.
Some come from countries that support international terrorism. That
ought to be a grave concern to all of us. We need to expend additional
resources, both to ensure we are apprehending aliens who are trying to
enter our country illegally, and to make sure we detain them and remove
them in an expedited fashion.
Let me bring to the attention of our colleagues some of the facts
because they may not be aware of them. I think they will be shocked to
find out how unsuccessful we are, despite the best efforts of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Last year alone, the Border Patrol detained roughly 1.1 million
people coming across our borders. Now, my information, from those who
are on the ground who deal with this on a day-in-and-day-out basis, is
that they think they probably are capturing between one out of every
three or one out of every four. Yet last year alone they captured
approximately 1.1 million and detained them.
But the concern is that we only have roughly 20,000 detention beds.
So what the Border Patrol does is, after doing a background check,
after which they run these aliens' names against a terrorist watch list
and various criminal justice data bases, they engage in what can only
be called a catch-and-release program. In other words, they release
them on their own recognizance based on their promise to return for
further proceedings later on. It should come as no surprise that the
overwhelming number of these detainees do not reappear for their
hearing, and they simply melt into the landscape.
As a result of this flawed policy, we know we have approximately 10
million people living in our country outside of our laws. And those
numbers are getting bigger, not smaller.
I do not know how we can stand here, particularly in the face of the
threat of international terrorism, and tell the American people we are
doing the job they sent us here to do. Because we know that organized
crime groups, which are only interested in making money, do not care
whether they deal with human beings who want to come here to work,
whether they engage in human trafficking, whether they engage in
illegal drug transactions, illegal arms transactions, or any one of a
number of other activities that are designed to generate money. We know
in these organized smuggling activities, many of which originate from
Asia and the Middle East, people are literally brought across the ocean
to South America, or to Mexico, or Central America, and then they take
advantage of our porous southern border and potentially threaten our
national security.
I hope, and indeed I believe, that most of the people who come to
this country across our border outside of our laws are coming here for
the same reason they have always come here; and that is, to find work
and the ability to support their families because they cannot do so
where they live. But we have to acknowledge this porous border we have
and our failure to obtain operational security of our borders is a
national security threat because the same avenues of entry into the
country by which construction workers and others might come are
available for exploitation by international terrorists.
We have no idea, and no agency of the Federal Government can tell us,
whether or not we have sleeper cells of terrorists who have exploited
that border to come here. But we know they continue to come, that
vulnerability continues to exist, as long as the Federal Government
fails to live up to its responsibility to secure our border.
This bill, to the great credit of the subcommittee and its chairman,
the Senator from New Hampshire, recommends a total of about $6 billion
for securing the Nation's borders, including $1.7 billion for border
staffing between the ports of entry.
Separately, the bill includes $81 million for construction
requirements associated with 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. I
mentioned the issue of detention beds. There are only 20,000 beds right
now, which is woefully inadequate. Given our failure to implement
nationwide expedited removal processes for people who come to our
country illegally, the Border Patrol and the

[[Page S8162]]

Federal agencies are simply left with this unworkable and inexcusable
system of catch-and-release, which merely exacerbates the problem we
have in this country with illegal immigration.
This bill moves us in the right direction by funding an additional
2,240 detention beds, with a $77 million increase, bringing the total
up to almost 23,000 beds. It is still not enough, but clearly this
moves us in the right direction.
The Intelligence Reform Act authorizes 8,000 beds per year, and the
Iraq war supplemental funded almost 2,000 beds.
The bill I alluded to earlier that Senator Kyl and I intend to file
shortly calls for an additional 10,000 detention beds to be constructed
each year, at an estimated cost of $330 million, which is an increase
of 2,000 beds per year over what was authorized in the Intelligence
Reform Act.
The recent surge of people coming illegally into our country outside
of just our immediate neighbor of Mexico demonstrates this catch-and-
release policy must be changed. It is only through the commitment of
resources, such as being done in this bill, that we are going to get to
where we need to be.
I am pleased to see the recommendations that are made as to
additional resources in this bill, but I remind my colleagues there is
still much that needs to be done when it comes to ensuring our security
and our safety by enforcement of our laws.

I hope at another time to be able to come back and address my
colleagues on the details of the bill Senator Kyl and I intend to
introduce which is composed of four main provisions.
One provision has to do with enhanced border security, which I have
already alluded to here. The second provision has to do with interior
enforcement. In other words, once people get past the border, then they
are simply lost to our Federal law enforcement agencies. We simply, as
the Federal Government, do not provide them the additional resources
they need in order to be partners in our law enforcement effort when it
comes to border security and immigration law enforcement.
Last week, I visited with a group of sheriffs in Victoria and Goliad
Counties. They are about 200 miles inland. But you may recall, Mr.
President, and my colleagues may recall, it was about 2 years ago when
19 immigrants, who had been smuggled illegally into the country, were
left to die in a trailer because the human smuggler--a coyote, as they
are called in our part of the country--cared nothing about them and
left them to die in over 100-degree temperatures inside a cattle
trailer.
These local law enforcement officials are willing to help and willing
to be of assistance, but they want the training and they need
additional resources so they can hire the personnel. We must meet our
obligations to provide the additional resources they need so we can
work as partners with local law enforcement and State law enforcement
to enforce the law.
So the first component is enhanced border security, and the second
component is enhanced interior enforcement.
The third component of the bill Senator Kyl and I will file has to do
with employer accountability. It may come as a shock to the people of
America to know we currently do not have in place an effective way for
employers to authoritatively determine whether the person standing in
front of them, who wants to be hired, is in fact authorized to work in
the United States of America or whether they happen to be an illegal
immigrant who cannot legally be hired by American employers.
What our bill will do is remedy that deficiency and provide employers
with a reliable means to document the fact that indeed this perspective
employee is authorized to work in the United States, and to do so in a
reliable fashion.
We will also at the same time insist that employers, once we give
them the tools they need, enforce the law and make sure they document
that, in fact, this perspective employee is authorized to work in the
United States.
The fourth and last component has to do with a temporary worker
program. The President talked about this a couple of years ago. I think
he is exactly right. But the problem is, it has to be combined with
enhanced border security, enhanced interior enforcement, and tools that
employers need in order to determine the legal status of the
perspective employees that stand in front of them. But we also have to
acknowledge the facts: America's economy is strong, and we have a
demand for the labor many immigrants provide, but we simply need to
provide a legal means for people to work and perform those jobs that
American citizens do not want or are not available to do.
Then we need to provide a means to return those individuals who come
here on a temporary basis and work in the United States under this
legal regime, to return them to their home, with the skills and the
savings they have acquired working in the United States. Because unless
we deal also with the economic aspects of this problem that affects our
national security, we will never have any hope of solving it.
I will speak more on that later. But I did want to give our
colleagues a preview of what is being worked on as a comprehensive
solution. And I did want to come to the floor and express my great
appreciation to the Senator from New Hampshire, the chairman of the
subcommittee, and all of those who have made it possible for us to
focus our efforts on enhanced border security, and to explain why I
believe it is absolutely critical to the safety and security of the
American people that we obtain operational security of our border. It
is something we cannot claim now and which, indeed, law enforcement
officials of the U.S. Government admit we do not currently have.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Launch Of Space Shuttle ``Discovery''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to take about a minute more
of our colleagues' time. I neglected to make some additional brief
comments that I would like to make on the space shuttle launch that is
occurring today.
It was my very first speech on the Senate floor, sadly, when I paid
tribute to the astronauts who lost their lives in the Columbia disaster
in February of 2003. The thoughts and admiration of the Nation are with
the brave astronauts aboard Discovery today as they make their journey
into space. It is the first one this Nation has attempted since that
terrible tragedy in February 2003.
I believe the robust manned space program is critical to both
America's proud tradition of exploration and its commercial and
military preeminence in space.
NASA's missions foster technological and scientific advances and help
ensure our national security as well as create jobs for thousands of
Texans and thousands of Americans.
I believe the mission of NASA, together with the President's vision
for future space exploration, will also encourage young people to study
math and science and prepare for space-related careers. As so many
young children have done in the past, they are inspired by the feats of
daring and accomplishment by these brave astronauts who are launching
into space again today. These goals are set not just for our current
benefit, but also for future generations of leaders and innovators in
Texas and across America.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S8163]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1202

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1202 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an
amendment numbered 1202.

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

(Purpose: To fund urgent priorities for our Nation's firefighters, law
enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, and all Americans
by reducing the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in
excess of $1 million)

On page 77, line 22, strike $425,000,000 and insert
$2,058,178,673.
On page 78, line 13, strike $365,000,000 and insert
$1,878,088,040.
On page 78, line 16, strike $200,000,000 and insert
$1,029,089,337.
On page 78, line 22, strike $5,000,000 and insert
$25,727,233.
On page 78, line 24, strike $10,000,000 and insert
$51,454,467.
On page 77, line 18, strike $2,694,000,000 and insert
$13,863,377,000.
On page 77, line 20, strike $1,518,000,000 and insert
$7,810,788,066.
On page 79, line 1, strike $100,000,000 and insert
$514,544,668.
On page 79, line 5, strike $50,000,000 and insert
$257,272,334.
On page 79, line 7, strike $50,000,000 and insert
$257,272,334.
On page 79, line 9, strike $40,000,000 and insert
$205,817,867.
On page 79, line 21, strike $321,300,000 and insert
$1,653,232,019.
On page 81, line 24, strike $615,000,000 and insert
$3,164,802,000.
On page 81, line 24, strike $550,000,000 and insert
$2,830,311,000.
On page 81, line 26, strike $65,000,000 and insert
$334,491,000.
On page 82, line 12, strike $180,000,000 and insert
$926,284,000.
On page 83, line 12, strike $203,499,000 and insert
$1,047,210,000.
On Page 89, line 3, strike $194,000,000 and insert
$998,327,800.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, along with Senators
Corzine and Lautenberg of New Jersey.
The purpose of this amendment is very simple, although the amount I
am asking for here is rather large. The purpose is to fund sufficiently
the urgent priorities of our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement
personnel, emergency medical personnel, transportation systems, and
other critical infrastructure such as our ports and chemical plants.
The amendment's language suggests paying for these vital priorities by
limiting some of the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in
excess of $1 million. I assume that at an appropriate time my colleague
from New Hampshire or others will make a point of order against this
amendment. I will then move to waive that point of order. In the
meantime, let me explain the amendment.
It is one I initially offered two years ago during a similar debate
regarding homeland security. I was not successful in having the
amendment adopted then. I am hopeful that I will be successful today,
especially in light of events during the last several days in London.
But I understand, given the size of the amount I am requesting, that
the chances of this amendment being adopted are not great.
Nevertheless, it is important to offer this measure anyway because it
isn't an amendment I crafted per se, although I offer it here
legislatively. The language and request of this amendment were a result
of two task forces conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations that
examined America's needs in the wake of the attacks on September 11,
2001, and laid out, by our former colleagues Senators Warren Rudman and
Gary Hart, along with members of their task force, the vital importance
of sufficiently preparing for the inevitable events that are occurring
at the hands of terrorist organizations. I don't know how many more
events it is going to take for us to respond with the kinds of
resources we need to have in place.
I was a Member of this body when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were
hit, the Lockerbie incident happened, the World Trade Center was first
bombed, the USS Cole was attacked, the embassies in Africa were bombed,
and then, of course, when the World Trade Center was attacked for the
second time. We have seen in Tokyo the subway attacks in 1996, the
Madrid train bombing in March of 2004 and, of course, the London
Underground attacks only a few days ago. These are just a few of the
hundreds of terrorist attacks that have taken place around our world
over the last couple of decades.
Mr. DODD. Let me outline the Rudman report and why this amendment is
important.
Two years ago the Council on Foreign Relations convened an
independent task force to identify the challenges faced by our Nation
in preventing and responding to acts of terrorism. This task force was
chaired by our former colleague Senator Rudman. In June 2003, the task
force issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Emergency Responders:
Dramatically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''
Former Senator Rudman was joined on this task force by a very
distinguished group of our fellow American citizens. I ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record the entire list of those people who
prepared the report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

Charles G. Boyd is currently Chief Executive Officer and
President of Business Executives for National Security
(BENS). Before retiring from the U.S. Air Force in August
1995, General Boyd served as Deputy Commander in Chief for
the U.S. European Command.
Richard A. Clarke is Senior Adviser to the Council on
Foreign Relations and is currently Chairman of Good Harbor
Consulting, LLC. Previously Mr. Clarke served under the last
three presidents as a senior White House adviser.
William J. Crowe is Senior Adviser at Global Options.
Previously, Admiral Crowe served as Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan.
Margaret A. Hamburg is Vice President for Biological
Weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Before coming to
NTI, Dr. Hamburg was Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
James Kallstrom is Senior Executive Vice President at MBNA
America Bank. After September 11, 2001, Mr. Kallstrom took a
leave of absence from MBNA America and served as Director of
the Office of Public Security for the State of New York.
Joshua Lederberg is a Nobel Laureate and currently serves
as President Emeritus and Sackler Foundation Scholar at
Rockefeller University.
Donald B. Marron is Chairman of UBS America as well as
Lightyear Capital. Previously, he served for twenty years as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Paine Webber Group,
Inc., until its merger with UBS in 2000.
Jamie F. Metzl is Senior Fellow and Coordinator for
Homeland Security Programs at the Council on Foreign
Relations. He has served on the National Security Council at
the White House, in the Department of State, and as Deputy
Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Philip Odeen is former Chairman of TRW Inc. Previously, Mr.
Odeen was President of BDM International, Inc., and a Vice
Chairman at Coopers & Lybrand LLP.
Norman J. Ornstein is a Resident Scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute, and Senior Counselor to the Continuity
of Government Commission.
Dennis Reimer is Director of the National Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism in Oklahoma City.
Prior to that, General Reimer served in the U.S. Army in a
variety of joint and combined assignments, retiring after 37
years as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1999.
Warren B. Rudman is Chairman of the Independent Task Force
on Emergency Responders. He is currently a partner in the
international law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and
Garrison and formerly Chairman of the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board under President Clinton.
Previously, he represented New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate
from 1980 to 1992.
George P. Shultz is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford
Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has served
as Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary
of Labor, and director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
Anne-Marie Slaughter is Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School
of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

[[Page S8164]]

Prior to her appointment at Princeton, she was the J.
Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign and
Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.
David Stern has been Commissioner of the National
Basketball Association since 1984. He joined the NBA in 1978
as General Counsel and became the league's Executive Vice
President in 1980.
Paul Tagliabue is Commissioner of the National Football
League. Prior to becoming NFL Commissioner in 1990, he served
as Chief Legal Counsel to his predecessor.
Harold E. Varmus is President and Chief Executive Officer
of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Previously, he
served as Director of the National Institutes of Health.
John W. Vessey is Chairman of the Council on Foreign
Relations' Center for Preventive Action and previously served
as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as Vice
Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.
William H. Webster is a Partner at the law firm of Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. He previously served as Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency from 1987 to 1991 and
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1978 to
1987.
Steven Weinberg is Director of the Theory Group of the
University of Texas. He is a Nobel Laureate in Physics, and a
recipient of the National Medal of Science.
Mary Jo White is Chair of the 192 lawyer litigation group
of Debevoise & Plimpton. She also served as U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of New York from 1993 until 2002.

Mr. DODD. Let me mention several of them because they are important.
What I am offering as an amendment were suggestions made by this panel
to the Department of Homeland Security and to the Congress as a way of
bolstering our security needs across the Nation.
The membership of this distinguished panel included George Shultz,
former Secretary of State, Treasury, and Labor; William Webster, former
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Charles Boyd, chief
executive officer and president of the Business Executives for National
Security; Margaret Hamburg, vice president for biological weapons at
the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former Assistant Secretary for
planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services;
Don Marron, former chairman of UBS America; James Metzl, former staff
member of the NSC, the Department of State, and former staff director
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Norman Ornstein, resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Anne-Marie Slaughter,
dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
at Princeton University; and Harold Varmus, president and chief
executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute.
The list goes on. These are the people who ``prepared,'' in a sense,
the amendment I am offering. The suggestions I am offering are ones
suggested as a result of the task force's recommendations.
Let me say that I have great respect for Senator Gregg and Senator
Byrd who have dealt with these issues in their capacities as Chairman
and Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee
respectively. It is not easy to put together these bills under budget
caps. I understand that, and I have respect for it. I understand the
constraints under which my colleagues operate. Certainly, they are
trying to provide adequate resources for our emergency responders and
critical infrastructure needs in this country.
If the tragic events in London and the events I mentioned at the
outset say anything to us as a people, it is that we must renew and
redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism at home. The
Rudman report only underscores the sense of urgency that we ought to
have about protecting our country from the risk of terrorism.
I appreciate that the managers of the bill are seeking to have $100
million of added resources for transit security. They are working
within very tight budget constraints. Nevertheless, the security needs
of our country far exceed what the managers are able to provide with
the limited resources they have been given under this bill.
The Rudman report says our Nation should immediately spend--and this
was 2 years ago--$20 billion per year for 5 years to hire, equip, and
train first responders and to better protect our critical
infrastructure from attack. This bill spends roughly $3.9 billion--less
than one-fifth of what the Rudman report called for 2 years ago. That,
I might add, is close to $700 million less than was spent 2 years ago.
So it appears we are headed in the wrong direction and doing less than
what we should be doing.
I would like to read various passages of the Rudman report to try to
persuade Members of the sense of urgency that Senator Rudman and the
Commission certainly had 2 years ago, and to shed light, if you will,
on a survey and study done by those who are very knowledgeable about
the challenges posed by international terrorism and about the needs and
steps that need to be taken to make our Nation more prepared to meet
those challenges.
I will read the conclusion of the report prepared by Senator Rudman:

The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American
people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale
had never been carried out on United States soil. The United
States and the American people were caught underprotected and
unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them.

In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the threat or
of what the United States must do to prepare for future attacks can no
longer explain America's continuing failure to allocate sufficient
resources in preparing local emergency responders. It would be a
terrible tragedy indeed if it took another catastrophic attack to drive
the point home.
I do not think any words can express the problem before us more
clearly than those of Senator Rudman.
I will quote from the foreword written by Les Gelb, the former
President of the Council on Foreign Relations:

As I sit to write this forward, it is likely that a
terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to
attack the United States and/or American interests abroad
using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or
catastrophic conventional means. At the very same time,
diplomats, legislators, military, and intelligence
officers, police, fire, and emergency medical personnel,
and others in the U.S. and across the globe are working
feverishly to prevent or prepare for such attacks. These
two groups of people are ultimately in a race with one
another. This is a race we cannot afford to lose.

Several months prior to the issuance of the Rudman report, in October
2002, the Council on Foreign Relations convened another task force, the
Independent Task Force on Homeland Security, which issued the report,
``America: Still Unprepared, Still in Danger.'' The task force, co-
chaired by Senators Rudman and Hart, came to the general conclusion
that:

America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and
respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The report further warned that:

America's own ill-prepared response could hurt its people
to a much greater extent than any single attack by a
terrorist, and the risk of self-inflicted harm to America's
liberties and the way of life is greatest during and
immediately following a national trauma.

So here you have two seminal reports, issued within 8 months of one
another, prepared by some of the most respected individuals in this
country, who have longstanding experience in the matters of diplomacy
and national security. These are not lightweights who made these
recommendations I am offering as part of this amendment. They are top
experts and they have sounded the alarm to us. They sounded it after 9/
11; they sounded it before Madrid and London. How many more events
before we put the kind of resources in place that allows this Nation to
have a much higher sense of security, as we ought to have in light of
the attacks presently being prepared and focused against us?
The funding level that Senator Stabenow and I are proposing in this
amendment is over $16 billion. It is huge; I understand that. It
supplements the approximately $4 billion that the underlying measure
devotes to emergency responders and infrastructure security. Together
the bill and the amendment provide $20 billion in emergency responder
funding over the next year.
This is the recommendation of the Rudman report. This is the
recommendation of the individuals who helped prepare that report. It is
a recommendation made by respected experts and leaders in the fields of
national security, intelligence, foreign relations, military affairs,
bio-terrorism, business, public health, and budget analysis. These
distinguished

[[Page S8165]]

men and women spent significant time analyzing the problems facing our
first responders and our Nation's security. They gave us their best
professional judgment of what we need to do. Regrettably, we are
falling woefully short of what needs to be done in this country.
I understand the need for a budget resolution that sets caps on
appropriations bills. Effective budget resolutions in the Senate are
those that achieve balance. They curb reckless spending while providing
a sound investment in our domestic and foreign priorities.
Unfortunately, I don't find the current budget resolution and the caps
it has imposed very balanced at all. While constraining our ability to
invest adequately in our emergency responders and domestic security,
this resolution causes, in my view, the national deficit to increase by
at least $130 billion over the next 5 years, principally through tax
cuts that only benefit the most affluent of our citizens.
I represent if not the most affluent State, one of the most affluent
States in the country. I have no doubt that the people of Connecticut
would certainly be prepared--when asked whether they could do with a
little less in order to provide the Nation with more security--to
agree. They understand this issue. I believe that given the choice,
they would rather see the tax cut they are receiving go to this kind of
investment.
The report before us represents an uncomfortable reality that we have
to face as a nation. I certainly applaud the hard and groundbreaking
work done so far to reduce the threat of terrorism in this Nation. A
lot of good people are working hard at this. Yet as the tragedy in
London vividly showed us last week, no nation, including ours, is
invulnerable. We still possess weaknesses in our domestic security and
our infrastructure that must be strengthened.
For over 2 years now, we have possessed in the form of the Rudman and
Hart reports a clear message from the most qualified experts in our
Nation that we need to do more to prepare ourselves. While I apologize
for offering an amendment that costs over $16 billion, I ask my
colleagues why we should not offer an amendment that encompasses what
the Rudman report recommends and what is dearly needed. Why not offer
an amendment that meets the needs of our emergency responders while
doing significantly more to boost security measures along our rails, on
our trucks, and in our seaports and harbors? In my view, we should
decide whether we think the recommendations made by these distinguished
Americans deserve our support and whether we have the will to do what
is needed to be done to put our country on a more sound and secure
footing.
The Rudman report makes several comprehensive recommendations to
increase our investment in emergency responders and domestic security.
Among these recommendations are: One, developing a standard for
emergency responder minimum essential capabilities in fields such as
training, interoperable communications systems, and response equipment;
two, developing a standard for determining the nature of cost sharing
between Federal, State, and municipal governments for homeland security
activities; three, guaranteeing multiyear Federal funding for homeland
security activities funded jointly by Federal municipal resources;
four, reforming congressional oversight; five, allowing for greater
flexibility in using Federal homeland security resources; six,
developing a standard for evaluating best practices; and seven,
developing a standard to ensure more effective coordination between
Federal, State, and municipal governments.

While the Department of Homeland Security has started to address some
of these recommendations--and I note that this morning Secretary
Chertoff announced some significant administrative changes to the
Department of Homeland Security, and I applaud him for that--I think
many more changes and resources must be implemented and provided
respectively to meet the Rudman report recommendations fully. I think
we ought to be doing more by supporting the financial needs that are
going to provide for the various gaps that occur in the security of our
various infrastructure systems.
Finally, we all know that the cost of this amendment is large. I want
to put this figure in perspective. We are spending roughly $5 billion
every month in Iraq and Afghanistan--$1 billion a week in Iraq and $1
billion a month in Afghanistan. That is $15 billion in vital spending
and funding every 3 months to ensure that our men and women in uniform
can deal with the threats in those foreign lands. Senator Stabenow, the
other cosponsors of this amendment, and I are asking for $16 billion
for a whole year to make us more secure at home. I understand the needs
and I have supported the funding for our troops in the field. We know
as a result of the Rudman report that we are woefully short in what
needs to be done at home to keep our Nation more secure.
As I mentioned a moment ago at the outset of these remarks, how many
more incidents need to occur before we do what the Rudman report has
called for? How many more times do we have to be attacked to realize
what major steps need to be taken to be better prepared?
I believe that if we have the will, we can find the resources that we
know are needed to make sure we have the infrastructure security in
place and the personnel support in place to give our fellow citizenry
the greater sense of security that they ought to have.
With that, at the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays
on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, it is my intention to respond to the
amendment proposed by the Senator from Connecticut and make a point of
order relative to it. Prior to doing that, I will yield to the Senator
from Arkansas for 5 minutes so he may offer an amendment and get it in
the queue. Then we can agree to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1125

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask that amendment No. 1125 be called
up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment
numbered 1125.

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

(Purpose: To encourage the acquisition by the Secretary of Homeland
Security of an integrated mobile medical system)

On page 83, line 26, before the period, insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the total amount
made available under this heading for the support and
acquisition of mobile medical units to be used by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Directorate of Emergency
Preparedness and Response, in response to domestic disasters,
the Secretary of Homeland Security is encouarged to acquire
an integrated mobile medical system for testing and
evaluation in accordance with subchapter V of chapter 35 of
title 31, United States Code (commonly known as the
`Competition in Contracting Act')''.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, my amendment simply encourages the
Secretary of Homeland Security to consider an integrated mobile medical
system as part of the Department's requirement for mobile medical
systems.
The DOD is currently evaluating a fully integrated mobile medical
system, and it appears that this system holds very promising results to
provide quality medical treatment for emergency situations.
My amendment encourages the Department of Homeland Security to look
at this issue and maybe allocate some resources for it.
I thank the majority staff, as well as the minority staff, and the
two bill managers for their assistance on this amendment. The amendment
has been agreed to. I thank my staff as well for all the hard work and
diligence they put into it. The amendment has been cleared on both
sides. I thank specifically Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd for their
support and assistance.

[[Page S8166]]

Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment
No. 1125.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1125) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 1202

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the Senator from Connecticut, joined by
the Senator from Michigan, as I understand it, has offered an amendment
which would increase the funding for first responder activity by $16
billion. I note, as an initial comment, that this represents a 50-
percent increase in funding for this bill in toto. In other words, the
entire funding of the Homeland Security agency is about $31 billion,
and $15 billion on top of that would be a dramatic increase, to say the
least.
The logic for the approach is that there is a representation that the
Rudman Commission and other people who have looked at this issue say
first responders need more money. It is hard to argue with the fact
that first responders do need more money, but the question becomes, in
a world where we do not have unlimited resources, where should we put
the resources to get the best results in this fight on the war on
terrorism?
An additional logic for their position is because we are spending
significant dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a monthly basis, $5
billion is the number suggested by both Senators that we should be able
to simply, easily afford and $15 billion of additional spending for the
Homeland Security agency in the area of first responder activity.
I suggest, at the beginning, that type of logic could lead to
basically there being no end of spending on all sorts of programs. If
we are going to use the example of the amount of dollars it takes to
keep our service people properly equipped and properly armed and
properly taken care of when they are in a field of battle, when they
are engaged with an enemy on a daily basis, if we are going to use that
number as the number which defines what we should spend, whether it is
fire departments in New Hampshire or education departments in
Connecticut or libraries in Michigan or colleges in West Virginia, we
are going to end up with amendment after amendment which spends
billions upon billions of dollars on the representation that, gee, we
are spending all this money in fighting this war to try to make sure
our troops are properly supported so, therefore, why can't we spend a
lot of money somewhere else? I do not think there is a lot of
consistency to that logic.
We know we have a limited amount of money as a Federal Government to
spend--at least we should. We did pass a budget to try to put in place
the context of how much money we have to spend. And in the context of
that budget, we did fund the war, we did fund the Defense Department,
and we did fund the other functions of Government at a certain level.
We dramatically increased the funding, for example, in education, we
dramatically increased the funding in the area of homeland security,
and we dramatically increased the funding for first responders, but
within the context of a budget.
So when you bring an amendment to the floor that essentially says,
Ignore the budget and spend $15 billion next year on first responders
and then spend another $5 billion on top of that, which would be the
Stabenow amendment on providing communications equipment, you are
essentially saying we have no fiscal discipline and our purposes are
not controlled by any sort of logic as to the relationship of the
amount of money which the Federal Government takes in versus the amount
of money the Federal Government spends.
The representation from the Senator from Connecticut is, if we were
simply to repeal some of these permanent taxes that were extended in
the budget, we could pay for this. I note for the Senator from
Connecticut that he may not have noted this because he did not vote for
the budget, and I understand he may not have focused a lot of time on
it. But the budget, as passed by the Congress, did not have any
permanent tax extensions in it relative to general income tax.
The only permanent extensions in the budget are for tuition tax
credits for kids going to school, tax deductions for teachers who spend
money to pay for school supplies in their classrooms, and a couple of
other lesser tax deductions within the Code. So maybe he wants to
repeal those extensions. I think those extensions are good policy. If
that is his position, that will recover maybe--I don't know, I am not
sure how much it would recover off the top of my head, but it would not
be a great deal of money, and it certainly would not be enough money to
cover this $16 billion which is being proposed.
The budget did not, and it is a misrepresentation to come to the
floor and represent that it did, extend permanently any rate tax cuts
at all.
So this argument that, well, we can just do it by changing the
budget, by changing the terms as to the way it applies to tax policy is
incorrect on its face because there were no permanent extensions.
The issue really is this: Within the context of a reasonable budget
for national defense and for homeland security, where should the
dollars go first? What are the priorities? We made a conscious decision
in this bill to focus the dollars on what we saw as the primary
threats. I believe, and I was joined by the Senator from West Virginia
and I think he agrees, that we should have a threat-based funding
approach to the whole issue of homeland security. If one listened to
Secretary Chertoff yesterday, that is what he plans to do.
What are the priority threats? No. 1, right at the top of the list,
unquestionably the most significant threat is the question of weapons
of mass destruction. So we have put a significant amount of dollars
into trying to increase our capacity to address, first, the detection
and, second, a response capability in the area of weapons of mass
destruction.
No. 2, the second largest threat which we have, in our opinion, is
the fact that we have borders which are extraordinarily porous. Madam
President, 3 million a year is the estimate of how many people come
into this country illegally; 500 million people come into this country
legally, and we really do not know a great deal about what their
purpose is or what they are doing coming in and out of the country. In
fact, we do not know if they are criminals because our databases are
not capable of analyzing their entry documentation to determine whether
they are some sort of threat or whether they are just citizens from
another country who are coming here to enjoy our great Nation.
We have committed significant resources in this bill. We have moved
more than $600 million from various accounts into border security,
specifically putting more feet on the border in the sense of adding
many more Border Patrol personnel, giving those Border Patrol personnel
the capital structure they need to support themselves, physical
infrastructure, adding more detention beds, focusing on upgrading our
computer and IT systems relative to entry-exit activity, especially the
US-VISIT Program. That is because that is a huge threat.
Those are the two huge priority threats on which we focused.
The issue of first responders is a priority for us as a nation, but
is it the No. 1 item that should be focused on in this bill? No. Is it
Homeland Security's first line of activity? Quite honestly, it is not.
It is a major line of activity, but the first lines of activity are the
ones for which Federal Government is primarily responsible, such as
airline safety, border safety, making sure we are ready to deal with
weapons of mass destruction. That is why we mention those issues. But
in the specific area of first responder accounts, this proposal, which
would up the funding in first responders by $16 billion and the
proposal of the Senator from Michigan which would up the funding for a
new line item, it would create a new line item in first responders of
$5 billion for communications assistance, truly is a misallocation of
resources.
Even if we could afford it, we would not want to put that money into
those accounts at that level. Why? Because these groups involved in
developing first responder capability are not capable of spending that
amount of money. How do we know that? Because we have $7 billion--$3
billion from the year 2004 and $4 billion from the year 2005--sitting
in Washington, in the Federal Treasury, which has not gone out yet for
first responder funding activity.

[[Page S8167]]

Why is that? It is because, first, the Department of Homeland Security
has some problems, and we are trying to address those in this bill, and
we put in specific language to try to change that, and I know Secretary
Chertoff has addressed it, but it is larger than that. It is not just
the homeland security issue, it is the fact that one of the points the
Rudman Commission made, and was even more aggressively made by the
Gilmore Commission, which was another high-quality group of people who
got together to study this issue, was that until you have a plan for
how you are going to spend this money, if you just send it back to the
States and to the communities without a plan which they have to follow,
all you are doing is revenue sharing. It is going to end up being a
plus-up for local agencies. Some will buy new cruisers or buy bomb dogs
or just buy dogs, and they will buy whatever they want to buy without
any plan or organization.

The reason the $7 billion is still in the Treasury instead of out
there on the streets helping out the fire, police, and local agencies
is that the assessment plans, which are critical to the effort of
getting in place a thoughtful approach to first responder funding and
how they use these dollars, have not yet been completed. States are
still working on assessment plans so they can come forward with these
plans, and then the money will go out, and it will be spent in an
orderly way instead of a haphazard way.
We do not want to get back into the situation we had in the 1970s,
where essentially we were sending out hundreds of millions of dollars--
not billions of dollars as we are today--to various groups across the
country in the name of better law enforcement. A great deal of it ended
up buying equipment and items that turned out to be not only not
productive but counterproductive because a lot of interoperability
communications was bought with that money when there was no plan
overlying that LEA money to require interoperability. So the police
department would get a grant for $20,000, $30,000 and go out and buy
their system of communications, and then the fire department in the
same town would get their $20,000 or $30,000, and they would go out and
buy theirs, and neither could talk to each other because there was no
plan.
The whole concept behind the assessment approach is so we can have a
plan so that the civil defense centers in the States--fire in the
States, police in the States, first responder health care communities
in the States--are all coordinated and the money goes out in a
coordinated way, that when it is completed, we actually have a
situation where, if there is an incident and these folks who are so
committed to making their communities stronger and better have to
respond to it, it will be done in a focused and coordinated way
pursuant to a plan which has been funded and focused in a coordinated
way.
First off, the theory behind this, that we can spend another $21
billion because we are spending $30 billion in Iraq is--I think that
theory totally disconnects.
Secondly, the concept that this may be paid for some day by repealing
the budget point on permanent extension of tax cuts is purely incorrect
because there were no permanent extensions in the budget.
Thirdly, if we are going to spend money on national security in the
homeland area, we should spend it on threat-based activity, which is
what this bill does. And the threats, in order of priority, put the
issue of first responders lower than some of the first responsibilities
of Homeland Security, such as border security, airline security,
weapons of mass destruction protection, and intelligence-gathering
agencies. That is absolutely critical.
Fourth, as a practical matter, we can appropriate all this money, but
it cannot be spent, so there is no point in appropriating it at this
time. Maybe a year from now, maybe 2 years from now, after that $7
billion has come down a little bit. Remember, we are adding another $4
billion to it this year anyway. This bill is not cheap on the side of
first responders. We are putting another $4 billion on top of the $7
billion that still has not been spent.
When these assessment plans get in place and we start to generate
some proper activity that allows this money to be spent in an orderly
way and does not get wasted, then we might want to significantly
increase this funding because we know it will be effectively used. But
right now, to increase this funding just means it is going to sit at
the Treasury, instead of being used where it really needs to be used,
which is on threats which exist today and which we have to address
today, which brings me to the underlying issue of threat because we are
going to hear about this again and again. There is going to be an
attempt to spend another $1 billion, $2 billion, or $3 billion--I do
not know what the final number will be--on mass transit.
The key to our capacity to defend ourselves from these terrorists is
our capacity to stop them before they get here, and that means we have
to have better intelligence and we have to have better border security.
When they do get here, the key is to make sure they do not have the
opportunity to use their hate and their commitment to trying to kill
Americans in a vast way versus in a confined way by stopping them from
having weapons of mass destruction or using a vehicle that would allow
them to plus up their heinous crimes such as they did on 9/11 when they
used airplanes as weapons, as missiles essentially.
So it all becomes a matter of order of threat, where the dollars
should be. And the No. 1 issue we have to address is better gathering
of intelligence, in which Homeland Security has a limited role, but
Secretary Chertoff is going to expand that effort; followed by the
issue of weapons of mass destruction; followed by border security;
followed by the first responsibilities of the Federal Government which
are things such as air traffic control and air management; followed by,
of course, funding and helping out first responders, which we have
done, which is why there is still $7 billion sitting in the bank
because we have done it, but the system is not yet ready to effectively
handle that money. It will be soon, hopefully. A lot of pressure is
being put on both the Department of Homeland Security in this bill and
on the State assessment plans to accomplish that.
This proposal is maybe well intentioned, but it is misguided at all
sorts of different levels. Therefore, I cannot support it. Obviously,
even if it were within the budget I would not support it because this
is not where we need to allocate resources at this time at this level
of activity.
I make my point of order at this time that under section 302(f) of
the Congressional Budget Act the amendment provides spending in excess
of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to waive the budget point of order
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I simply note that we will be voting on this, hopefully,
later today when we have more of a contingency available to
participate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I know my colleague from Hawaii is in the Chamber, but I
want to respond to comments made by my friend from New Hampshire. He
gave a good response to this amendment. It is a good bureaucratic
response. As I said during my remarks, I apologize for offering an
amendment of this magnitude. The Senator from New Hampshire is
absolutely correct, the entire budget we are talking about for homeland
security is around $31 billion. This amendment is 50 percent of that
budget.
I was fully aware, when I came to the floor to offer this amendment,
of the reaction it would receive, but I also happen to believe the
Rudman report, written by a group of people who are serious about these
matters, has laid out for us very clearly what needs to be done.
Whether our domestic security is funded by reducing millionaire tax
cuts or by some other mechanism, I am willing to listen. I just tried
to offer one idea of where these resources could come from. Obviously,
when an amendment like this is offered, I do not have the right to
offer necessarily an offset so large. Tax cuts provided to the most
affluent Americans was simply a suggestion as to where the resources
could come from.

[[Page S8168]]

The underlying point needs to be made that we are not doing enough in
the areas where we are terribly vulnerable. I will state how we are
spending this money and lay it out. First, we are spending actually
less this year than we have in the previous 2 years. In the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, which covers
port security, truck security, rail security, training, technical
assistance and development, we are going to spend just under $2.7
billion. Last year, it was in excess of $3 billion. The numbers are
coming down, and yet almost everyone now knows in this country that our
ports across the Nation are entirely vulnerable.
Less than 5 percent of containers have any screening done on them.
Our rail and freight systems are virtually wide open. Stories get
written every single day about the vulnerabilities that exist. We take
the bulk of the funding proposed by this amendment--in excess of $11
billion--and put it into these critical areas.
Again, I know it is a lot of money, but let another attack occur in
this country, as I believe it will, and then look back and say: I
wonder if we might have done a little more in the areas where we were
vulnerable to prevent the attack, or I wonder whether or not the
Senator from Connecticut was asking for too much.
I merely cited Iraq and Afghanistan to give a sense of
proportionality. I have strongly supported the resources that ensure
our troops receive the adequate funding they need.
And by the way, in certain areas like equipment, they are not even
getting what they ought to be getting.
I make the point that there we are spending roughly $15 billion every
3 months. This amendment costs roughly the same amount over a full
year.
I have a pretty good sense, after a number of years here, as to what
is going to happen with this amendment. It is probably going to fail.
But I want the American public to know there are those of us who
believe that if one has the will, one can find a way to do this.
Whether one likes my proposed offset or not, if one believes that we
ought to be doing more to make our ports, our rail systems, our truck
security, and other infrastructure far better prepared than they are
today, then they ought to support this amendment.
If they think we are doing enough already, then vote against it. I
believe we are not doing enough, and I think many people in this
country believe that as well. That is why I offer this amendment.
In conclusion, I would like to add a summary of the conclusions and
recommendations of the Rudman report. The full report is some 70 or 80
pages and that is too long to include in the Record. It is available to
Members who would care to have a full copy of it. This is approximately
12 pages. I ask unanimous consent that the conclusions and
recommendations of the Rudman Report on Homeland Security be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Report Prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations--Conclusions and
Recommendations

1. Define and Provide for Minimum Essential Capabilities

The Task Force found that there is no systematic national
standard that defines the essential minimum capabilities for
emergency responders that every jurisdiction of a given
population size should possess or be able to access. Because
of this, there are currently no comprehensive, systematic,
and consolidated principles or measures against which the
degree and quality of preparedness can be tracked nationwide.
Current efforts to develop such standards are inconsistent
and dispersed among various government agencies and
nongovernmental organizations. Additionally, existing
standards for minimum capabilities for emergency responders
are a patchwork with many missing pieces that lacks
systematic integration, are insufficient to address many
major challenges--inc1uding that of catastrophic terrorism
involving WMD--and are not harmonized across the many types
of emergency responders. While existing standards provide a
useful starting point, they do not constitute ``national
standards for emergency response training and preparedness,''
as called for in the National Strategy for Homeland Security.
(A selection from this document is included in Appendix B.)
At the end of five years of federal funding, therefore, some
metropolitan areas may still lack fundamental emergency
responder capabilities.
Congress should require DHS and HHS to work with other
federal agencies, state and local emergency responder
agencies and officials, and standard-setting bodies from the
emergency responder community to establish clearly defined
standards and guidelines for federal, state, and local
government emergency preparedness and response in such areas
as training, interoperable communication systems, and
response equipment. These standards must be sufficiently
flexible to allow local officials to set priorities based on
their needs, provided that they reach nationally determined
preparedness levels within a fixed time period. These
capabilities must be measurable and subject to federal audit.
Congress should require that the FY05 budget request for
DHS be accompanied by a minimum essential emergency responder
capability standard of WMD--and terrorism-related disaster
equipment and training per 100,000 persons in a metropolitan
region, and by separate standards for rural areas. Each
recipient state and metropolitan area should then be required
to submit a plan detailing how it intends to achieve that
standard, to incorporate it into all appropriate training
programs, and to regularly test its effectiveness.
National performance standards could be implemented through
an incentive grant system making federal funding conditional
and available to those localities that adopt federally
approved standards of preparedness.

2. develop requirements methodology

National capability standards for levels of preparedness
must drive an emergency preparedness requirements process.
This process must evolve into one similar to that currently
used by the U.S. military. Threats must be identified,
capabilities for addressing threats determined, and
requirements generated for establishing or otherwise gaining
access to necessary capabilities. The Task Force found that
the administration and Congress were funding emergency
preparedness without any agreement on methodology to
determine how much is enough or what the requirements are. It
is therefore extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
measure how well prepared the United States is.
Congress should include in the FY04 appropriations for DHS
and HHS a provision calling on each agency to accompany the
FY05 budget request with a detailed methodology for
determining the national requirements for emergency responder
capability and assistance.
Congress should require that DHS and HHS submit a
coordinated plan for meeting national preparedness standards
by the end of FY07.
Congress should require DHS and HHS to report annually on
the status of emergency preparedness across the United
States. This report should indicate the levels of federal,
state, and local expenditures for emergency preparedness,
evaluate how effectively that funding is being used, and
assess the status of preparedness in each state based on
national preparedness standards.

3. accept necessary burden-sharing

The Task Force found that there were no accepted national
guidelines for determining the nature of burden-sharing
between the federal government and state and local
jurisdictions. Although state and local jurisdictions should
maintain primary responsibility for funding normal levels of
public health and safety readiness, the Task Force found that
the federal government should be responsible for providing
the funds necessary to cover the incremental costs of
achieving essential standards in responding to the additional
national security threat posed by terrorism. In some
outstanding cases, federal funds may be required to enhance
state and local emergency responder infrastructure that has
been starved of resources if the deterioration of
capabilities is such that it poses a threat to national
security and state and local resources are not reasonably
sufficient for addressing this shortfall.

4. guarantee sustained multiyear funding

The Task Force found that many state and local governments
are unwilling or unable to accept federal funding for
programs that will generate long-term costs in the absence of
guarantees that the federal government will make funds
available for sustaining such programs. Stable and long-term
funding is critical for encouraging state and local
governments to develop the necessary emergency response
capabilities and, most critically, to sustain them over time.
Congress should accompany all authorizations for emergency
responder assistance grants in FY04 and thereafter with
budget authority for sustaining those grants through the
following two fiscal years.

5. refocus funding priorities

The Task Force found existing systems for determining the
distribution of appropriated funds to states to be badly in
need of reform. The federal government currently determines
levels for emergency preparedness funding to states primarily
on a formula that guarantees minimum funding levels to all
states and then determines additional funding based on each
state's population. All citizens of the United States deserve
a base level of protection regardless of where they live.
Nevertheless, the state and population-drive approach has led
to highly uneven funding outcomes. Wyoming, for example,

[[Page S8169]]

receives $10.00 per capita from DHS for emergency
preparedness while New York State receives only $1.40 per
capita. While this approach may have political appeal, it
unnecessarily diverts funding from areas of highest priority.
In addition, decision by state officials regarding the
allocation of funds in their states have not sufficiently
taken into account the multitude of necessary factors.
Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce
resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on
addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. To do
this, the federal government should consider such factors as
population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and
presence of critical infrastructure within each state. State
governments should be required to use the same criteria for
distributing funds within each state.
Congress should also require each state receiving federal
emergency preparedness funds to provide an analysis based on
the same criteria to justify the distribution of funds in
that state.

6. RATIONALIZE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

The Task Force found that the proliferation of committees
and subcommittees in Congress makes it hard to devise a
coherent homeland security policy and a focused homeland
defense system. Congress needs to have a lead committee, or
an effective joint committee, to shape overall policy.
Otherwise the system is likely to be fragmented and plagued
with pork.
The U.S. House of Representatives should transform the
House Select Committee on Homeland Security into a standing
committee and give it a formal, leading role in the
authorization of all emergency responder expenditures in
order to streamline the federal budgetary process.
The U.S. Senate should consolidate emergency preparedness
and response oversight into the Senate Government Affairs
Committee.

7. ACCELERATE DELIVERY OF ASSISTANCE

The Task Force found that many metropolitan areas and
states had actually received and spent only a small portion
of the funds for emergency responders that have been
appropriated by Congress since September 11. The current
inflexible structure of homeland security funding, along with
shifting federal requirements and increased amounts of
paperwork, places unnecessary burdens on state and local
governments as they attempt to provide badly needed funds to
emergency responders. While a balance should be maintained
between the need for the rapid allocation of emergency
preparedness funds and the maintenance of appropriate
oversight to ensure that such funds are well spent, the
current danger is too great to allow for business as usual.
According to the National Emergency Managers Association,
``appropriation cycles have been erratic causing extreme
burdens on state and local governments to continue
preparedness activities when there is no federal funding, and
then forcing them to thoughtfully and strategically apply
several years of federal funds and millions of dollars at one
time.'' (NEMA, State Spending and Homeland Security Funds,
April 2, 2003) As a first step toward addressing this
problem, Congress instructed the DHS Office of Domestic
Preparedness in the FY03 consolidated appropriations measure
(P.L. 108-7) to distribute grant funds to states within 60
days of the enactment of the bill and required states to
distribute at least 80 percent of those funds to localities
within 45 days of receipt.
Congress should ensure that all future appropriations bills
funding emergency response include strict distribution time-
frames as exemplified by the FY03 consolidated appropriations
measure.
Congress should require states to submit data regarding the
speed of distribution of the federal funds for emergency
responders appropriated to states.
Congress should grant DHS the authority to allow states
greater flexibility in using past homeland security funding.
As a first step in this direction, Congress should authorize
greater flexibility in the federal guidelines laid out in the
FY03 Omnibus Appropriations Bill for the percentages of funds
that can be used for various emergency response activities
(e.g., 70 percent for equipment, 18 percent for exercises, 7
percent for planning, 5 percent for training) to make it
possible for states to better allocate resources according to
their most urgent needs. This authority should be granted on
a case by case basis by means of a waiver from the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security.

8. FIX FUNDING MECHANISMS

Many states have been mandated to develop more than five
separate homeland security plans. While the information
requested by each homeland security plan is similar, states
and communities are often required to reinvent the wheel from
one emergency plan to the next.
DHS should move the Office of Domestic Preparedness from
the Bureau of Border and Transportation Security to the
Office of State and Local Government Coordination in order to
consolidate oversight of grants to emergency responders
within the Office of the Secretary.
States should develop a prioritized list of requirements in
order to ensure that federal funding is allocated to achieve
the best return on investments.
Congress should require DHS to work with other federal
agencies to streamline homeland security grant programs in a
way that reduces unnecessary duplication and establishes
coordinated ``one-stop shopping'' for state and local
authorities seeking grant funds. Efforts to streamline the
grants process should not, however, be used as a
justification for eliminating existing block grant programs
that support day-to-day operations of emergency responder
entities. In many cases, such grants must be expanded.
Congress should create an interagency committee to
eliminate duplication in homeland security grants
requirements and simplify the application process for federal
grants.

9. DISSEMINATE BEST PRACTICES

Although emergency responders have consistently identified
as a high priority the need to systematically share best
practices and lessons learned, the Task Force found
insufficient national coordination of efforts to
systematically capture and disseminate best practices for
emergency responders. While various federal agencies,
professional associations, and educational institutions have
begun initiatives to develop and promulgate best practices
and lessons learned, these disparate efforts generally are
narrow and unsystematic and have not sufficiently reached
potential beneficiaries. Such information-sharing could be
one of the most effective ways to extract the greatest amount
of preparedness from a finite resource pool. Once centralized
and catalogued, such data will allow all emergency responders
to learn from past experiences and improve the quality of
their efforts, thereby assuring taxpayers the maximum return
on their investment in homeland security. Access to this
resource will provide the analytical foundation for future
decisions regarding priorities, planning, training, and
equipment.
Congress should establish within DHS a National Institute
for Best Practices in Emergency Preparedness to work with
state and local governments, emergency preparedness
professional associations, and other partners to establish
and promote a universal best practices/lessons learned
knowledge base. The National Institute should establish a
website for emergency preparedness information and should
coordinate closely with HHS to ensure that best practices for
responding to biological attack are sufficiently incorporated
into the knowledge base.

10. ENHANCE COORDINATION AND PLANNING

The Task Force found that although effective coordination
and planning are among the most important elements of
preparedness, jurisdictions across the country are neither
sufficiently coordinating emergency response disciplines
within their jurisdictions nor adequately reaching across
jurisdictional lines to coordinate their efforts with
neighboring communities. Although Title VI of the Stafford
Act (P.L. 106-390) authorizes the Director of FEMA to
coordinate federal and state emergency preparedness plans,
this authority has not been applied sufficiently to ensure
adequate levels of coordination and planning between and
among federal, state, and local jurisdictions. In addition,
state and local emergency management agencies lack the
resources to develop and maintain critical emergency
management capabilities. More also needs to be done to
encourage and facilitate mutual aid and other cross-
jurisdictional agreements that pool resources, minimize
costs, and enhance national preparedness.
DHS should require that all states and territories submit
statewide mutual assistance plans, including cross-border
plans for all cities and counties adjoining state or
territorial borders. Reference to such plans should be
required in all homeland security grant applications for
federal funding. Wherever possible, grants should be
structured to reward the pooling of assets across
jurisdictional lines.
DHS should develop a comprehensive national program for
exercises that coordinates exercise activities involving
federal agencies, state and local governments, and
representatives from appropriate private sector entities
including hospitals, the media, telecommunications providers,
and others. These exercises should prepare emergency
responders for all types of hazards, with a specific focus on
WMD detection and response. When necessary, funds should be
provided to ensure that exercises do not interfere with the
day-to-day activities of emergency responders.
Congress should work with DHS to expand the capacity of
existing training facilities involved in the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium and to identify any new
training facilities for emergency responders that may be
required.

Mr. DODD. Again, I have great respect for my colleague from New
Hampshire. He has a very difficult job, and there are constraints, but
I also have been around long enough to know that when faced with
emergencies that we have a way of getting around those constraints and
doing what needs to be done. We have certainly done that in Iraq. We
have done it in Afghanistan. I believe we ought to do it at home as
well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8170]]

(The remarks of Mr. Akaka are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee.) The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send three modifications of my
amendments Nos. 1171, No. 1150, and No. 1151, to the desk and ask
unanimous consent those modifications be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have now three pending amendments that
have been modified, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to make those amendments
pending?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe they are not pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments have been filed for future
consideration.
Mr. McCAIN. Yes. That is fine. The modifications to the filed
amendments have been agreed to.
I would like to make a statement about rail security legislation and
then, after conversations with Senator Gregg, bring up an amendment on
UAVs, which is filed, and then have two additional amendments pending,
because I am afraid I may need up-or-down votes.
I am pleased the Senate continues to make progress on the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is important that we
adequately fund this Department and its essential programs which are
critical to our Nation's efforts to secure our homeland as we fight the
war on terrorism.
In addition to this funding measure, legislation authorizing security
efforts is equally important. I am particularly concerned about an
authorizing bill the Senate passed by unanimous consent in the 108th
Congress, but which has not yet been enacted. Earlier this week I
introduced the Rail Security Act of 2005, legislation that is nearly
identical to the rail security bill that passed the Senate last year,
as I say, unanimously. I sincerely hope we once again pass this
important legislation and, given current events, the sooner we act, the
better. Rail security must be made a top priority in this Congress.
I would like to mention the Rail Security Act we passed in the 108th
Congress was the product of numerous hearings in the Commerce
Committee, with expert witnesses and with administration support. So
that is why I believe it should have relatively little controversy
associated with it.
We are all deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life caused by the
terrorist attacks in London last week. Those instances are a painful
reminder of the cruel nature of our enemies in this war and of what we
must do to fight and win against those who wish to eradicate our way of
life. I have said on many occasions that we cannot just play defense in
this war, that instead we must take the fight to the enemy. Still, we
must do what is possible to protect Americans at home. The London
bombings and the attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system last year
demonstrate all too vividly the continuing need for this legislation.
We have taken considerable action to address aviation security and
devoted significant resources to that mode. I think all would agree
aviation is safer now than before 9/11. However, since the terrorist
attacks nearly 4 years ago, only relatively modest resources have been
dedicated to rail security. Our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and
the freight railroads, I am sad to say, remain vulnerable to terrorist
attacks, this despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security
has identified as potential terrorist targets the freight and rail
passenger networks, which are critical to the Nation's transportation
system and national defense.
The 9/11 Commission, in its report on the facts and circumstances
surrounding the 9/11 attacks, called for improved security in all modes
of transportation, noting that ``terrorists may turn their attention to
other modes.''

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion
for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized
to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Penn
Station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and inner
city passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a
grant program authorized at $350 million to encourage security
enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak shippers of hazardous
materials, and local governments with security responsibility for
passenger stations not owned by Amtrak.
Further, DHS would be required to complete a vulnerability assessment
of the rail network to terrorist attack, and make recommendations to
Congress for addressing security weaknesses. Importantly, to protect
the taxpayers' interests, all Amtrak authorizations would be managed by
the Department of Transportation through formal grant agreements.
We face a dedicated, focused, intelligent foe in the war on
terrorism. This enemy will probe to find our weaknesses and move
against them. We have seen the vulnerability of rail to terrorism in
other countries and the devastating consequences of such an attack. It
is essential we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of
transportation from potential attack.
Also, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Delaware, Mr. Biden, be listed as a cosponsor of the Rail Security Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his cosponsorship of this
legislation, particularly given that Mr. Biden travels daily on the
rails, back and forth to his home in Delaware.
I trust the Senate will move quickly to once again pass this
essential legislation. We owe at least that much to the American people
as we continue our struggle against an enemy that wants nothing less
than to destroy everything we stand for and believe in.

Amendment No. 1151, As Modified

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside pending legislation
and take up amendment 1151 as modified, UAVs at the southwestern
border.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment numbered
1151, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To specify how certain vehicles are to be deployed to enhance
border security)

On page 61, line 26, insert ``which may be deployed between
ports of entry along the southwestern border of the United
States, taking into consideration the particular security
risks in the area and the need for constant surveillance of
such border,'' after ``unmanned aerial vehicles,''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite the worthy efforts that have been
made to secure our homeland, much remains to be done. I, for one, do
not believe we can ever expect to fully secure our Nation until we
enact comprehensive immigration reform that includes strong and
effective enforcement requirements. We cannot accomplish that in this
pending bill, but in the meantime we can still take additional measures
to better secure our border.
I commend the chairman, subcommittee chairman, and the ranking
members for putting forward an appropriations bill that includes a
number of sound border security funding provisions. One area I would
like to see strengthened, as is proposed by this amendment, is to
ensure we are more fully monitoring the southwestern border where most
of the illegal crossing and needless deaths occur annually.
Let me cite a few of the more alarming statistics about what is going
on in the southwestern border region. Over 300 people died in the
desert last year trying to cross the border. About 200 of those deaths
occurred in the Arizona desert. The Border Patrol is currently
apprehending approximately 1,300 undocumented immigrants a day in
Arizona. This number is expected to rise. An estimated 3,000 people
enter the United States illegally from Mexico every single day. Last
year, 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol
and more than half of those were in the State of Arizona. The Border
Patrol releases more than 90 percent of the people they catch through
voluntary repatriation, because the system is simply overwhelmed.
I want to repeat that, Mr. President. Anybody who has visited our
border and seen those wonderful men and women who serve there in the
Border Patrol and Immigration will agree they are simply overwhelmed.

[[Page S8171]]

We have our work cut out for us. We need more manpower and better
focused technology. This legislation provides some needed funding for
both, but I hope by the time it passes the Senate that we redirect some
of the $31.8 billion in this bill to allow us to fulfill a commitment
we made just 7 months ago as part of the intelligence reform
legislation. In that law we authorize for the coming year 2,000 more
Border Patrol agents, twice as many as would be provided for in the
underlying bill, and 8,000 detention beds, 5,790 more than provided for
in the bill before us.
I filed amendments to fulfill these authorized levels and would like
to work with the bill managers to address these important security
issues.
Another area of particular concern along the southwestern border,
particularly to Arizonans, since our State is now the leading gateway
to illegal entry, is the Federal Government's use of technologies that
are already available to strengthen our security efforts.
Manpower alone is not the answer when we are dealing with a 6,000-
mile border area. The February grounding of the unmanned aerial
vehicles, UAVs, in southern Arizona sent the absolute wrong message to
those seeking to illegally enter our country. They are a helpful and
needed deterrent to illegal entry and have been very useful in helping
to monitor and better secure our southern border. Halting this program
even temporarily needlessly jeopardizes our citizens and Nation.
The temperature today on the border between Arizona and Mexico is
probably, in the middle of the day, 120 degrees. It is awfully hard on
Border Patrol people, and there is no way we can patrol these hundreds
of miles of border simply with ground vehicles. UAVs have proved
extremely effective in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the
world. Clearly it would have tremendous utility in monitoring what is
happening along our borders, not only to prevent illegal crossings but
also, once those crossings are made, to track down and arrest those who
are doing so. And as is well known, not everyone who is crossing the
border is simply coming for a job. We have significant drug
trafficking, and the Director of the FBI has stated that we are
apprehending more and more citizens of ``countries of interest'' that
are crossing our borders as well.
In our efforts to counter terrorism and promote national security, it
is essential that we use all appropriate assets available to ensure the
safety of our citizens and the security of our borders. As we learned
through extensive military operations, UAVs have proven to be a highly
effective aerial surveillance system that can be used as a force
multiplier in coordination with other air and ground surveillance
technologies. Of course, we should work to ensure the most effective
UAV technologies are employed over the border, but it is important that
some form of UAV be deployed in the short term to augment ongoing
enforcement efforts. Grounding the UAVs also creates a perception in an
already volatile border region that the Federal Government is
abandoning its responsibilities.
We are now into our fifth month with grounded UAVs at the southern
border, and I find this inexcusable and unacceptable. A UAV program not
only helps to deter illegal immigrants but also maximizes the
effectiveness of our law enforcement agents on the ground.
I commend the bill managers for recognizing the need for UAVs and
hope they can agree to support my amendment that will make clear to DHS
that the funding provided in this bill is not to support grounded
technologies but, rather, is provided to support a robust UAV program
that best meets the area's security risks while recognizing the need
for constant surveillance along the southwestern border.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure UAV
surveillance at the Nation's borders and maximize our law enforcement
efforts.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers of the bill
would agree to this amendment by voice vote at the appropriate time,
but I would clearly await the presence of the managers before
proceeding.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1150, as Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1150 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1150, as modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 519. (a) The amount appropriated for salaries and
expenses by title II under the heading ``Customs and Border
Protection'' is increased by $367,552,000, all of which may
be made available to hire an additional 1,000 border patrol
agents.
(b) The amount appropriated by title III for State and
local grants under the heading ``state and local programs''
is reduced by $367,552,000.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite worthy efforts to secure our
homeland, much remains to be done, and I do not believe we can expect
to secure fully our Nation until we enact comprehensive immigration
reform that includes strong and effective enforcement requirements.
I commend the chairman and subcommittee chairman and ranking members
for putting forward an appropriations bill that includes a number of
important border security funding provisions. Clearly, they do not have
an easy job. And I know they have worked to fund critical homeland
security needs.
One area that I strongly believe should be strengthened, however,
concerns the number of Border Patrol agents as they play one of the
most critical roles in securing our homeland.
To help my colleagues to understand the great need for more manpower,
let me cite just a few of the more alarming statistics about what is
going on in the southwestern border region. Over 300 people died last
year; an estimated 3,000 people enter the United States from Mexico
every day. A few weeks ago, 79 people were found in a Phoenix alley
crammed into a commercial horse trailer. The heat was over 100 degrees,
and they had been there for several days. Of the 79, 11 were children,
including a 4-month-old baby. At the beginning of the summer, when the
temperature in the desert rose unexpectedly, 12 people died crossing
into Arizona in 1 weekend.
Mr. President, we have our work cut out for us. We need more manpower
and better focused technology. This legislation provides some needed
funding for both. But I hope that by the time it passes the Senate, we
redirect some of the $31.8 billion in this bill to allow us to fulfill
a commitment we made just 7 months ago as part of the intelligence
reform legislation.
Mr. President, a dangerous state of lawlessness exists along the
southwestern border, and it has become increasingly volatile. The
Federal Government's inability to stem the illegal traffic flowing
across the border has shifted substantial financial and social burdens
to residents of the border region. Recent action by minutemen along the
Arizona border provided the Nation with an image of the frustration
felt by many Americans.
Border States are suffering from the immediate and downstream
problems associated with illegal immigration. Our hospitals are
burdened with enormous uncompensated costs, and so are our State and
local law enforcement agencies. We simply need more manpower to protect
the border in the near term. While I strongly believe that once we fix
our broken immigration system, we will see the day that some of our
border resources can be shifted to other priorities, until then
Congress must have the will to take the action needed to reform our
broken immigration system. We need to have a robust Border Patrol force
hired, trained, and on the job.
While providing solid resources to state and local officials to
ensure the readiness of our first responders is imperative, the men and
women serving in the Border Patrol are literally on the front lines in
the fight to keep the terrorists out of our country. CIA Director
Muller has said that more and more people from ``countries of
interest'' are looking at our southwest border as a possible point of
entry into the

[[Page S8172]]

United States. Why shouldn't they. Hundreds of thousands and
potentially millions of migrants who enter the United States illegally
each year to work represent the perfect cover for potential terrorists.
Of course, if others have offsets to suggest, that would be preferable.
I am open to any and all options that will enable us to meet the full
level of Border Patrol agents so desperately needed on the front lines.
Mr. President, I am aware that the managers are not in agreement with
this amendment, and that is why I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1171, as Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1171 as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1171, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 519. (a) The amount appropriated for salaries and
expenses by title II under the heading ``Immigration and
Customs Enforcement'' is increased by $198,990,000, all of
which may be made available to add an additional 5,760
detention beds and additional positions or FTEs in the United
States.
(b) The amount appropriated by title III for State and
local grants under the heading ``state and local programs''
is reduced by $198,990,000.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the situation on our borders, as I have
said, has reached a critical juncture. I have given the statistics. The
Border Patrol releases more than 90 percent of the people they catch. I
want to repeat that. The Border Patrol releases through voluntary
repatriation more than 90 percent of the people they catch because the
system is overwhelmed. That probably sounds unbelievable to most
Americans. The unfortunate reality is that the Border Patrol simply
cannot take into custody the vast number of people that are
apprehended. Because of this, they must prioritize. Due to space
limitations, our Federal agents rightly give a higher priority to
aliens who represent potential criminal threats.
Mexican nationals who are apprehended are usually returned to Mexican
Government officials, voluntarily taken back across the border, and, in
the case of a recent pilot program, repatriated to the interior of
Mexico with the hope they are less likely to risk crossing again.
However, foreign nationals from other countries often get off much
easier. Because of the lack of detention space, the fact that their
home countries are farther away, and limitations in our immigration
laws, nationals from Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, and a number of
other countries are frequently apprehended by Federal officials, given
a court summons to report to deportation proceedings, and released.
Mr. President, let me tell you that again. They are apprehended, they
find out they are from Brazil, they say, OK, show up in court, show up
in court inside the United States, and then they are released. How many
of those do you think we ever see again?
The reality has become demoralizing to the men and women serving in
the Border Patrol. Word about this loophole has quickly traveled back
to Central and South American countries. Summonses to report to
deportation proceedings are frequently called ``permisos'' or
permission slips. Smugglers now take migrants as far as they can and
tell them to approach the first Border Patrol agent they see and turn
themselves in. After migrants obtain their permiso, they are then free
to continue their journey to Chicago, New York, or wherever there is a
job or a family member awaiting them.
One result of this loophole has been a dramatic increase in the
number of Brazilians crossing the border illegally.
Fox News channel, Monday, July 11, 2005. ``Other Than Mexicans?
Welcome to America.''

Los Angeles.--For many people around the world, the U.S.-
Mexico border is a doorway to opportunity--one that's
unlocked and wide open.
Brazilians, Chinese, Pakistanis and many others are joining
the tide of Mexicans who sneak across every day.
``OTMs include people from all over the world--South
America, the Middle East, the Caribbean,'' explained former
Immigration and Naturalization Service Special Agent Michael
W. Cutler, currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration
Studies. ``Anyone other than Mexican is an OTM.''
In 2001 5,251 ``OTMs'' were caught crossing over from
Mexico. Last year the number was more than 35,000.
In the first eight months of this fiscal year, it's up to
70,000 already--230 people a day--and they're only the ones
getting caught.
``The vulnerability of a porous border is a security
problem, and we always have to be concerned the real bad guys
will exploit these vulnerabilities,'' said Frank Sharry,
executive director of the National Immigration Forum.
Critics are concerned at the way OTMs are handled.
Mexicans are processed and sent back across the border
within a few hours but Mexico won't allow the United States
to send them citizens from other countries--and under U.S.
law they're entitled to a deportation hearing.
Because the immigration service lacks prison beds to hold
them, the vast majority of OTMs are released from custody and
asked to voluntarily return for their court date--which the
majority of them obviously do not do.
``They are given a piece of paper called a notice to
appear, which administratively starts the ball rolling for a
deportation hearing,'' said Cutler. ``Not surprisingly, fewer
than 15 percent show up.
``Our bureaucracy is not up to the challenge of protecting
this country, our Congress is not dealing with the reality in
a 21st Century way, our immigration laws are terribly out of
place,'' commented Sharry.

So what's the answer? While some say more legal immigration is
needed, others want the borders effectively closed. Both sides seem to
agree that giving illegal immigrants a free pass is no solution at all.
I read from another article, ``Loophole to America'':
In the silvery-blue light of dusk, 20 Brazilians glided
across the Rio Grande in rubber rafts propelled by Mexican
smugglers who leaned forward and breast-stroked through the
gentle current.
Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled ashore and
started looking for the Border Patrol. Their quick and well-
rehearsed surrender was part of a growing trend that is
demoralizing the Border Patrol and beckoning a rising number
of illegal immigrants from countries beyond Mexico.
``We used to chase them; now they're chasing us,'' Border
Patrol Agent Gus Balderas said as he frisked the Brazilians
and collected their passports late last month.
What happened next explains the odd reversal.
The group was detained overnight and given a court summons
that allowed them to stay in the United States pending an
immigration hearing. Then a Border Patrol agent drove them to
the McAllen bus station, where they continued their journey
into America.
The formal term for the court summons is a ``notice to
appear.'' Border Patrol agents have another name for it. They
call it a ``notice to disappear.''
Of the 8,908 notices to appear that the immigration court
in nearby Harlingen issued last year to non-Mexicans, 8,767
failed to show up for their hearings, according to statistics
compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office of
Immigration Review. That is a no-show rate of 98 percent.
The problem is that U.S. immigration authorities are short
on detention space. They can send Mexicans back across the
border within hours. But international law prohibits them
from sending non-Mexicans to Mexico. Instead, they must
arrange travel documents and flights directly to the
immigrant's country of origin. The process, which the U.S.
government pays for, takes weeks or even months.
The result is an unintended avenue of entry for a rapidly
growing class of illegal immigrants from Central and South
America who now see the Border Patrol more as a welcome wagon
than a barrier.
It is one example of the tears in the ``seamless web of
enforcement'' that immigration authorities vowed to establish
along the U.S.-Mexico border during the 1990s, when they
spent billions of dollars on strategically placed lights,
sensors, roads, fences and agents. It also helps explain why
the nation's illegal immigrant population has grown to record
levels despite the buildup.
The morning after Agent Balderas encountered the 20
Brazilians, another Border Patrol agent drove them to the
McAllen bus station where they headed toward their
destinations. They were armed with notices to appear that
carried them safely past Border Patrol checkpoints.
Two days later, Graice De Olveira-Silva and three
companions from Brazil were working for her relatives' house-
cleaning business in Atlanta.
It is a world turned upside down for the Border Patrol,
especially here in South Texas. Back in 1985, things were so
different that a woman was convicted on charges that she
drove illegal immigrants from El Salvador around the Border
Patrol and to the same McAllen bus station.
Now smugglers operate with impunity. After their loads of
immigrants splash

[[Page S8173]]

ashore, the smugglers slip back across the river.
As word of this border loophole filters back to Central and
South America, the volume of people coming to exploit it is
likely to grow, according to Border Patrol agents.
A Guatemalan arrested late last month in the McAllen sector
who gave his name as Hugo said that when word gets back home,
``Anyone who has a little money will be coming.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both articles be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From FoxNews.com, July 11, 2005]

Other Than Mexican? Welcome to America

Los Angeles.--For many people around the world, the U.S.-
Mexico border is a doorway to opportunity--one that's
unlocked and wide open.
Brazilians, Chinese, Pakistanis and many others are joining
the tide of Mexicans who sneak across every day.
``OTMs include people from all over the world--South
America, the Middle East, the Caribbean,'' explained former
Immigration and Naturalization Service Special Agent Michael
W. Cutler, currently a fellow at the Center for Immigration
Studies. ``Anyone other than Mexican is an OTM.''
In 2001, 5,251 ``OTMs'' were caught crossing over from
Mexico. Last year, the number was more than 35,000.
In the first eight months of this fiscal year, it's up to
70,000 already--230 people a day--and they're only the ones
getting caught. Hundreds more make it across undetected,
experts believe.
``The vulnerability of a porous border is a security
problem, and we always have to be concerned that the real bad
guys will exploit those vulnerabilities,'' said Frank Sharry,
executive director of the National Immigration Forum.
Critics are concerned at the way OTMs are handled.
Mexicans are processed and sent back across the border
within a few hours but Mexico won't allow the United States
to send them citizens from other countries--and under U.S.
law, they're entitled to a deportation hearing.
Because the immigration service lacks prison beds to hold
them, the vast majority of OTMs are released from custody and
asked to voluntarily return for their court date--which the
majority of them do not do.
``They are given a piece of paper called a notice to
appear, which administratively starts the ball rolling for a
deportation hearing,'' said Cutler. ``Not surprisingly, fewer
than 15 percent show up.''
``Our bureaucracy is not up to the challenge of protecting
this country, our congress is not dealing with the reality in
a 21st-century way, our immigration laws are terribly out of
place,'' commented Sharry.
So what's the answer? While some say more legal immigration
is needed, others want the borders effectively closed. Both
sides seem to agree that giving illegal immigrants a free
pass is no solution at all.
____

[From SignOnSanDiego.com, June 4, 2005]

Loophole to America

(By Jerry Kammer)

McAllen, TX.--In the silvery-blue light of dusk, 20
Brazilians glided across the Rio Grande in rubber rafts
propelled by Mexican smugglers who leaned forward and breast-
stroked through the gentle current.
Once on the U.S. side, the Brazilians scrambled ashore and
started looking for the Border Patrol. Their quick and well-
rehearsed surrender was part of a growing trend that is
demoralizing the Border Patrol and beckoning a rising number
of illegal immigrants from countries beyond Mexico.
``We used to chase them; now they're chasing us,'' Border
Patrol Agent Gus Balderas said as he frisked the Brazilians
and collected their passports late last month.
What happened next explains the odd reversal.
The group was detained overnight and given a court summons
that allowed them to stay in the United States pending an
immigration hearing. Then a Border Patrol agent drove them to
the McAllen bus station, where they continued their journey
into America.
The formal term for the court summons is a ``notice to
appear.'' Border Patrol agents have another name for it. They
call it a ``notice to disappear.''
Of the 8,908 notices to appear that the immigration court
in nearby Harlingen issued last year to non-Mexicans, 8,767
failed to show up for their hearings, according to statistics
compiled by the Justice Department's Executive Office of
Immigration Review. That is a no-show rate of 98 percent.
The problem is that U.S. immigration authorities are short
on detention space. They can send Mexicans back across the
border within hours. But international law prohibits them
from sending non-Mexicans to Mexico. Instead, they must
arrange travel documents and flights directly to the
immigrant's country of origin. The process, which the U.S.
government pays for, takes weeks or even months.
The result is an unintended avenue of entry for a rapidly
growing class of illegal immigrants from Central and South
America who now see the Border Patrol more as a welcome wagon
than a barrier.
It is one example of the tears in the ``seamless web of
enforcement'' that immigration authorities vowed to establish
along the U.S.-Mexico border during the 1990s, when they
spent billions of dollars on strategically placed lights,
sensors, roads, fences and agents. It also helps explain
why the nation's illegal immigrant population has grown to
record levels despite the buildup.
The morning after Agent Balderas encountered the 20
Brazilians, another Border Patrol agent drove them to the
McAllen bus station where they headed toward their
destinations. They were armed with notices to appear that
carried them safely past Border Patrol checkpoints.
Two days later, Graice De Olveira-Silva and three
companions from Brazil were working for her relatives' house-
cleaning business in Atlanta.
It is a world turned upside down for the Border Patrol,
especially here in South Texas. Back in 1985, things were so
different that a woman was convicted on charges that she
drove illegal immigrants from El Salvador around the Border
Patrol and to the same McAllen bus station.
Now smugglers operate with impunity. After their loads of
immigrants splash ashore, the smugglers slip back across the
river.
As word of this border loophole filters back to Central and
South America, the volume of people coming to exploit it is
likely to grow, according to Border Patrol agents.
Apprehension statistics bolster their assertion. Arrests of
non-Mexicans along the U.S.-Mexico border totaled 14,935 in
1995, 28,598 in 2000 and 65,814 last year. In the first eight
months of this federal fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, more
than 85,000 have been apprehended. Nearly all are no-shows at
their court hearings, but comprehensive federal figures are
not available.
Statistics aren't the only evidence. Interviews with
immigrants caught sneaking across the border recently suggest
the problem will only increase as Central and South American
migrants learn of the unintended opportunity.
``We thought they were going to deport us,'' said Ceidy
Milady Canales Alvarez, a 22-year-old Honduran recently
arrested by the Border Patrol in the McAllen sector. She said
a cousin in Atlanta had encouraged her to make the trip. So
she quit her $50-a-week job sewing shirts and pants that are
exported to the United States and crossed the border.
A Guatemalan arrested late last month in the McAllen sector
who gave his name as Hugo said that when word gets back home,
``Anyone who has a little money will be coming.''
In his office on Capitol Hill, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-
Texas., fumed at the news from South Texas and called for
emergency measures similar to those he adopted in 1989, when
he was the Border Patrol's agent in charge of the McAllen
sector.
``We need somebody with a stiff spine who can make a
decision and say, `We're going to build a temporary detention
facility,' '' Reyes said. ``We need to send a message that
anybody who crosses that border illegally is going to be
detained. That message gets back (to the sending countries)
instantaneously.''
Sixteen years ago, Reyes faced a rush of immigrants fleeing
the violence of Central American civil wars. Most of their
asylum claims were rejected, but only after the migrants had
moved far away, armed with notices to appear in court.
``They were coming across and flagging my men down,'' Reyes
said. ``It was destroying their morale.''
He got permission from the commissioner of the old
Immigration and Naturalization Service to establish a
temporary tent city with several thousand beds for detained
immigrants. That measure, coupled with an increase in the
number of agents at key border crossing points, shut off the
flow, Reyes said.
But the current director of immigration detention and
removal operations in South Texas wants nothing to do with
such emergency measures.
``Anytime you have temporary facilities, you have a
degradation of services, you have anxieties,'' said Marc
Moore, who administers 1,700 detention spaces.
Reyes reacted angrily to Moore's remarks. While a temporary
facility would be expensive and might not be as tidy as Moore
would like, Reyes said, ``All these things are worth it given
the alternative of the permiso syndrome.''
Central and South Americans call the notice to appear their
``permiso,'' which in Spanish means permission slip.
About 19,450 immigration detention beds are available
nationwide under funding levels established by Congress.
Although that is twice the number of beds Congress funded a
decade ago, it is far less than the number needed.
With the shortage of beds, immigration authorities must
choose between using a bed to hold a migrant with a serious
criminal record in the United States or one who has come
across the border without a criminal record. It's an easy
choice. They release the immigrant without the criminal
record.
Many Border Patrol agents express frustration over the
dilemma. They also worry that the high volume of non-Mexicans
is taking up much of their time and might be making it easier
for potential terrorists to slip past. Some said they spend
much of their 10-hour shift processing non-Mexicans.
One night last month when six agents were processing non-
Mexicans at the Border Patrol's Rio Grande City station, for
example,

[[Page S8174]]

only seven agents were patrolling the 84 miles of river under
their watch.
Agent Isidro Noyola, who that night detained illegal
immigrants from Brazil and Honduras, said, ``Our fear is that
when we are processing and not patrolling the border,
somebody else is going to be coming through.''
Another agent expressed astonishment at the cheekiness of
some of the migrants.
``They come up to you and say, `I want my permiso,' ''
Agent Larry Alvarez said. ``They want us to hurry up and get
them out of here.''
Others with the Border Patrol complained that they are
being reduced to little more than gun-toting travel agents in
uniforms.
In particular, the growth in the number of Brazilians
taking advantage of the loophole has been spectacular,
largely because of that country's poor economic conditions.
In 1995, the Border Patrol detained 260 Brazilians along the
Mexican border. Five years later, the number had grown to
1,241. But over the past eight months, it has soared to some
22,000.
The number of Brazilians floating north over the Rio Grande
might continue to increase because of a prime-time soap opera
in Brazil whose central character is smuggled across the
Mexican border and finds work as an exotic dancer in Miami.
Since its first episode aired in March, ``America'' has
become Brazil's most popular ``telenovela.'' In a country of
178 million, it has an audience of some 60 million.

Mr. McCAIN. I am not sure this amendment will solve that problem, but
I do believe a clear case is made for more detention beds. The
underlying bill adds 2,240 new detention beds for fiscal year 2006. The
amendment I am offering today further increases the number of detention
beds by 5,760 beds, bringing the number of new beds to the level we
authorized 7 months ago in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004.
Lest there be any mistake made about me authorizing on an
appropriations bill, this is authorized by the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act, as is the previous amendment.
I look forward to working with the managers of the bill on both of
these amendments. I am grateful the first amendment I proposed has been
agreed to.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1183 Withdrawn

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that amendment 1183 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1183.

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

(Purpose: To provide additional funding to counter man portable air
defense systems)

On page 91, line 23, insert before the period ``: Provided
further, That of the total funds made available under this
heading, not less than $140,000,000 shall be for activities
to demonstrate the viability, economic costs, and
effectiveness of adapting military technology to protect
commercial aircraft against the treat of man portable air
defense systems (MANPADS).

Mr. SCHUMER. I now ask that amendment 1183 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1183) was withdrawn.

Amendment No. 1184, as Modified

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I rise to call up amendment 1184, as modified, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and
Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1184, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To encourage the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate
an agency within the Department of Homeland Security as having
responsibility for countermeasures for man portable air defense systems
(MANPADS))

On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

Sec. 519. Upon completion of the Department of Homeland
Security's operational testing of man portable air defense
system (MANPAD) countermeasure systems for commercial
aircraft, the Secretary of Homeland Security is encouraged to
designate an agency within the Department as having
responsibility for managing the procurement and installation
of such systems, and may use any unobligated funds provided
under title I to establish an office within the designated
agency for that purpose.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is about something the
Senator from California and I have long cared about, arming our planes
with Stinger missiles.
It is my understanding the managers of the bill have cleared the
modified text. I ask unanimous consent the amendment as modified be
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1184), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1189

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1189.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and
Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 1189.

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

(Purpose: To provide that certain air cargo security programs are
implemented, and for other purposes)

On page 69, beginning on line 2, strike $4,452,318,000 and
all that follows through ``That'' on line 5, and insert the
following: ``$4,754,299,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2007, of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided,
That of the amount made available under this heading, not to
exceed $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out section
4051 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (Public Law 10809458; 118 Stat. 3728): Provided
further, That of the amount made available under this
heading, not to exceed $100,000,000 shall be available to
carry out the improvements described in section 4052(b) of
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(Public Law 10809458; 118 Stat. 3728): Provided further, That
of the amount made available under this heading, not to
exceed $200,000,000 shall be available to carry out the
research and development described section 4052(c) of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(Public Law 10809458; 118 Stat. 3728): Provided further,
That''.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my amendment addresses the issues of air
cargo security and how we need to be doing much more to protect our
Nation's skies. Right now, TSA security procedures leave a staggering
95 percent of cargo on passenger and all-cargo flights unscreened. In
addition, TSA security regulations are voluntary and go unenforced.
My amendment provides a total of $302 million for fiscal year 2006 to
improve air cargo security. We all know not only are there planes that
carry cargo exclusively but most commercial flights have cargo in the
belly of their plane.
I ask a rhetorical question: What good does it do to make sure all of
the passengers onboard the plane are screened so that there are no
explosives or any other weapons, yet allow cargo that would ride in the
belly of the plane to not be screened 19 out of 20 times, thus keeping
every passenger on that plane, as well as the pilots and everyone else,
at risk? The answer is obvious. It makes no sense.
For all the money we have put into passenger screening, we are
leaving a gaping hole alongside, and that is cargo screening. While
passenger screening has, indeed, improved rather significantly--anyone
who goes to any airport in this country knows that--cargo security has
not.
My amendment gives $200 million to improve the existing air cargo
security measure and $100 million for a competitive grant program to
fund private research and development into air cargo

[[Page S8175]]

security technology, and $2 million to fund a pilot program to evaluate
the use of blast-resistant cargo containers in commercial and all-cargo
aircraft.
Last year, I was proud to join our good friend, former Senator
Hollings from South Carolina, in cosponsoring an amendment included in
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and signed into
law by the President, authorizing these exact funding levels, totaling
almost $1 billion over 3 years to improve air cargo security.
My amendment would fully fund 1 year of the 3 years of authorization.
This is the second step in something that this body has found very
necessary; that is, adequately protecting us from terrorists who might
put bombs, explosives, or whatever in air cargo. The potential threat
from unchecked air cargo is just as serious, just as dangerous as a
threat from an actual terrorist boarding a commercial flight.
It has been reported that TSA considers the likelihood of a terrorist
bombing a passenger airplane to be between 35 and 65 percent. It is the
likely primary aviation target for terrorists.
An analysis done by the RAND Corporation on security measures at Los
Angeles International Airport determined that a bomb smuggled onto a
passenger plane by a passenger but through uninspected cargo posed the
greatest threat relative to other types of attack. RAND determined it
would be the most likely to succeed and, unfortunately, the most likely
to kill the most people.
Twenty-six percent of all air cargo in the United States is not
carried on cargo planes but rather on passenger flights, and only a
tiny fraction of that is inspected. Even more cause for alarm is the
fact that 46 percent of all international air cargo is carried on
international cargo flights. The best way to protect against
biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons being smuggled onto a flight
is to ensure that as much cargo as possible is screened through
advanced detection systems. However, TSA only screens 5 percent of the
nearly 3 billion tons of cargo carried on commercial flights each year.
My amendment does three things. It gives $200 million to improve
existing air cargo security measures, in addition to the $50 million
already recommended by the committee for air cargo security activities.
Right now, TSA's principal means for checking cargo are through known
shipper programs where so-called ``trusted'' shippers can avoid
additional screening in exchange for following stricter security
protocols. However, TSA does little to ensure that shippers are
trustworthy and have adequate security measures in place. In addition,
enrollment in a known shipper program is voluntary, with only a third
of domestic shippers currently participating. Since the TSA screens
such a small percentage of cargo, it is very likely something could be
missed.
It is clear we need an additional line of defense. That is why I am
proposing such a significant investment in new screening equipment and
security infrastructure so the TSA can check more cargo and protect
more flights.
Second, the amendment adds $100 million for the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish and carry out a competitive grant program to
encourage the development of advanced air cargo security technology.
The amendment will fund research into new cargo screening technology,
including the use of x rays, CT scans, and chemical trace detection to
speed up the screening process and allow more cargo to be screened more
effectively.
Third, my amendment would fully fund a pilot program to evaluate the
use of blast-resistant cargo containers, cargo baggage containers. You
put the baggage in a container and even if, God forbid, it explodes, it
cannot damage the plane. The 9/11 Commission recommended every
passenger aircraft have at least one hardened container in which
questionable or suspicious cargo can be shipped to reduce or eliminate
the risk to passengers in the case of an explosion.
I know there are many competing demands for Homeland Security
funding, but we are not investing enough time, effort, and resources
into air cargo security. This amendment will help address this critical
area. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Amendment No. 1190

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 1190.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1190.

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

(Purpose: To appropriate $70,000,000 to identify and track hazardous
materials shipments)

On page 71, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to developing and implementing a
system for identifying and tracking shipments of hazardous
materials (as defined in section 385.402 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations) by truck using global positioning system
technology, $70,000,000.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is about truck security
and how we need to be doing much more to protect our highways and
communities from the threat of truck bombs and stolen hazardous
material.
Madrid was a wake-up call for us. And now London is a second wake-up
call. Obviously, there is a lot of focus on rail. I support that focus
and had my amendment which was going to add another $300 million to the
$100 million already requested in rail security, but I have joined
efforts with the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and the Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed,
and others to have one mass transit amendment which will have an amount
far greater than the amount I was going to propose--and we will also
have a colloquy--so that money can go to more things.
The MTA, in my area, the leading mass transit agency that runs New
York City subways, the Long Island railroad, Metro-North, carrying
millions of passengers every year--billions of passengers every year,
and millions, I guess, every week--has said they cannot spend the money
on what they need, such as explosive-detecting dogs, which is one of
the best types of ways to stop explosives. But that is rail security.
As I said, that will come for another time in debate, I believe,
tomorrow.
But what Madrid also teaches us and London also teaches us is that
terrorists look for weak pressure points. If we strengthen air, they
may look to rail. If we strengthen rail, they may look to trucks. If we
strengthen trucks, they may look to our ports. So it is extremely
important we have a multifaceted war on terror at home.
As you know, I support a strong war on terror abroad. And we are
fighting a strong war on terror abroad, maybe too strong in the eyes of
some. But we also have to have not only a good offense in the war on
terror, we have to have a good defense. We have to look across the
board. It has been a great concern of mine that we are not doing enough
in various areas. I have tried to put my efforts into the areas where
there is clearly a great danger compared to meager effort. Truck
security is one of those areas.
My amendment gives $70 million--not a large sum in this very large
budget--to the Transportation Security Administration to develop and
implement a system for identifying and tracking hazardous material
shipments using global positioning system technology.
According to the 1997 Census of Interstate Commerce, 740,000 Hazmat
shipments travel by truck each day in the United States. Approximately
50,000 trips are made daily by gasoline tankers, and many of them hold
as much fuel as a Boeing 757. These trips often end with a late-night
delivery to a deserted gas station.
Trucks also cross the country carrying potentially deadly chemicals,
such as ammonium nitrate, chlorine, and cyanide. An attack with these
types of chemicals could cause an even greater level of destruction
because these chemicals can form clouds of

[[Page S8176]]

deadly fumes which would affect individuals miles away from the site of
a terrorist incident.
My amendment simply provides TSA with the financial resources to look
into how we go about monitoring what has been shown to us as a
vulnerability within our existing plan to secure our country from
terrorist threats.
Have we forgotten the initial attack on the World Trade Center in
1993 and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City in 1995, both of which were the result of truck bombs?
While the Nation has completely revamped aviation security since the
September 11 attacks--we have a longer way to go, but we have come a
long way--we have done next to nothing to secure our country from the
danger that can be caused by a truck filled with explosives, chemicals,
or biological weapons.
Today, on their own, many of the larger trucking companies have GPS
systems on their trucks, like an ever-growing percentage of American
automobiles. Frankly, they have put the GPS systems on often to deal
with theft as much as to deal with the threat from terrorism. The
systems allow the companies to know where the trucks in the fleet are.
If the truck moves off a route, the company knows. If a truck is
stolen, the company knows.
I believe it is important the TSA take a similar approach and create
a nationwide tracking system so that if a terrorist should steal or
hijack a truck loaded with dangerous materials, we will find them
quickly. It would be very similar to when a plane goes off track, we
now know that. F-16s are scrambled. We have learned that here in the
Capitol over the last year, twice. The same thing can be done with
trucks, not very expensively.
My amendment provides TSA with tremendous flexibility and much-needed
funds to address truck security and have none of the mandates or the
high costs to industry that the ATA alleges.
In addition, my amendment specifically limits the type of commercial
vehicles and content subject to tracking to the most dangerous and
high-hazard materials. It is not going to affect every truck shipment.
Both the TSA and DOT are currently working on improving truck-
tracking systems and background checks for commercial driver's licenses
with a Hazmat endorsement. My amendment would help continue and build
on those existing efforts, which have been slow, in part, due to lack
of funding.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help close this
hole in our Nation's homeland security.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I can get the attention of the Senator
from New York, as I understand it, we reached an understanding on your
amendment No. 1184, as modified. Are you going to send a modification
to the desk? We can just agree to it now.
Mr. SCHUMER. I believe I have sent the modification to the desk.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's
amendment No. 1184 be agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. Be?
Mr. GREGG. Be agreed to, unless the Senator wishes to oppose it.
Mr. SCHUMER. No. I think I have asked that already. But if you want
to do it twice, maybe it will increase my legislative batting average.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. It has been agreed to? OK, we missed that.
Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague from New Hampshire would yield, I also
withdrew amendment No. 1183, as per our agreement.
Mr. GREGG. All right. Great. So that leaves us with your amendment
No. 1189, dealing with air cargo, and amendment No. 1190, dealing with
hazardous materials; is that correct?
Mr. SCHUMER. Correct.
Mr. GREGG. We are on the same page. That is good. That is a starting
point.

Amendment No. 1171

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to request
the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1171, Senator McCain's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. It is in
order to request the yeas and nays on that amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 1171.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Thank you.

Amendments Nos. 1189 and 1190

Mr. President, as to the two proposals by the Senator from New York,
I am going to make a point of order that both proposals exceed the
budget allocation which we received. Obviously, they are well-
intentioned, and they are reasonably confined compared to some of the
other proposals we have received this morning in the billions of
dollars. These are in the hundreds of millions--in one case even under
$100 million.
The fact is, in both instances, the Department does not believe it is
necessary to do this at this time. They believe they have proposals in
the pipeline which will address air cargo, and they have proposals in
the pipeline which will deal with hazardous material shipments. But as
of right now, they are not ready to deal with these additional dollars
in a way that will use them constructively. So the Department opposes
both of these proposals based essentially on the fact that they are
pilot programs, and their initiatives in these areas are not ripe
enough, are not at the level of capacity yet to handle these types of
dollars.
As the Senator from New York has noted, this is really a question for
us, as a Congress, and for the Homeland Security agency, as an agency,
to allocate resources where they can get the most return and the most
effective use. And within the limited dollars we have--and they are
fairly significant dollars; actually, the increase in homeland security
is significant--the focus has been on areas where we think we can get
constructive results quickly with the dollars put into the accounts,
specifically: weapons of mass destruction, water patrol--I have
mentioned this before a number of times--and other items like that.
So, Mr. President, these dollars at this time exceed the budget and,
therefore, I make a point of order against each of these two
amendments. And so, on each amendment, beginning with 1189, I make a
point of order that under section 302(f) of the Budget Act that the
amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's allocation
under 302(f).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is making it against 1189?
Mr. GREGG. Yes, 1189.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act as
applicable to 1189 and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a budget point of order against
amendment No. 1190 by the Senator from New York. It is the same point
of order I just made against 1189.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments talking
about an issue of great concern, and that is transit security. I know
my colleagues are working as we speak. I will be working with them--the
Senator from New Hampshire; the Senator from West Virginia; my
colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama--to raise the amount of
resources devoted to transit security. The sticking point at the moment
is how much we can raise these funds. I have urged a significant
increase because of the significant threat.

[[Page S8177]]

We were all shocked last Thursday when we became aware of the news
that 52 innocent transit riders in London were killed and over 700
injured in a series of cowardly attacks in the heart of London on their
transit system, both on their underground system and their aboveground
bus system. This horrific attack was reminiscent of other attacks in
Madrid, Moscow, Israel, and elsewhere. All these attacks are
specifically targeted to public transportation. We know this is a
target for terrorists. We also understand that our system in the United
States is still vulnerable to those types of attacks.
Every workday, 14 million Americans take a train or a bus. To put
that in perspective, that is roughly 28 times the population of the
State of Wyoming. Each and every day these 14 million Americans get on
a bus or take a metro subway to work and to other necessary obligations
and appointments. We know, quite clearly, that these transit systems
are the prime target of terrorists. Subways, light rail, buses, and
ferries are designed for easy access and to move large numbers of
people efficiently. As a result, they do not have all the panoplies
today of protection that you see at airline terminals, for example.
The facts are clear. There have already been numerous attacks on
transit. We have 6,000 transit systems in the United States, with 14
million riders every workday. I do not think anyone could disagree with
those facts or disagree with the fact that we have to do more to harden
and protect our transit systems.
Yet the Federal Government's response to these facts has been
underwhelming at best. In contrast to aviation, where we have invested
$9 in security improvements per passenger, to date we have invested
roughly $0.006 per passenger, a little over half a cent, to protect
transit passengers throughout the country.
Now, I think we have to do much better. Perhaps we can never reach
the level of protection for airlines because of the nature of that
process--we can put screening devices in terminals; we can have
elaborate followthrough in terms of passenger lists and identifying who
is getting on which aircraft--but we have to do more in public transit.
That is a consensus, a conclusion, I hope we all reach. Again, I think
the debate today and tomorrow will be about how much we can do.
Now, I will make the case we have to do much more. I am working with
my colleagues. I hope we can achieve a sufficient level of investment
in transit security that is commensurate with the threat that has
materialized just a few days ago, and, unfortunately, is likely to
materialize again here or across the globe.
Now, after September 11, when I was serving as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I held a hearing on the
topic of transit security. At that time it was clear that we needed to
do more than simply rely on the Federal Transit Administration, whose
expertise is building systems, not essentially making them secure.
Their efforts were commendable but very limited. They were reviewing
security procedures. They were trying to disseminate information. But
they were not able to because of their expertise as well as because of
the resources needed to go in and start making significant capital
improvements, supporting operational changes, doing all those things
that are absolutely key to protecting our security systems, our transit
systems.
After the hearing, Senator Sarbanes and I asked the General
Accounting Office to do a study on transit security. That report was
completed in 2002. They found that one-third of all terrorist attacks
throughout the world were directed against transit. Yet we have nowhere
committed the resources commensurate with that level of activity. And
even more telling was the GAO's conclusion that, in their words,
``insufficient funding is the most significant obstacle agencies face
in trying to make their systems more safe and secure.''
Typically, in the United States, transit systems are local systems.
They depend upon riders' fares, local and State subsidies, and all of
these sources are highly constrained in terms of coming up with the
extra dollars to ensure protection of the system. Because of these
conclusions from the GAO report, from our hearings, Senator Sarbanes
and I have come to the floor on several occasions to argue for
additional funding. We have done this with respect to supplemental
appropriations bills. We have done it with respect to other Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bills. And indeed, we also tried to
suggest increased funding during the National Intelligence Reform Act
debate.
I have been pleased to work with many colleagues, particularly
Senator Shelby, chairman of the Banking Committee. Last year we were
able to pass authorizing legislation in the Senate that would have
created a threat-based transit security policy, along with authorizing
$3.5 billion to help transit systems deter, detect, and respond to
terrorist attacks. While the Senate did its part in passing the
legislation, regrettably it was not passed by the House, nor was it
supported with the kind of energy and enthusiasm by the administration
which is so critical to achieving the objective of improved transit
security. We are here again today on this legislation, in the wake of
London, arguing for additional resources so that we can meet this
threat to our transit systems.
There are some who might oppose these efforts. They might say it is
too much money. Frankly, when you look at what has to be done--6,000
transit systems--when you look at the amount of training, the amount of
capital equipment--just in terms of communications, for example--that
is a huge number. And when you measure that with the threat--a third of
all terrorist attacks over the last several decades have been directed
at transit, and we have seen it in Madrid, in London, in Moscow, in
Tokyo, where a Japanese fanatical group attempted to disperse a
chemical agent in the tunnels--the threat is there; the resources are
not.
Since 1992, the Federal Government actually has invested $68 billion
to construct transit systems, but we haven't yet been able to commit
ourselves to protecting those systems adequately. It has been estimated
that roughly $6 million is necessary to provide the kind of protection
that at least provides a minimal level of protection. These investments
range from fencing to high-tech explosive detection systems, to
communication upgrades. All of these things could be put in place,
enhancing significantly the security of our systems.
In the wake of London, in the wake of Madrid, in the wake of the
transit attacks in Russia, I don't think it is too much to ask to spend
12 cents per transit passenger, as some amendments have proposed, to
protect them.
I have also heard that we should direct all of our efforts to threat-
based approaches--don't single out transit, don't single out aviation,
any particular mode of transportation or infrastructure. But frankly,
the attractiveness--and I say this with regret--of transit to
terrorists as a target is so compelling that this argument also does
not hold water.
I also hope that we can continue to support these efforts,
understanding that the primary responsibility is local. These systems
are local or regional. The States and the localities have an
obligation. But the reality is--and I don't think I have to spend too
much time saying this--most transit systems are already just scraping
by in terms of keeping their ridership up, making sure fares are
affordable, making sure that they can make improvements in their basic
rolling stock and facilities. These additional resources for security
properly could be supported by the Federal Government.
We also authorized and created a few years ago the Department of
Homeland Security. It is the appropriations for that Department we are
discussing today. With respect to that Department, there was an
acknowledgment that the Federal Government was stepping up to the issue
of protecting all of our vital infrastructure, including transit, that
we do have an obligation. We have assumed that obligation with the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other steps to
protect all of our vital infrastructure. Indeed, our situation with
respect to transit is one that cries out for additional resources.
The President just ordered, in the wake of London, our transit
systems to go to alert level orange. The threat is

[[Page S8178]]

there. I hope our efforts over today and tomorrow will not only
recognize this threat but match it with commensurate resources so that
we can begin to seriously protect our transit systems and our riders.
One other point, too. Our transit systems--buses, subways--are
integral parts of our economy. That is one reason why they are so
attractive to terrorists. The attack in London was planned so that the
bombs would go off right in the midst of the financial district, not
only with the intent to cause the loss of life, the symbolic and
psychological horror of such a dastardly act, but also to cripple the
economy. If a successful attack is conducted against a transit system
in a major city, it will not be measured just in terms of casualties
but also in potentially huge economic losses. Our efforts today are not
only sensible because of the threat, sensible because of the need to
protect Americans in areas where they are vulnerable, but to avoid the
kind of economic chaos that could result from a successful attack
against transit.
I hope in the next few hours we can come together with support for
these efforts. I know Senators Byrd and Gregg, Shelby and Sarbanes, and
others, are working toward that end so we can come up with sufficient
resources to meet this great threat.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1075

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No.
1075 to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006.
First, I acknowledge the hard work of Senators Gregg and Byrd and
thank them for their diligence in coming to a consensus on this crucial
legislation. The balance between enhanced security and responsible
stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars is a fine one. I applaud their
attention to both, and I support the legislation.
In an effort to increase the sound management of homeland security
funds, I offer an amendment that would increase the funding of the
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program by $10 million. I am
joined on this amendment by Senators Collins and Lieberman, the chair
and ranking members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee, as well as 17 other Senators. I thank them all for their
support. I believe that redirecting funds to the EMPG Program, which
has a proven track record, is both fiscally responsible and
strategically sound.
The EMPG Program assists the emergency management agencies and
programs of the States, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and
local and tribal governments to prepare for all hazards and disasters,
both natural and manmade. The EMPG Program is the only source of
Federal assistance that supports comprehensive emergency management,
coordination, and planning.
Funding for this program is split 50/50 between the Federal and State
governments. This unique and important program provides States and
localities with the flexibility to allocate funds according to risk,
which helps address their most urgent needs in disaster mitigation,
preparedness, response and recovery. Most importantly, EMPG funds are
also used to pay for personnel costs, including training and exercises.
This aspect of the program is important given the tight budget
constraints and increased counterterrorism responsibilities currently
faced by State and local governments. States also have the flexibility
to develop intrastate emergency management systems that encourage the
building of partnerships which include government, business, volunteer,
and community organizations.
As Governor of Ohio, I had first-hand experience with the EMPG
Program and would note some examples that illustrate its effectiveness.
Since 2002, Ohio has issued eight major disaster declarations and two
emergency declarations. The 2005 winter storm was the most widespread
disaster in Ohio's history, with 59 counties declared disaster areas
with damage assessments that exceeded $260 million. EMPG funding has
played a critical role in allowing Ohio State and local emergency
management agencies to plan for these disasters, respond in a timely
manner to those areas hit hardest, and pay the salaries of local
emergency management staff.
Additionally, Ohio has elected to use a portion of the annual EMPG
funding for special projects, such as local emergency operations center
construction. This is one of the few funding streams that allow for
brick and mortar type projects. At any given time there are several
counties benefiting from the use of these dollars.
Ohio is not the only State that has benefited from the EMPG Program.
For example, EMPG funds play a critical role in helping the State of
Alabama develop its plans to respond to natural disasters, particularly
hurricanes. EMPG grants have been used for contingency planning,
including evacuation plans, debris removal plans, and plans for
postdisaster distribution of critical aid to those affected by the
storms.
The State of Kansas is struck by nearly 50 tornadoes every spring.
Without local government emergency management staff paid for by EMPG
funding, there wouldn't be adequate coordination to help respond to
those tornadoes in a timely manner.
York County, ME, has had 12 declared disasters in 12 years, including
coastal flooding and severe ice storms. The York County Office of
Emergency Management works with 29 towns on the full range of emergency
management, including preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation.
Without the help of EMPG funds they would have only one full-time
person; with EMPG support they have three.
Additionally, during last year's devastating hurricane season, the
EMPG Program proved its worth. The Emergency Management Assistance
Compact, which is funded by the EMPG, enabled 38 States to provide $15
million worth of aid and over 800 personnel to support Florida and the
other impacted States for over 85 days.
These are just a few examples of how EMPG funds are used to help
State and local governments prepare for the worst situations. They
demonstrate that EMPG funds are the backbone of emergency management
and disaster response in America.
Many of the people who have been involved in emergency management in
the States have been impacted by the budget crisis we are experiencing
in many States throughout the country. In Ohio, for example, they
substantially cut back on the State funds for local and State
government. Again, they are being asked to do the ordinary work that
they do in emergency management and, at the same time, take on added
responsibilities to deal with the issue of responding to terrorists.
I will now address how EMPG funds have been spent relative to other
grant programs. The Senator from New Hampshire has noted how billions
of dollars of Department of Homeland Security grant money remains
unspent by State and local government. However, according to the
Department of Homeland Security, EMPG funds are spent rapidly compared
to other programs. In other words, there may be a problem with some of
these other funds getting through to the folks who need them, but in
this particular case, these moneys flow very rapidly.
In other words, if Congress appropriates extra EMPG funding, it will
not go unused. Although both Congress and President Bush have
recognized the importance of this program, it still faces a shortfall.
The disaster relief fund is our Government's rainy day fund, and it is
robust in comparison to other programs in this bill. Therefore, my
amendment would take $10 million from this $2 billion account to
increase EMPG funding. Increased EMPG funding will ensure strong
management and planning prior to any disaster. In other words, when
asked about the logic of taking $10 million out of the $2 billion
account for the disaster relief fund, our arguments would be, as a
result of this additional money, we can do a lot better job of
preventing more of these disasters in the long run and make sure the
dollars that are spent in the disaster relief fund are spent in the
most efficient and effective way.
Increased EMPG funding will ensure strong management and planning
prior

[[Page S8179]]

to any disaster. In other words, redirecting these funds will enhance
the effectiveness of every disaster relief fund dollar directed toward
response and recovery and ensure we get the biggest bang for the buck
when it comes to Federal disaster relief funding.
Again, there are some other funds in the Homeland Security
appropriations. It was our best judgment that going after the disaster
relief fund was the most logical way to pay and add this $10 million to
the EMPG program.
As I mentioned, this amendment is sponsored by both the chairman and
ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee which has the oversight responsibility for homeland security,
as well as 17 other Senators, including Senator Grassley, chairman of
the Finance Committee, which is significant.
In closing, we must prepare for terrorist attacks in addition to
natural disasters. The EMPG program is a proven method of doing this.
It is my strong belief that by enhancing the EMPG funding, we increase
the capacity of State and local emergency management agencies to get
the job done when the needs of our citizens are the greatest.
Once again I applaud the efforts of Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd,
and I ask my colleagues to support increased funding for the EMPG
program.
Mr. President, I was going to ask for the yeas and nays, but the fact
is, we are negotiating now with Senator Gregg's staff and Senator Gregg
and perhaps we can find some other language that might be more
acceptable to them. I am not going to ask for the yeas and nays now. If
we are unable to reach a compromise, then I will ask for the yeas and
nays at a later date.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, does the Senator
wish to request that the pending amendments be set aside so his
amendment can be called up?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I do request that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an amendment
numbered 1075.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase funds for emergency management performance
grants, with an offset)

On page 82, line 12, strike ``$180,000,000'' and insert
``$190,000,000''.
On page 85, line 17, strike ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert
``$1,990,000,000''.

Mr. VOINOVICH. 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. REID. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1218

Mr. REID. Under the authority of the agreement pending before the
Senate, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Byrd, proposes
an amendment numbered 1218.

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

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for intercity passenger rail
transportation, freight rail, and mass transit)

On page 77, line 18, strike ``$2,694,300,000'' and insert
``$4,025,300,000''.
On page 78, line 13, strike ``$365,000,000'' and insert
``$1,696,000,000''.
On page 79, strike lines 1 through 4 and insert the
following:
(D) $265,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail
transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code) and freight rail and $1,166,000,000 for
transit security grants; and

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________