To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare a report on activities to ensure that the agriculture quarantine inspection monitoring program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is operating effectively and to ensure that States are receiving adequate guidance.

[[Page S7306]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued

Mr. SCHUMER. 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. GREGG. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
arrival of the Senator from West Virginia, he be recognized to offer
two amendments, and that upon the disposition of those two amendments,
the Senator from Maine be recognized to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I was just saying as I came in, I saw
these young pages here--I have been around here quite a long time, but
I haven't gotten used to these. Our country has put a man on the Moon
and brought him back to Earth again, but it hasn't yet perfected a
really good public address system. A Senator such as myself is not used
to the public address system and has to learn how to use the ones we
have.
As I was saying, I said the person who really introduced court
reporting in the Roman Senate was Cicero, which I will discuss at
another time.

Amendment No. 4557

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, when the President sent his budget to the
Congress in February, it was based on a false premise. The President's
budget assumed that the Appropriations Committees would raise the
aviation fees on airline passengers by $1.23 billion. The President and
his advisers at the Office of Management and Budget were aware that the
Congress would not approve this tax increase on airline passengers
because the administration tried a similar proposal last year, and the
Congress responded with a bipartisan no. Thus, the President's budget
is kind of a hollow one--h-o-l-l-o-w, hollow. It leaves a gaping $1.23
billion hole in the homeland security budget.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran,
provided the subcommittee with some additional resources, but the fact
remains that this bill is still $515 million below the President's
request and $350 million lower than the bill that was passed by the
House of Representatives last month.
The amendment I am offering today attempts to rectify this
discrepancy. My amendment provides an additional $350 million for
border security infrastructure enhancements, and it is fully paid for.
I am pleased that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, is
working with me on this amendment. As we continue to hire more Border
Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement officials, we need to
give them the tools they need to do their job, and we need to start
paying for those tools now so they will be available as more and more
Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officials are hired and
trained.
The Border Patrol needs new helicopters because the average age of
its helicopters is nearly 40 years. The average age of our Customs
primary fixed-wing aircraft is 30 years. All of our border enforcement
officials, including the newly hired officials, need more vehicles,
including all-terrain vehicles, high endurance vehicles, and even more
buses to transport and remove illegal aliens.
Customs and Border Protection has a requirement for 18 unmanned
aerial vehicles, or UAVs. The Senate-passed immigration bill authorizes
more UAVs. Yet the only one we had operating on our border crashed in
the desert this past spring.
The amendment I am offering provides real dollars for our aging
border infrastructure. It provides $90 million for additional fencing,
tactical border infrastructure, and facilities. It provides $105
million for air and marine items, such as new helicopters, unmanned
aerial vehicles, the standing up of all planned northern border air
wings, and the facilities to house and maintain these aircraft. It
provides $55 million for replacement vehicles for our border and
immigration personnel, and it also provides $15 million for the ongoing
Information Technology Modernization Program at Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
The President's budget requested $47 million in direct appropriations
for the Business Transformation Program at U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services. Because of the hollowness of the President's
budget submission, these funds were not included in the bill reported
out of committee. The program is a multiyear effort to modernize
immigration benefits services.
So this amendment will help to reduce the rate of fraud in the
program and to ensure the security and the integrity of the immigration
system. This amendment provides the $47 million requested by the
President for this program.
Finally, my amendment adds $38 million for fraud detection and
national security activities at USCIS. This $38 million will add 100
new positions to enable FDNS to conduct benefit fraud assessments of
additional immigration benefits, including training efforts necessary
to further enhance the background checking process. We must have the
technology and trained personnel in place now if we are to ensure that
only those individuals who are legally allowed to be in this country
are obtaining benefits and other privileges.

How is the amendment paid for? The amendment is fully paid for
through increases in existing fees on non-U.S. citizens.
Border security in this country must be more than just a political
slogan in this campaign year. Do you know this is a campaign year? I
do. I am running. Border security must be one of the Nation's top
priorities. The people out there watching through those lenses will
agree with that. Border security must be one of this Nation's top
priorities.
The United States is on track to hire over 6,500 new Border Patrol
agents and immigration enforcement officers. But what happens once they
are on the job? Do we send them to the border without weapons, without
radios, without trucks and Jeeps? Without this amendment, without these
resources, we will be telling our Border Patrol agents in essence to
stem the tide of illegal immigration with little more than a polite
smile--little more than a polite smile. Asking illegal immigrants to
please turn around just won't cut it. Our Border Patrol must have the
law enforcement resources to get the job done.
If we are truly serious about securing our borders--and not just
engaging in hollow rhetoric--then we will put real dollars on the
border. I commend my chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Gregg, Ms. Murray, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 4557.

Mr. BYRD. 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:

(Purpose: To provide additional resources for border infrastructure and
program integrity initiatives)

At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

TITLE VI

BORDER SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE ENHANCEMENTS

Sec. 601. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust fees charged
by the Department against any non-United States citizen by
notice in the Federal Register no later than January 1, 2007,
to achieve not less than $350,000,000 in additional receipts
by September 30, 2007: Provided, That the

[[Page S7307]]

Secretary may adjust only those fees authorized under the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act: Provided further,
That this adjustment shall be in addition to fees authorized
under 8 United States Code 1356.
(b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be
deposited in the accounts as provided by 8 United States Code
1356: Provided, That of the total amount collected pursuant
to subsection (a) the Secretary shall transfer the following
amounts:
(1) $25,000,000 to Customs and Border Protection ``Salaries
and Expenses'' for vehicle replacement;
(2) $105,000,000 to Customs and Border Protection ``Air and
Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and
Procurement'' for air asset replacement and air operations
facilities upgrades;
(3) $90,000,000 to Customs and Border Protection
``Construction'';
(4) $30,000,000 to Immigration and Customs Enforcement
``Salaries and Expenses'' for vehicle replacement; and,
(5) $15,000,000 to Immigration and Customs Enforcement
``Automation Modernization''.
(c) Of the total amount collected pursuant to subsection
(a) $85,000,000 shall be made available to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services: Provided, That of the
additional amount available, $47,000,000 shall be for
Business Transformation and $38,000,000 shall be for Fraud
Detection and National Security initiatives.
(d) Amounts deposited under paragraph (b) shall remain
available until expended for the activities and services
described in paragraphs (b) and (c).
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from West
Virginia for this amendment. Everything that he is proposing to fund in
this amendment is needed and is critical. There is no question but that
the agencies to which he is giving these additional dollars for the
purposes of refurbishing both air and vehicle fleets are in dire need
of these dollars, as he cited in his statement. The aircraft owned by
Customs is 30 years beyond its useful life. Helicopters are averaging
20 years beyond their useful life. The vehicles in which these folks go
out to protect our borders often break down and many times they can't
fulfill their missions because the vehicles are not up to the capacity
that is needed.
So this is a good amendment. It is a needed amendment. I support it.
Senator Byrd has found an offset which is a reasonable offset. It
increases the fees for non-Americans who seek to use the Immigration
Service and the Customs Service--mostly the Immigration Service, I
believe. This will not raise blue slip issues. So I am in support of
this amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4557 be
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4557) was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his support. I ask
unanimous consent that further consideration of the amendment be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4559

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President of the United States, in his
January State of the Union Address, told America: ``The enemy has not
lost the desire or the capability to attack us.'' He was right. I am
sure the President is correct about that. But some of the speech
writers and policy writers for the administration seem to be living in
alternative worlds.
After the administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World to
operate terminals in six major U.S. ports, the administration asserted
that it has a robust, layered security system for our ports. Yet the
White House has proposed for the second straight year now to eliminate
the Port Security Grant Program.
How serious is the administration about port security when it decides
to allow Dubai Ports World to control six major U.S. ports? How serious
is the administration when it underfunds port security? How serious are
they about port security when Customs and Border Protection inspects
only 5 percent of the 11 million containers that come into the country
each year? How serious is the administration about port security when
the Coast Guard inspects only one-third of the foreign ports that trade
with our country? How serious is the administration when the Coast
Guard Deepwater budget for replacing its ships, planes, and helicopters
will not be completed until 2026? How old will I be then, in 2026?
Well, it really doesn't matter. That is 20 years away.
How serious are they when it takes over 11 months to make grant funds
available to ports for needed security measures?
My amendment would provide $648 million to fill critical gaps in our
paper-thin--paper-thin--do you see how thin this paper is--our paper-
thin port security programs. The amendment would provide resources for
more container inspection equipment and personnel, more port
inspections, more Coast Guard ships, more Coast Guard planes that are
essential to securing our borders, and more port security grants.
Currently, only 5 percent of all of the cargo containers entering the
United States are physically inspected by opening the containers. Now,
this is paper-thin security. My amendment would fund 60 more cargo
container imaging machines at our seaports and rail border crossings
that can view inside a container. It will also fund the hiring of 354
additional Customs and Border Protection officers to inspect these
containers and address anomalies in cargo containers that may be
triggered by the radiation portal monitors deployed at the ports.
Currently, the Coast Guard has only 82 inspectors to conduct facility
investment compliance at domestic ports and 34 inspectors to review
security plans at foreign ports. Of the 144 countries that conduct
maritime trade with our country, the Coast Guard has assessed security
at only 51. At the current rate of inspections, Coast Guard inspectors
will visit countries that trade with the United States only once every
4 years. Now, this is paper-thin security.
Under my amendment, the Coast Guard would complete the assessment of
all 144 countries every 2 years. My amendment would also provide the
Coast Guard with funding to conduct random spot checks of all domestic
port facilities and assess the vulnerability of our most strategic
ports here at home.
Domestically, the Coast Guard inspects the 3,064 U.S. facilities that
are subject to the Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations
just once per year. The Coast Guard has no funding to conduct random
spot checks of these facilities. My amendment includes funding for
approximately 80 new positions to establish a robust spot check program
at each Coast Guard sector office, an important element in any
enforcement regime, wouldn't you think so?
The Coast Guard has completed vulnerability assessments at 55
militarily and economically strategic ports. Currently, no funding is
available to update these assessments which were completed 2 years ago.
But my amendment would allow the Coast Guard to reassess the
vulnerability of approximately 10 ports.
The condition of Coast Guard ships and planes is declining rapidly.
These assets spend more and more time out of service. For example,
total patrol boat hours in 2004 were 25 percent lower than in 1998.
Current Coast Guard maritime patrol airplanes can only provide half of
the hours required to meet operational commitments. At the same time,
funding constraints require maintenance on these aging assets to be
deferred more and more every year.
My amendment provides $184 million for the Coast Guard to buy new
patrol boats, maintain existing cutters, buy new maritime patrol
aircraft, and arm its helicopters for homeland defense in U.S. ports
and harbors.
Coast Guard Patrol boats are operating in theater less today than
they were in 1998. Total boat hours were only 75,000 in 2004, compared
to the 1998 baseline of approximately 100,000 hours. The decline in
operational hours has been the result of aging assets and the loss of 8
patrol boats deployed to the Middle East for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Under the Coast Guard's Deepwater modernization plan, this gap won't be
closed until 2012 at the earliest. Funding in my amendment would enable
the Coast Guard to purchase 2 additional patrol boats for a total of 5
in fiscal year 2007. This will provide the Coast Guard with 6,000
desperately needed Deepwater patrol boat hours in drug and migrant
transit zones.
Finally, my amendment includes $190 million for port security grants,
which would bring fiscal year 2007 funding to $400 million. The Coast
Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed

[[Page S7308]]

through 2012 for security at our ports. To date, only 15 percent of
that amount has been funded despite the fact that United States ports
handle over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade. Last year, Homeland
Security was able to fund only 24 percent of the projects requested.
This is paper-thin security.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Association
of Port Authorities supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. BYRD. The White House knew, when it sent the budget to the
Congress, that the funding relied on a tax hike on air travelers--a tax
hike the Congress had already rejected. The Appropriations committees
lack jurisdiction to increase the aviation passenger tax, and, of
course could not do so in this bill. As a result, despite Chairman
Gregg's best efforts, the bill that is before the Senate does not
provide the necessary resources for port security. My amendment
addresses that shortfall.
Just 2 months ago, the Senate approved my $648 million port security
amendment to the supplemental. Regrettably, the President threatened to
veto the supplemental unless what he characterized as low-priority
spending was dropped from the bill. In conference, port security
funding was stricken from the supplemental. I hope that the Senate will
approve this port security amendment again and that this time, it
survives in conference.
The amendment is within the allocation available to the subcommittee
for fiscal year 2006.
The American people expect more than just a paper-thin security plan
for our ports. I thank Chairman Gregg for his support.
I thank my illustrious chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support, and
I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Exhibit 1

American Association

of Port Authorities,

Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2006.
To: All Members of the United States Senate.
From: Kurt Nagle, President and CEO, American Association of
Port Authorities.
Subj: Support Port Security Amendment on the Senate Floor.

As a member of the United States Senate, I am writing to
urge you to support an amendment to the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) FY '07 appropriations bill being
offered tomorrow by Senator Byrd to increase funding for port
security. This amendment represents a critical opportunity to
make port security a higher priority for this nation. The
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) represents
the leading public ports in the U.S., handling most of the
maritime cargo imported or exported from this country. We
strongly endorse this amendment to provide an additional $635
million to enhance port security by providing: an increase in
port security grants, additional port security inspectors at
foreign and domestic ports, additional cargo container
inspection equipment, and improved maritime security through
expedited purchase of Coast Guard planes and boats.
Earlier this year, Congress and this nation focused its
attention on the P&O Ports/Dubai Ports World transaction,
which resulted in a nationwide debate on port security and
calls for more security funding for this critical
transportation asset. In response, the Senate and the House
began working on legislation to strengthen maritime security.
The Senate Greenlane Maritime Security Act (S. 2459--Collins/
Murray) and the House SAFE Ports Act (H.R. 4954--Lungren/
Harman) both call for significantly more funding for port
security. The Senate-based emergency supplemental followed
the recommendations in these bills, but much of the port
security funding was eliminated due to concerns over the
total spending level for the bill.
Senator Byrd's amendment is aimed at once again adopting
the funding levels in the House and Senate bills and making
port security a high priority for this country. AAPA is
especially interested in properly funding the Port Security
Grant program. The Byrd amendment would bring the funding
level up to $400 million for the year. This would help pay
for the very costly new regulations DHS has proposed
following the Dubai Ports controversy to require all maritime
workers and facilities to comply with new Transportation
Worker Identification Credential or TWIC requirements. DHS
estimates that 40 percent of the $1 billion cost of this
regulation will fall on port facilities. By supporting this
amendment, Congress will provide federal funds critical to
help co-fund this new mandate.
With 99% of our international cargo by volume flowing
through ports, we urge you to show the nation that port
security is a priority in Congress by voting ``yes'' on this
port security amendment tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise again to express my appreciation to
the Senator from West Virginia. He has brought forward an amendment
which addresses critical needs in port security and Coast Guard
retooling. He has paid for it. My druthers were to take the 2006
authorization allocation which we had and allow it to lapse and go to
deficit reduction. That was my initial plan. But I have been here long
enough to know that if you leave that type of money on the table,
somebody else will end up spending it.
It is truly a critical need in the area of homeland security that we
address the issues which the Senator from West Virginia has put into
his package. The Coast Guard is especially important. An example: The
Senator from West Virginia noted that he is going to fund the adding of
armament to Coast Guard helicopters. Presently there are about 90 Coast
Guard helicopters. Four or five are armed. The four or five that are
armed have a 100-percent interception rate. In other words, when a
smuggler is headed toward our shores, either with people or with
contraband, if the helicopter that tracks them has armament on it,
there is 100 percent interception rate. Those helicopters which do not
have armament do not have anywhere near that interception rate.
There was an interesting article just a day or so ago in the Miami
paper, I believe, about how smugglers are coming in and that the Coast
Guard fast boat tried to catch up with the smugglers. They were in a
cigarette boat. The cigarette boat turned and was on a course to ram
the intercept boats, and the intercept boats called in the armed
helicopter and that stopped the confrontation. The smugglers were
arrested.
So it is critical that we do this type of upgrading to the Coast
Guard. In this bill, we had upgraded 36 helicopters. This will upgrade
another 30. We are getting pretty close to the entire Coast Guard fleet
or as much as is needed to have that type of armament on it.
In addition, the fast boats are critical, the observation aircraft
are critical, and then the whole major thrust toward port security is
equally important.
It is a paid-for amendment. It is one that addresses needs that are
there, that are obvious. They need to be addressed and were not
addressed because of the tight resource situation. But, as usual, the
Senator from West Virginia has been creative, and his proposal is not
only reasonable but is an improvement of the bill. I am happy to
support it.
I know the Senator from North Dakota wants to speak on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be called up and the
clerk state it for the consideration of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Murray, and
Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 4559.

Mr. BYRD. 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 port security enhancements
in fiscal year 2006)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE VII--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR PORT SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS

The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to enhance port
security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes, namely:

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$251,000,000, to remain available until expended.

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'',
$23,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funding is available to accelerate foreign port security
assessments, conduct domestic port vulnerability assessments,
and perform unscheduled security audits of facilities
regulated by

[[Page S7309]]

chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, commonly known
as the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements'' for acquisition, construction, renovation,
and improvement of vessels, aircraft, and equipment,
$184,000,000 for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funding is
available to acquire maritime patrol aircraft and parent
craft patrol boats, to provide armed helicopter capability,
and to sustain the medium endurance cutter fleet.

OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

For an additional amount for ``State and Local Programs'',
$190,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2007:
Provided, That the entire amount shall be for port security
grants pursuant to the purposes of subsection (a) through (h)
of section 70107 of title 46, United States Code, which shall
be awarded based on risk notwithstanding subsection (a), for
eligible costs as defined in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (b).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I come from a
landlocked State. We don't have a seaport in North Dakota. But I have
taken the time to review some of the activities of seaports and learned
a bit about seaports and related that to the issue of security in this
new age of terrorism.
I come today to support the amendment offered by my colleague from
West Virginia. He has been relentless over some long period of time,
being very concerned about seaport security. Let me also commend
Senator Gregg as well for his work on the underlying legislation and
also for his support of the amendment of Senator Byrd.
I recall going to a seaport and being shown containers that come in,
I believe between 5.5 and 6 million containers, stacked on ships that
arrive at the shores of the United States. Then they are put on wheels
and they are trucked around the country. I asked the question, How many
of these containers are inspected? The answer at that point was around
3 percent. I believe now it is something just over 5 percent.
They were showing me, at this particular seaport, a container they
had opened. It turned out to be a refrigerated container with frozen
broccoli from Poland, and it had in it giant bags of frozen broccoli
from Poland. I said, ``What is in the middle of the container? I see
you opened the back end and ripped open some bags, and there is frozen
broccoli in this container. Is there anything in the middle of these
bags?''
``That we don't know. We haven't unloaded it. We don't unload most of
these. We don't inspect most of these.''
Then they showed me the technology that exists by which they could
inspect, effectively x-raying these containers. So there are ways to
enhance greater inspection of these containers at seaports.
Even though my State doesn't have a seaport, we in the Senate debate
and provide funding now of about $10 billion a year for the
antiballistic missile system so we can create a catcher's mitt in case
some rogue nation or some terrorist group would fire an
intercontinental ballistic missile at us that is tipped with a nuclear
bomb. The likelihood of that is very unlikely. It is one of the least
likely things on the threat meter against our country, that a rogue
nation or terrorist group would acquire a nuclear weapon, put it on top
of an intercontinental ballistic missile, and have the means to launch
it at our country, but we spent about $10 billion to try to find a way
to provide a catcher's mitt and intercept a bullet, with a bullet
traveling at 18,000 miles an hour.
A much more likely scenario to threaten this country will be a ship
pulling up to the dock of a major American city at 3 miles an hour with
a load of containers on board, one of which may contain a weapon of
mass destruction. That has been my concern.
I think we have done a lot of work to try to extend the envelope and
extend the line of protection, going actually to other countries. That
is included, in addition, in this amendment--to have inspectors
overseas at the point of departure for some of these container ships
and so on. But there is so much more we must do if we really are going
to assure ourselves we are not going to allow, coming in at 2 or 3
miles an hour, some large ship carrying containers, one of which--out
of some 6 million--one of which could threaten to blow up a major
American city. That is the reason for being concerned about port
security. It has the purpose of going the extra mile and making the
extra investment to make sure that we can feel as if we have done
everything possible to provide security at America's seaports.
Let me again thank my colleague from West Virginia. As I said, he has
been relentless. He has been on the Senate floor many times. I have
tried to come and be supportive when he has offered these amendments
because I feel so strongly about it. And let me again compliment
Senator Gregg, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his work and also
for accepting this amendment
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of an amendment being
offered by Senator Byrd which would enhance funding for border security
infrastructure. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important
legislation, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his hard
work on this important bill.
The amendment would provide an additional $350 million for critical
border security needs. The amendment would allocate $105 million for
customs and border protection to purchase new Border Patrol replacement
helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and additional unmanned aerial
vehicles. And $25 million is added to the bill to purchase
approximately 540 additional replacement vehicles for the Border
Patrol.
The amendment would also provide an additional $90 million for
tactical infrastructure. This funding can be used to construct vehicle
barrier, fencing, and facility upgrades. This funding will be of great
assistance to the state of New Mexico, where such upgrades are needed
to secure our border. The underlying bill allocates about $57 million
for tactical infrastructure in Arizona and about $30 million for San
Diego. However, the El Paso Sector, which includes the entire State of
New Mexico, is only provided about $7.5 million. The additional $90
million under this amendment will help ensure that New Mexico receives
the resources that it needs.
The amendment would also prove $30 million for ICE to purchase 800
vehicles, including buses and vans, used to transport undocumented
immigrants. And USCIS is allocated $38 million to enhance fraud
detection systems.
These additional resources are greatly needed and I urge my
colleagues to support this important measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. There is some irony
in that, although neither the Senator from West Virginia nor the
Senator from North Dakota has a port, unless Harpers Ferry is
considered a port, they would be putting forward this concept. It is a
good concept.
I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4559) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4560

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk reads as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment
numbered 4560.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is printed in today's Record under Text of amendments.)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our amendment would strengthen the
capability, stature, and effectiveness of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. The language in the amendment is largely drawn from
S. 3595, the United States Emergency Management Authority Act, which we
introduced in this Chamber 2 weeks ago. We believe this is the
appropriate time and the right vehicle for improving our Nation's
emergency management system.

[[Page S7310]]

The wounds of Hurricane Katrina are still fresh. A new hurricane season
is upon us, and the recent news on the law enforcement and military
front reminds us that the terrorist threat to America continues. Bitter
lessons have been learned from the experience in responding to
Hurricane Katrina, but they have not yet been applied. The time for
action is now.
The amendment reflects the Senate Committee on Homeland Security's 8-
month investigation into the failed preparations for response to
Hurricane Katrina.
As the Presiding Officer is well aware, the committee conducted an
extensive and exhaustive investigation. We held some 23 hearings at
which nearly 90 witnesses testified. We formally interviewed 325
individuals, and we reviewed some 838,000 pages of documents. We
distilled all of this into a comprehensive report with many
recommendations for improving the response at all levels of government.
Some of these recommendations have to do with how the Federal
Government should be organized to effectively respond to future
disasters, whether they are manmade or whether they are natural ones
such as Katrina. These recommendations have been distilled in part in
USEMA legislation that forms the basis for this amendment.
I note that this is the first step in implementing the committee's
comprehensive recommendations. We will be introducing a subsequent bill
to implement other findings and recommendations. Most significant will
be a package of reforms to the Stafford Act, but that is not what we
are proposing today. The amendment before us today has four key
features. It seeks to restructure, reform, and strengthen the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, which we would rename as the United
States Emergency Management Authority.
The four key features are as follows: First, it would give this new
authority statutory protection against administrative actions that
could diminish its capabilities and effectiveness, such as department-
wide reorganization that could strip essential functions away from the
new agency.
Second, it would ensure that the administrator has direct access to
the President and serve as his principal adviser on emergency
management issues.
Third, it would reunite preparedness functions with response
capabilities. After all, preparedness and response are really two sides
of the same coin. I believe it was a mistake when the Department
decided to strip FEMA of its preparedness functions.
It would reestablish the agency's comprehensive responsibility and
restore a full range of work relationships with State and local
government, the essential partners in emergency response.
Fourth, the amendment would strengthen the new authority's regional
focus.
I know that as a former mayor the Presiding Officer has a special
appreciation for just how important it is for the Federal Government to
work closely with State and local governments. That is an issue that he
has brought up throughout this investigation.
We would create Federal strike teams that have representatives from
all the agencies that are involved on the Federal side of the response.
They would be located in regional offices to foster cooperation,
coordination, and joint training with State and local emergency
managers and with first responders.
A crisis, whether it is due to a hurricane, an ice storm, or a
terrorist attack is the last time that people should be exchanging
business cards. We should make sure the Federal, State, and local
governments are training together, planning together, exercising
together; that they know one another; that they know the culture, the
capabilities, and the essentials.
The overarching objective of the amendment is to strengthen FEMA
which, as I pledged, we would propose to rename as the United States
Emergency Management Authority. The new name signals a fresh start for
FEMA with new authority, including some authority that it has never had
before over critical infrastructure, for example. It signifies new
capabilities and new responsibilities to all-hazards emergency
preparedness and response. And, surely, those of us who investigated
for some months the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, as well as
anyone who followed the issue peripherally, can have no doubt that FEMA
urgently needs to be restructured and reformed to be more effective.
Part of this help entails giving the new people a special legal
status within DHS. Our amendment's prohibition against further
departmental reorganization of this agency and mission alterations
affecting the authority will give USEMA exactly the same kind of
protection that has already been extended to the Coast Guard and to the
Secret Service.

This is something completely new. We paralleled the kind of
protection, the distinct legal status that is given to the Coast Guard
and to the Secret Service. I know the Coast Guard was the stellar
performer in the response to Katrina. The Coast Guard, by all accounts,
did an exceptional job in its preparedness and response, yet as part of
the Department of Homeland Security.
I think those who think the answer is to sever FEMA or the new agency
from the Department should take a hard look at the Coast Guard's
experience. But in looking at the Coast Guard, I think we can also
learn that it benefited from having this legal protection, and we would
extend that to the newly constituted FEMA.
This protection will help achieve congressional intent that DHS be
the focus for comprehensive, all-hazards Federal preparation and
response to disasters.
When the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st
Century memorandum recommended just 5 years ago a new approach to
homeland security and that America establish a single department to
plan, coordinate, and integrate homeland security operations, it called
FEMA the necessary core of that new department. To that end, USEMA,
like FEMA, needs to be a part of the DHS structure. That analysis has
been confirmed by experience.
Admiral Allen of the Coast Guard explained at one of our hearings
that having FEMA and the Coast Guard in the same department leads to
certain synergies that do not otherwise occur, and that led in
particular to a 350-percent increase in joint training exercises. That
is the kind of integration that we need more of.
More generally, keeping key capabilities within a single DHS umbrella
permits faster communication and response than a more formal and
bureaucratic procedure required for interdepartmental requests from a
setting within DHS. However, FEMA needs to have far better lines of
communication.
I know the Presiding Officer was as shocked as I was to hear the
former head of FEMA, Michael Brown, talk about circumventing the chain
of command within the Department and his failure to order critical
commodities, to order the buses, to communicate just how dire the
situation was in Louisiana.
We want to make sure that we improve those lines of communication,
both within the Department and between the Department and the White
House and other agencies. That means giving the administrator more
status.
We would upgrade the administrator so he is the equivalent of a
Deputy Secretary. That gives him more clout and more stature in
dealing, for example, with the Department of Defense and other
departments that play important roles in responding to a disaster.
We designate the administrator of USEMA the principal adviser to the
President on matters of emergency management. And we adopt a system
that for the Pentagon has worked well in outlining the reporting
responsibilities. We parallel the relationship between the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the President. So there is both a
reporting relationship to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and yet
the new administrator would be the principal adviser to the President
on emergency management.
In addition--I think this also responds to a key weakness that our
intensive investigation revealed--the administrator would be authorized
to give recommendations directly to Congress. The administration would
have to make sure he informs the Secretary of what he is going to say,
but there is a direct link, a direct line of communication.

[[Page S7311]]

I know the Presiding Officer recalls that Michael Brown claims he was
stifled in reporting to Congress. We don't know for a fact whether that
is an accurate statement. But we put in reforms to ensure that the
administrator has the ability to communicate his recommendations, his
needs, his findings directly to Congress.
Our amendment, as I indicated, specifically rejects the notion that
FEMA should be cut off of DHS and made a freestanding agency. The DHS
needs FEMA's capability. What would happen if FEMA, a weak FEMA, were
cast alone is that DHS would have to recreate many of the capabilities
that FEMA has at great cost, at great duplication of effort. What we
would end up having is one agency that deals with natural disasters and
another agency within DHS that deals solely with disasters resulting
from terrorist attacks. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Many of the challenges in the aftermath of a catastrophe, whether it
is manmade or natural, are exactly the same--sheltering people, getting
them food and water, an evacuation plan.
It also makes no sense from the perspective of State and local
governments. We don't want them to just deal with one agency if they
are planning for a natural disaster and another agency if they are
planning for a terrorist attack since many of the challenges are
identical. Just think, if the levees had been blown up by terrorists
rather than breached by Hurricane Katrina, many of the challenges would
have been exactly the same. There just would have been a stronger law
enforcement component.

It is a mistake, in that the Coast Guard's stellar performance proves
it is a mistake, to think the location of FEMA is the cause of the
problems. Even if that duplication were cost free, a virtual
impossibility, the Secretary of the Department estimates it would cost
billions of dollars to duplicate the necessary capabilities within DHS
if FEMA were separated. Even if that were possibly cost free, it would
be destructive. Divided preparation and response systems would force
State and local officials to have to engage one to prepare for natural
disasters and another for terror attacks.
As one of our committee's expert witnesses, Professor Donald Kettl of
the University of Pennsylvania, said: Separating response to terrorism
from response to natural disasters, separating preparedness from
response, separating FEMA from DHS, would inevitably bring problems.
I agree with the professor. This is consistently what we hear from
those who are on the front lines, from those who know what it takes to
respond to a catastrophe.
In that regard, I note that there is extraordinarily strong support
from first responder groups for the Collins-Lieberman-Lott-Carper
amendment. It has been endorsed by the National Troopers Coalition, the
Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order
of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the
National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Fire
Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
Congressional Fire Services Institute, Advocates for EMS, the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the International
Association of EMT's and Paramedics.
This is quite a list of those who truly are on the front lines when
it comes to responding to a disaster. I am very proud to have their
support for our amendment. They recognize we have worked very hard and
consulted fully with them to come up with the right approach.
I also note the amendment we are offering has been endorsed by the
Homeland Security and Defense Business Council. This is a council that
provides advice to the Secretary. It is made up of very distinguished
members of the private sector. They, too, have endorsed it.
I ask unanimous consent these letters from first responder groups and
from the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also note planning and response
capabilities are already too weak in many States, as evidenced by the
recent DHS reviews. We don't want to splinter those efforts further by
needlessly multiplying their Federal points of contact. For many
reasons, therefore, preserving those close working ties with other
agencies within the Department, the new FEMA must stay within DHS.
Allow me to briefly summarize a few more of the provisions of the
bill before yielding to my colleague from Connecticut. First, as I
mentioned, it establishes a strong position for the administrator of
the new USEMA. This administrator would be nominated by the President,
confirmed by the Senate, and have the standing of a Deputy Secretary.
Day by day, the administrator would report to the DHS Secretary, but
the bill explicitly provides that direct line of communication to the
President as well as the authority to make recommendations to Congress
on which I have already elaborated.
The amendment provides for two directors. There was an issue on which
we worked very closely with DHS. The language we have incorporates the
feedback we got from the Department. Both of these individuals--which,
again, would be high-level individuals within the Department--would be
nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and would provide
the administrator and the Department with highly qualified
professionals in preparedness and mitigation and in response and
recovery.
Our amendment would give the administrator responsibility for
managing preparedness grant programs. The Presiding Officer knows, as
the former mayor, that i you control some of the money that goes out to
State and local governments, if you are helping to allocate that
funding, you will have a good relationship with State and local
governments. Inevitably, the authority follows the money. This is going
to ensure we have far better coordination. This is an important
restoration of authority to this agency. It was a mistake, in my view,
that authority was taken away from FEMA. That will help ensure better
oversight and coordination of preparedness at all levels of government.

I have talked about how important I think these regional structures
are for the new agency. It will ensure that Federal officials are
familiar with the people, the vulnerabilities, the capabilities, and
the resources of the regions they protect, and they won't be
introducing themselves to strangers on unfamiliar ground when disaster
strikes.
I could not help but be struck during our hearings by the fact that
so many individuals from FEMA were sent from region 1e--the region that
the Senator from Connecticut and I represent, New England--down to New
Orleans. I like to believe we New Englanders can handle anything, but
the fact is, the response would be far more effective if we had people
who are in the area who worked every day with the emergency management
officials in the area, who understood the weaknesses and the strengths
of particular States rather than sending someone from the Northeast
down to the hurricane region or vice versa in times of an ice storm or
some other disaster.
Further recognizing the importance of multilevel governmental
coordination, the bill creates a national advisory council on emergency
preparedness and response that would be made up of State and local
officials, emergency management professionals from the public, private,
and NGO sectors to advise the administrator of USEMA. This is
important. We know the critical role nonprofits and the Red Cross play.
They, too, should be involved in the training, the planning, the
exercising. We learned from our investigation that, too, was flawed.
This will help ensure the agency's thinking does not proceed in a
stovepipe, but is fortified with comments and expertise from a wide
range of vitally concerned partners.
Our amendment addresses the glaring and urgent needs highlighted in
our investigation of Hurricane Katrina. As I mentioned, I am very
pleased we have the support of so many experts. Nothing could speak
more eloquently of the need for reform or be more encouraging than to
receive the words of support from those who do put their lives on the
line every day to protect the American people. We also have the support
of the administration for this proposal.

[[Page S7312]]

Amending the Homeland Security appropriations bill by adding the
provisions of our USEMA bill will go far to ensuring in a timely way
that we will have a far more effective structure to protect our fellow
citizens' lives and livelihoods from disaster.
I am very pleased this is a bipartisan effort. I recognize the work
of the Senator from Connecticut who has led, with me, the investigation
of the committee and the drafting of this legislation. We are also
grateful for the input of Senator Lott who knows better than any of
us--except his fellow Senators from Mississippi and Louisiana--the
devastation of Hurricane Katrina. I am grateful for his input, as well
as the input from Senator Carper who also has worked very hard on this
issue.
Finally, I recognize all of the participation of the Presiding
Officer, Senator Coleman. There was no more loyal committee member who
came to virtually every single hearing, participated actively, and
contributed greatly to our investigation. I thank him for his work, as
well

Exhibit 1

July 11, 2006.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman: On
behalf of the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council
(the Council), I am writing to support S. 3595, the U.S.
Emergency Management Authority Act. On behalf of the private
sector, the Council is pleased to endorse this measure to
reinvent, protect, and strengthen FEMA. The new FEMA,
reconstituted as the U.S. Emergency Management Authority,
would ensure that the nation will be better prepared to
address, either, natural or man-made disasters.
The Council is a non-partisan, non-profit 501 C6
organization that comprises the major companies that serve
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Our focus is to
align private sector resources to support the mission of the
Department on behalf of the nation's interests. The Council
is pleased to see language that elevates the importance of
FEMA within DHS and reunites preparedness functions with
response capabilities.
The Council supports provisions of S. 3595 that would:
Give the new U.S. Emergency Management Authority statutory
protection against actions that could diminish its
capabilities and effectiveness;
Ensure that the Administrator of US-EMA has direct access
to the President and serves as Principal Emergency Management
Advisor, at all times;
Reunite preparedness functions with response capabilities
to reestablish the agency's comprehensive responsibilities
and restore the full range of working relationships with
state and local government; and
Strengthen the Authority's regional focus with federal
strike teams for a faster and more coordinated response and
to provide better familiarity with the states in which the
strike teams will operate.
Thank you for your continued commitment to improving
emergency management and response and for engaging the
private sector to leverage industry best practices. Should
you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me anytime.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Meldon,
Executive Director.
____

National Troopers Coalition,

July 11, 2006.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chair, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the 40,000 state
troopers and highway patrol men and women represented by the
National Troopers Coalition (NTC), we are writing to commend
you for your legislative efforts to ensure that law
enforcement is directly involved in the continuing efforts to
prevent and respond to acts of terrorism.
As an organization, NTC joins with our colleagues in other
national law enforcement organizations in support S. 3595,
the United States Emergency Management Authority Act of 2006.
We are convinced that retaining the Federal Emergency
Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security
will provide better coordination among all agencies serving
as first responders to both natural disasters and terrorist
attacks, Recent history has demonstrated the importance of
the law enforcement community responding promptly, along with
others, to both terrorism and natural disasters for the
safety and well-being of our citizens.
The NTC thanks you for your leadership on this issuc and
your continued efforts to ensure the public that we will have
the authority and resources to meet our public safety
responsibilities under any and all circumstances.
Sincerely,
Casey Perry.
____

International Association of

Fire Chiefs,

Fairfax, VA, July 13, 2006.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Collins: On behalf of the nearly 13,000 chief
fire and emergency officers of the International Association
of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to endorse your amendment
to establish a U.S. Emergency Management Authority (USEMA).
We believe that this amendment will resolve many of the
problems with the nation's emergency management system by
improving the structure and granting greater autonomy to the
federal preparedness and response activities within the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We believe that your approach is the best way to reform the
nation's emergency preparedness and response system, because
it keeps these activities within DHS. The IAFC is concerned
that the removal of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) from DHS will splinter the federal government's
emergency preparedness and response efforts, which will force
local jurisdictions to cope with competing directives from
both an independent FEMA and the other DHS agencies. In
addition, it is important that the FEMA stay within DHS and
continue developing relationships with the U.S. Coast Guard
and the other DHS components to better leverage their
collective assets.
We believe that the U.S. Emergency Management Agency
established by your amendment would ensure more autonomy for
the federal emergency preparedness and response activities.
The USEMA Administrator would report directly to the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the directors of
Preparedness and Response and Recovery divisions would be
Senate-confirmed. Your amendment also would insulate the
USEMA from reorganization and diversion of assets, functions,
or missions. The IAFC believes that USEMA's independence
could be further guaranteed by ensuring that the USEMA
Administrator would report directly to the President during a
Stafford Act--defined ``emergency'' or ``major disaster'' to
ensure that all federal assets are available without delay.
We greatly appreciate the provisions in this amendment that
ensure that the U.S. Fire Administrator remains at a level
equivalent to an Assistant Secretary in the department.
We thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of
America's fire service. Please feel to contact Ken LaSala,
Director of Government Relations, at (703) 273-9815 x347, if
we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Garry L. Briese, CAE,
Executive Director.
____

Grand Lodge

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2006.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Collins and Senator Lieberman, I am writing
on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to
advise you of our strong opposition to any legislation or
amendment that would remove the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
Since the terrorist attacks on the United States in
September 2001, our nation has worked diligently to defend
itself from future attacks and, in so doing, have also
dedicated significant resources to respond to large scale
critical incidents, both natural and man-made. Yet the
primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security must
always be the prevention of future attacks against the United
States, and this mission is best entrusted to law enforcement
at the local, State, and Federal levels.
However, our nation will face natural disasters which
cannot be prevented, and, for these, we must be prepared to
respond. Law enforcement is a critical component of this
response and law. enforcement at every level of government
seeks to increase the speed and effectiveness of delivering
emergency services to those in need. Clearly, the mass
devastation brought to the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina
showed that greater coordination and communication is needed
to respond to incidents of such magnitude. This goal cannot
and will not be achieved if FEMA is removed from DHS. Indeed,
the F.O.P. believes that such a move would reduce our
nation's overall level of preparedness.
The F.O.P. also strongly supports greater participation of
law enforcement in planning emergency response at every level
of government. We will continue our review of various
legislative proposals addressing the need for emergency
management reform at the Federal level. I thank you both in
advance for your consideration of the positions we have laid
out to date and look forward to working with you to improve
our nation's ability to prevent terrorist attacks and prepare
for future critical incidents. If I can provide any further
information on this issue, please do

[[Page S7313]]

not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in
my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury,
National President.
____

Major Cities Chiefs Association,

Columbia, MD, July 6, 2006.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Chairwoman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madame Chairwoman: On behalf of the Major City Chiefs
Association, I am writing to commend you on developing
legislation that will strengthen the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). S. 3595, the United States Emergency
Management Authority Act, is a step in the right direction;
making DHS more efficient with limited disruption and
reorganization.
Prevention is the best investment in response capability.
Like the President, we believe that the best way to respond
to a terrorist attack, be it biological, chemical,
radiological, nuclear or conventional explosive is to prevent
it from happening in the first place. Intelligence,
investigation, and preparedness are all law enforcement
functions that will help prevent terrorists from striking
again.
As you know, we feel strongly that preparedness and
prevention are too dissimilar from response and recovery for
these functions to operate under the same common chain of
command. That is why we welcome the creation of a separate
and distinct Office of the Prevention of Terrorism reporting
directly to the Secretary. This structure will not permit the
dilution of the prevention mission under layers of
bureaucracy. We are also pleased that the bill does not break
apart the Preparedness Directorate keeping it on equal
footing with response and recovery. We strongly support the
Preparedness Directorate and its vital role at DHS.
We look forward to working with you and supporting your
efforts to ensure that DHS has a clear prevention mission. If
we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
call on Tom Frazier at 410-433-8909.
Sincerely,
Harold Hurtt,
President.
____

National Association of

Police Organizations, Inc.,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2006.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman: On
behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations
(NAPO) representing more than 238,000 law enforcement
officers throughout the United States, I would like to thank
you for introducing S. 3595, the ``United States Emergency
Management Authorization Act of 2006,'' and advise you of our
support, particularly in regards to Section 517 of the
legislation. If enacted, this bill will establish within the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) an Office for the
Prevention of Terrorism.
The ``United States Emergency Management Authorization Act
of 2006'' will create an Office that would be responsible for
coordinating anti-terrorism policy and operations between DHS
and state and local law enforcement. The Director of the
Office for the Prevention of Terrorism would have the
important task of developing better intelligence sharing
methods between DHS and state and local law enforcement
agencies. This new Office would also ensure that vital
homeland security grants are adequately focused on terrorism.
This legislation recognizes the importance of standardized
coordination and communication between the country's local,
state, and federal law enforcement in preventing acts of
terrorism within the United States. Section 517 of the
``United States Emergency Management Authorization Act of
2006'' will help ensure that state and local law enforcement
are properly supported, trained and informed in order to
prevent terrorism before it occurs.
NAPO thanks you for your continued support of law
enforcement and I look forward to working with you to get
this important legislation passed. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me, or NAPO's Legislative
Assistant, Andrea Mournighan, at (202) 842-4420.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson,
Executive Director.
____

Advocates for EMS,

July 11, 2006.
Sen. Susan Collins,
Chair, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Collins: Advocates for EMS, a not-for-profit
organization founded to educate elected and appointed
officials and the public on important issues affecting EMS
providers, writes in support of S. 3595, the United States
Emergency Management Authority Act of 2006. The measure
establishes the U.S. Emergency Management Authority (USEMA)
and creates a more autonomous agency within DHS, similar to
the U.S. Coast Guard. S. 3595 also retains the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
Advocates believes that moving FEMA out of DHS would only
continue the instability that FEMA has experienced since its
move to DHS. While FEMA responsibilities include natural
disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes and floods; it should
also have an integrated response plan for other emerging
threats. Removing FEMA from DHS would only add additional
hurdles for EMS providers in terms of their ability to work
with the federal government in response to a natural or man-
made event.
Creating a U.S. Emergency Management Authority (USEMA) and
the autonomy provided by the legislation is a step forward in
making FEMA efficient and effective in providing emergency
medical services responders the leadership and resources they
need. In addition, Advocates also supports the establishment
of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and its responsibilities
the legislation provides. The CMO plays a key role in
coordinating medical response within DHS and other federal
agencies.
Advocates thanks you for your continued leadership on this
issue and looks forward to working with you in the future on
first responder issues.
Sincerely,
Advocates for EMS.
____

International Association

of Fire Fighters,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2006.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Hon. Joe Lieberman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Lieberman: On behalf of the
nation's more than 270,000 professional fire fighters and
emergency medical personnel, I applaud you for your efforts
to reform the nation's emergency preparedness and response
system. We strongly support the enactment of legislation to
reform FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security and
appreciate your continued leadership in moving this effort
forward.
Congress must enact comprehensive reforms to ensure that
FEMA will be able to provide an effective response to
disasters. These reforms, such as reuniting disaster
preparedness and response functions within FEMA and utilizing
an all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness, can and
should be made within the Department of Homeland Security.
We believe that proposals to return FEMA to its status as
an independent agency would hinder efforts to reform our
nation's emergency response system. Removing FEMA from DHS
would create competing agencies, sowing confusion among
emergency responders. Furthermore, such an approach would
undermine an all-hazards approach, leading to a perception
that DHS deals with terrorism, while FEMA is in charge of
natural disasters.
When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security,
it did so with the understanding that emergency preparedness
and response are at the core of our nation's homeland
security. Your amendment to the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act helps to fulfill this mandate by ensuring
that FEMA remain an integral part of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Thank you for your leadership on this vital issue. We
greatly appreciate your continued support for the nation's
front-line emergency responders and look forward to working
with you in the coming weeks to improve the way our nation
responds to disasters.
Sincerely,
Barry Kasinitz,
Director, Governmental Relations.
____

Congressional Fire

Services Institute,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2006.
Hon. Susan Collins, Chair,
Hon. Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Lieberman: The response to
Hurricane Katrina revealed a number of things regarding our
nation's level of readiness for major disasters. On the one
hand, it showed the courage and dedication of local first
responders--our firefighters, law enforcement, and rescue
personnel--who made many sacrifices of their own in order to
respond valiantly to the greatest natural disaster in our
nation's history. On the other hand, it exposed the
limitations of our national response capabilities,
exacerbated by failures in leadership at all levels of
government.
While there is no doubt fundamental changes need to be made
to our national response structure, we are greatly concerned
by recent efforts in the Congress to remove FEMA from the
Department of Homeland Security. The separation would
diminish the resources of both FEMA and DHS, and create a
duplication of critical components resulting in a
bureaucratic nightmare for first responders and local
governments.
In 2002, we were one of nine organizations that signed on
to a white paper outlining our position on the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security. The first recommendation
was that FEMA ``be at the core of the Department of Homeland
Security.'' Our organization has not altered its position.
FEMA can succeed but it will require strong leadership,
proper resources, and better execution of the roles and
responsibilities by FEMA and its partners. Your legislation,
S. 3595, takes into account our

[[Page S7314]]

recommendation. We commend you for addressing this issue and
appreciate your support.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We certainly
look forward to continuing our work with your committee to
address the needs and challenges of our nation's first
responders.
Sincerely,
William M. Webb,
Executive Director.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Chairman Collins,
for an excellent introductory statement and to say, once again, how
much I am honored and pleased to work with her as the ranking Democrat
on our homeland security committee, and how pleased I am to join with
her today and with Senators Carper and Lott to introduce this amendment
to make FEMA into an agency capable of responding swiftly and
effectively to the most serious disasters, whether a hurricane the size
and scope of Katrina, a natural disaster the likes of which we see more
routinely, or a terrorist attack which, of course, our enemies hope
will be even more devastating than the attacks of September 11 and for
which we must be perpetually on the defensive and prepared.
This amendment would literally reinvent FEMA to give our Federal
emergency preparedness and response experts the authority, the
capabilities, the resources, and the integration with State and local
officials needed to avoid the confused, uncoordinated, and ultimately
ineffective response that the Nation and the world witnessed last
August when Katrina made landfall. It would strengthen emergency
preparedness and response within the Homeland Security Department which
this Congress created a short time ago to prevent, prepare for, and
ultimately respond to all kinds of disasters.
In doing so, this amendment would create a truly national system of
emergency management that will be able to draw on the Nation's vast
resources for a cohesive and complete local, State, and Federal
response.
Mr. President, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee spent 7 months in 2005 and 2006 investigating the botched
Government response to that catastrophic hurricane. We found all levels
of our Government were ill-equipped to deal with the massive human
suffering all along the gulf coast that followed that terrible storm's
landfall, suffering that shocked, angered, and embarrassed the American
people who expect more support from their Government for fellow
Americans in need.
These failings were caused by negligence in some cases, by a lack of
resources in other cases, by a lack of capabilities in some cases, but
most of all by a lack of leadership and preparation that comes with
leadership from the very top to the very bottom.
We cannot legislate leadership, although as Senator Collins said, we
can at least require the kind of experience in the people who will lead
America's emergency management effort that would make it more likely
they would be leaders, and we can legislate changes in Government
structures to make them more sensible and better suited to protect
people in times of disaster.
The homeland security committee's report had merit because we told
the story of what happened and didn't happen, of the clear warnings
that such a hurricane would one day strike the gulf coast, and the
clear predictions that we were not ready. In telling the story, right
through the weekend before landfall and then the days following the
disaster itself, I believe the committee, on a truly bipartisan basis,
made a contribution. Because sometimes just telling the truth and
putting it before those in positions of responsibility is one of the
great curatives, one of the great sources of reform. But the committee
went beyond just telling the story and offered a number of
recommendations about what was needed to improve our preparations,
response, and recovery.

Chairman Collins and I will soon introduce broader legislation to
encompass all of our committee report's recommendations. These include
changes to the Stafford Act to address the different kinds of
assistance that are needed in response to catastrophic events rather
than ``ordinary'' disasters; provisions to ensure that communications
systems can work--and that first responders can talk to each other--
even in devastating disasters; requirements for the national planning
for disasters and catastrophes that FEMA was never able to fully
accomplish; and steps to ensure that USEMA has the kind of robust and
capable workforce it needs to success. All of these are crucial pieces
of the effort to remake our nations emergency response and recovery
capabilities.
But we begin today with the foundation, the most important
recommendation we made, which is to rejoin the functions of disaster
response with disaster preparedness within a new agency, a reinvented
FEMA, which we will call USEMA, the U.S. Emergency Management
Authority. It would be at the very core of the Department of Homeland
Security, just as FEMA was originally intended to be when we proposed
the new department in 2002 based on the recommendations of the Hart-
Rudman Commission the previous year.
How could one have a Department of Homeland Security, which is aimed
at preparing for and responding to disasters, including terrorist
attacks, without the Federal agency that is primarily responsible for
emergency management? It makes no sense. Our investigation of what went
wrong during Hurricane Katrina made it clear that part of the problem
was caused by separate and uncoordinated Federal preparedness and
response functions within the Department of Homeland Security.
In the years before Katrina, FEMA, the agency charged with
coordinating our Nation's response to terrorist attacks and natural
disasters, too often was out of the loop when critical decisions about
how to prepare were being made. It had no say in how to spend billions
of dollars in preparedness grants. Training exercises were designed and
held without serious input by FEMA. Relationships with State and local
officials on the front lines were not fully developed and sometimes
were nonexistent. So FEMA's ability to respond was crippled because it
was not working hand in glove with those making preparations for
responding to disaster.
Our amendment, first and foremost, therefore, will ensure that our
preparedness efforts are inseparable from the capabilities needed to
respond. As Chairman Collins has said, preparation and response are two
sides of the same coin. And the coin, which is the coin of America's
emergency management in times of disaster, is stronger if those two
sides are together.
USEMA will provide the resources and it will have the ability and the
responsibility to plan and train with State and local emergency
management officials, just as it will have the responsibility to
coordinate with them at the time of a disaster.
Where FEMA has often struggled to cope with normal hurricanes, the
mission of the new Authority will be to partner with State and local
governments, other Federal agencies, the private sector, and
nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency
management that can respond effectively to catastrophic incident.
Where FEMA has been slow to respond and too often reactive, the new
Authority will be charged with developing a Federal response capability
that can and will act rapidly and proactively when necessary to deliver
assistance essential to saving lives in a disaster.
Where FEMA has not been fully integrated with DHS, the Department of
Homeland Security, the new Authority will be charged with coordinating
with key agencies in the Department also involved in emergency
management, also on the front lines at a time of disaster, such as the
Coast Guard.
Our amendment would also give the new Authority special status within
the Department--the same status the Coast Guard and the Secret Service
now have. With that status, changes to the agency's functions and its
assets could only be made by congressional statute, not by executive
action. That is a way of protecting the strength we intend to give this
new authority.
We would also insist in this legislation that the administrator and
other key agency officials have the necessary experience and
qualifications for the job. In other words, USEMA will not be plagued
by unqualified appointees, as FEMA has been in the past.

[[Page S7315]]

Chairman Collins and I also envision a new agency with robust
regional offices which would focus on coordination of preparedness and
response with local and State agencies. Let's take the focus away from
Washington and place it where it belongs, where the real work of
preparedness is done, on the front lines, in the States and in the
municipalities. This will guarantee that Federal officials are familiar
with regional and local threats and know their counterparts at the
State and local levels. Different parts of the country face different
natural disaster prospects. Unfortunately, most every part of the
country is vulnerable today to terrorist attack. This regional approach
will help ensure that officials are not exchanging business cards on
the day the disaster strikes, that the local, State, and Federal
officials are not meeting on the day or the day before the disaster or
the day after the disaster.
I know some of my colleagues in the Senate believe FEMA should be
removed from the Department of Homeland Security and given independent
status. Bu Senator Collins and I, after our extensive investigation,
have concluded that is not the solution to the problems we saw in
response to Hurricane Katrina, but instead would compound the problems.
It would be a serious mistake to separate FEMA out of the Department.
Even when it was independent, FEMA never developed the capacity to
respond to a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina. So returning it to
independent status, as if those were the golden days of yore, is not
based on fact, and it will in no way solve the problems we saw in
response to Katrina and that we face today. In fact, it will make
solutions and, I would say, preparations and responses to disaster far
more difficult.

Removing the agency from the Department would only create additional
problems, duplications, and disconnectedness. The Department of
Homeland Security, containing other emergency response agencies, such
as the Coast Guard, and other components, would begin to rebuild the
functions of FEMA in the Department, even though it was independent.
FEMA--independent, out of the Department--would duplicate activities
and functions that are in the Department resulting in a waste of money,
bureaucratic inefficiencies and a lack of coordination that would not
only put us at risk of repeating the inadequate response we saw to
Hurricane Katrina last year but of making it even worse.
To cope with a catastrophe, the Government's chief preparations and
response agency must have access to the vast resources of the
Department of Homeland Security, and it needs to work seamlessly with
other agencies that have critical roles to play during a catastrophe.
Those working relationships are going to be much easier and more real
if officials know one another and if agencies have a history with each
other and, of course, if everyone ultimately serves the same Secretary
of Homeland Security.
The grievous conditions of gulf coast communities in the week after
Katrina's landfall embarrassed us before the world and, quite
appropriately, angered us because we know that America can do better.
But the gulf coast and the force of Katrina are not isolated examples.
Other American communities and regions are similarly vulnerable today--
whether to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. We also know
significant flaws in the Nation's readiness remain. Another response
like the one we saw during Katrina is simply not an option.
Our proposal is not about rearranging bureaucratic boxes. We have
studied past failings and carefully considered how to improve our
performance, the Federal Government performance, the next time. We have
been driven by that singular goal. We have not had any thoughts in mind
of protecting the status quo or favoring one bureaucratic entity over
another. We have tried to come up with a recommendation that will put
America's Government in the best position to protect America's people
the next time disaster strikes. We are driven by the imperative to save
people's lives, like the lives lost during Hurricane Katrina.
The changes embodied in this amendment, I am convinced, promise a
strong response, if enacted, the next time disaster strikes. So I ask
my colleagues for their support of this amendment.
I thank Senator Collins for her leadership and express once again my
pleasure at the opportunity to work with her and in this instance to be
joined by Senator Lott and Senator Carper in a truly bipartisan
national-interest homeland security amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
raised by Senator Akaka on behalf of Senator Clinton, and in opposition
to the amendment offered by Senator Collins.
Mr. President, colleagues, what we are seeing today with the
underlying amendment is a refusal to admit that a mistake was made when
FEMA was incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security when it
was created in 2002 after September 11.
Rather than correct the mistake, extract FEMA from DHS, and restore
it to its former state as an independent agency reporting directly to
the President, the Collins amendment makes an effort to change the way
FEMA operates within the Department. I support Senator Clinton's
second-degree amendment to restore FEMA to an independent, Cabinet-
level agency, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Over the last 200 years, we have moved from an ad hoc approach to
disaster response to a coordinated, orderly approach, authorized by the
Stafford Act, over which my Committee, the Environment and Public Works
Committee, holds jurisdiction.
On September 11, the Nation was struck by a terrorist attack. The
effectiveness of FEMA helped reduce the impact of those events.
In what I believe is an example of extremely poor judgment that
failed to take into account FEMA's role in responding to natural
disasters, FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security.
FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due
to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's
lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said:

I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and
failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's
effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA
into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear
that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to
hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the
question, who will? (November 20, 2002)

Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.
With Hurricane Katrina, I believe that we witnessed the degradation
of our national response system as a result of that change. We all
watched the results of that free-fall on live television. As I watched
the coverage of that event, I could only think of the unnecessary human
suffering that was occurring, in part as a result of the bad decision
made by Congress to include FEMA in DHS.
Today we have a chance to correct our mistake.
It is the very structure of the Department that makes it impossible
for FEMA to be effective. In a disaster, regardless of cause, decisions
need to be made quickly and resources need to be brought to bear
immediately. FEMA reporting directly to the President is the only way
to make this happen. During Katrina, we saw the result of having our
emergency response agency buried in the bureaucracy of DHS--executive
decisionmakers were isolated from the realities of the situation,
preventing the quick, effective action that we saw after September 11.
The only way to correct that problem is to get FEMA out of DHS and into
a Cabinet-level status, reporting directly to the President.
I urge my colleagues to support the Clinton amendment and reject the
Collins amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement from 2002 be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Floor Statement of Senator Jim Jeffords, Homeland Security, November
20, 2002.

Mark Twain once said, ``Always do right--this will gratify
some people and astonish the rest.'' I rise today to explain
why I believe voting against this bill is the right thing to
do.
Of the many reasons to vote against the bill, I will focus
on three--the bill's treatment of the Federal Emergency
Management

[[Page S7316]]

Agency, the bill's treatment of the Freedom of Information
Act, and the process used to create this new Department.
With the passage of this Homeland Security legislation, we
will destroy the Federal Emergency Management Agency, losing
year's of progress toward a well-coordinated Federal response
to disasters.
As it now exists, FEMA is a lean, flexible agency receiving
bipartisan praise as one of the most effective agencies in
government. But it hasn't always been that way.
Throughout the 1980s, FEMA's focus on Cold War's nuclear
threat left the Agency ill-prepared to respond to natural
disasters. The Congressional chorus of critics decried the
Agency's misguided focus and reached a crescendo after
bungled responses to Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane
Andrew in 1992.
One of FEMA's leading Congressional critics, then-
Representative Tom Ridge said in 1988, ``I was convinced that
somewhere along the way, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency had lost its sense of mission.''
Over the last decade, refocusing the agency's mission and
priorities on natural disasters has left the agency well-
equipped to respond to all types of disasters. FEMA's stellar
response to September 11th proved this.
I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and
failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's
effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA
into this monolithic Homeland Security Department.
I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately
respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes,
begging the question, who will?
Mr. President, also of great concern to me are the new
Freedom of Information Act exemptions contained in the latest
substitute.
Unfortunately, the current Homeland Security proposal
chokes the public's access to information under the Freedom
of Information Act. I ask, are we headed toward an Orwellian
society with an all-knowing, secretive big brother reigning
over an unknowing public?
The bill defines information so broadly that almost
anything disclosed by a company to the Department of Homeland
Security could be considered secret and kept from the public.
Although I believe current law contains an adequate
national security exemption, in the spirit of compromise, I
supported the carefully crafted bi-partisan Senate language
contained in both the Lieberman substitute and the Gramm-
Miller substitute. The current bill ignores this compromise.
Mr. President, the process by which we received this
substitute seems eerily similar to the way the White House
sprung its original proposal on the Congress some time ago.
Late last week we received a bill that had magically grown
from an original 35 pages to an unwieldy 484 pages. There was
no compromise in arriving at the current substitute, only a
mandate to pass the substitute or be branded as weak on
homeland security or worse yet, unpatriotic.
Still more troubling, the current bill places little
emphasis on correcting what went wrong prior to September
11th or addressing future threats. Correcting intelligence
failures should be our prime concern. Instead this bill
recklessly reshuffles the bureaucratic deck.
Furthermore, as my colleague Senator Corzine stated earlier
this week, this bill does not address other vitally important
issues such as security at facilities that store or use
dangerous chemicals. Without provisions to address yet
another gaping hole in our Nation's security, why are we not
being more deliberate in our approach?
In closing Mr. President, I feel that it is irresponsible
to divert precious limited resources from our fight against
terrorism to create a dysfunctional new bureaucracy that will
only serve to give the American public a false sense of
security.
I will vote against this bill because it does nothing to
address the massive intelligence failure that led up to the
September 11th attacks. It dismantles the highly effective
Federal Emergency Management Agency and creates dangerous new
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten
the fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed
citizenry.
Thank you.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 4555, as Modified

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Salazar.
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 Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr.
Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 4555, as modified.

Mr. GREGG. 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 require the Secretary of Homeland Security to prepare a
report on activities to ensure that the agriculture quarantine
inspection monitoring program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service is operating effectively and to ensure that States are
receiving adequate guidance)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, not later than February 8,
2007.
(1) identifies activities being carried out by the
Department of Homeland Security to improve--
(A) the targeting of agricultural inspections;
(B) the ability of United States Customs and Border
Protection to adjust to new agricultural threats; and
(C) the in-service training for interception of prohibited
plant and animal products and agricultural pests under the
agriculture quarantine inspection monitoring program of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and
(2) describes the manner in which the Secretary of Homeland
Security will coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture
and State and local governments in carrying out the
activities described in paragraph (1).

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4555), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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. 4556

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4556 be
called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself,
Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Talent, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Salazar,
Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment
numbered 4556.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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 amend chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit the unauthorized construction, financing, or, with reckless
disregard, permitting the construction or use on one's land, of a
tunnel or subterranean passageway between the United States and another
country and to direct the United States Sentencing Commission to modify
the sentencing guidelines to account for such prohibition)

On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. 540. (a) Construction of Border Tunnel or Passage.--
Chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages

``(a) Any person who knowingly constructs or finances the
construction of a tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses
the international border between the United States and
another country, other than a lawfully authorized tunnel or
passage known to the Secretary of Homeland Security and
subject to inspection by the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, shall be fined under this title and
imprisoned for not more than 20 years.
``(b) Any person who knows or recklessly disregards the
construction or use of a tunnel or passage described in
subsection (a) on land that the person owns or controls shall
be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10
years.
``(c) Any person who uses a tunnel or passage described in
subsection (a) to unlawfully smuggle an alien, goods (in
violation of section 545), controlled substances, weapons of
mass destruction (including biological weapons), or a member
of a terrorist organization (as defined in section
2339B(g)(6)) shall be subject to a maximum term of
imprisonment that is twice the maximum term of imprisonment
that would have otherwise been applicable had the unlawful
activity not made use of such a tunnel or passage.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages.''.

[[Page S7317]]

(c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(6) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``554,'' before
``1425,''.
(d) Directive to the United States Sentencing Commission.--
(1) In general.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with
this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide
for increased penalties for persons convicted of offenses
described in section 554 of title 18, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a).
(2) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the
United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(A) ensure that the sentencing guidelines, policy
statements, and official commentary reflect the serious
nature of the offenses described in section 554 of title 18,
United States Code, and the need for aggressive and
appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such offenses;
(B) provide adequate base offense levels for offenses under
such section;
(C) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that might justify exceptions, including--
(i) the use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection
(a) of such section to facilitate other felonies; and
(ii) the circumstances for which the sentencing guidelines
currently provide applicable sentencing enhancements;
(D) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives, other sentencing guidelines, and statutes;
(E) make any necessary and conforming changes to the
sentencing guidelines and policy statements; and
(F) ensure that the sentencing guidelines adequately meet
the purposes of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of
title 18, United States Code.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment criminalizes the
unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless disregard which
permits construction of a border tunnel that is a tunnel between
American land and another country's land; namely, Canada or Mexico or
any subterranean passageway along international borders.
This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kyl, Boxer, Talent,
Cantwell, Salazar, Hutchison, and Bingaman. This amendment was part of
the immigration bill. It was unanimously added to the immigration bill
by the Judiciary Committee. I have tried to hotline this amendment. It
was cleared on the Democratic side, and it was cleared on the
Republican side with the exception of one Senator. I believe it is an
important amendment. That is why I am offering it today as an amendment
to this bill.
Believe it or not, today the act of constructing, financing, or using
a tunnel between borders is not a Federal crime. This amendment changes
that. In addition to criminalizing the unauthorized construction,
financing, or use of a border tunnel on one's land, this amendment also
doubles the criminal penalties for individuals caught using a tunnel to
unlawfully smuggle aliens, goods, drugs, weapons of mass destruction,
or terrorists. The amendment also allows for assets involved in the
offense or any property traceable to the offense to be subject to
forfeiture.
Finally, the amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to
promulgate or amend Federal sentencing guidelines to provide for
criminal penalties for persons convicted pursuant to the language of
the amendment and to take into account the gravity of this crime when
considering base offense levels.
One might ask: Why is this important? I will answer that. Since
September 11, 43 tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United
States have been discovered--26 tunnels along the California-Mexican
border, 16 tunnels along the Arizona-Mexican border, and 1 tunnel along
the Washington-Canadian border. The risk to national security that is
raised by the use of these tunnels is one this body is already aware
of. In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee included report
language on this topic, which reads:

Policy on tunnels along the border: The Committee is
concerned with the Department's lack of a clear policy
regarding which agency is responsible for securing, closing,
and ultimately filling tunnels which are discovered crossing
under our land borders. It appears decisions regarding the
handling of tunnels are made on an ad hoc basis, depending on
which agency discovers the tunnel and has the resources to
fill it. With nearly four dozen known tunnels along our
borders, it is imperative a policy regarding tunnels be
developed.

And it goes on. It asks that this policy be developed not later than
February 8.
This report language in the appropriations bill is a good first step,
but it is just that. The cosponsors of this amendment and I believe
that we send a further message that border tunnels are a problem and
they must be dealt with. As I mentioned, 43 border tunnels have been
discovered in the United States. These tunnels range in complexity from
simple gopher holes a few feet long at the border to massive drug-
cartel-built megatunnels costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to
construct.
I recently visited a border tunnel on the Mexican-San Diego border.
Let me tell you what I found. I found a tunnel that was extraordinarily
sophisticated. It was six football fields long. It went under other
buildings. It went under the border. The American side was a large
warehouse, brand new, huge warehouse, half a long square block, kept
empty, small rooms inside the warehouse. Inside one room, which I will
show you in a minute, was a hatch. Down the hatch was a tunnel, a
concrete floor, ventilation, a pump to drain it, and electricity, as we
can see. This was the tunnel interior.

This is a picture of the interior. We can see the concrete. At one
end of the tunnel was 2,000 pounds of marijuana, and at the other end
was 300 pounds of marijuana.
This was the hatch in a room, and it looked very benign. You simply
lifted up two floor tiles, and under those floor tiles, you descended
about 10 feet and there was this huge apparatus which clearly had been
functioning for a substantial period of time. I found it just amazing.
The building, interestingly enough, was sold about a year ago to an
individual who never leased it out. I have always wondered: Why
wouldn't you lease out a warehouse? That question still has not been
answered to my satisfaction.
I also learned there is no law against it. There is no law that says
you have to do due diligence on your property if it is on the border to
see that somebody doesn't come along and dig a tunnel such as this and
smuggle aliens, smuggle drugs, possibly smuggle terrorists, possibly
smuggle weapons. This is a way to do it. Therefore, I believe this
amendment belongs in this bill.
My hope, given the importance of criminalizing this action, is that
this amendment will be included in the managers' amendment. We will
still be delighted if that is the case. I am not sure that is possible.
I believe to allow another period of time to go by with no law that
says it is illegal to build a border tunnel unless you are authorized
to do so, and has some sanctions to it, is really long overdue. It
would be terrible if we found out one day that a group of 15 or 16
terrorists came in from Mexico or came in from Canada to the State of
Washington through a border tunnel and we had done nothing about it.
This amendment also says that the owner of property along the border
must be reasonably aware, must do their due diligence to see that their
property is maintained and a border tunnel is prevented.
I am hopeful this amendment will be accepted and, if not, I will
certainly ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think the Senator's amendment is a good
amendment and I would like to accept it. There is an objection on our
side to our accepting it at this time with which the Senator is
familiar. I am hopeful we can resolve that objection.
Rather than going to the yeas and nays, let's see if we can resolve
the objection.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Would the Senator like me to hold on the yeas and
nays?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if the Senator from
California would. I certainly assure the Senator that at some point, if
we have to vote on it, we will vote on it. Right now there appears to
be an objection going forward.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg. I know Senator
Kyl is going to come to the floor and speak on the amendment as well. I
do not see him at this time.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator has made an excellent point. It doesn't
surprise me there is no criminality or law involved that restricts the
ability to dig a tunnel from one country to another. It is pretty
obvious that something

[[Page S7318]]

should be done in this area. So I think the Senator has touched on a
very important point. hopefully we will work it out, and we will work
it out before this bill is off the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for those comments.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask that the amendment be set
aside.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment by Senator Feinstein, No. 4556.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be set aside and we return to debate on amendment No. 4560 by Senator
Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking that it be the pending
question or just to debate it?
Mr. LOTT. I am asking that the pending amendment be set aside to
return to debate on amendment No. 4560.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4560

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join in the support
of amendment No. 4560 to the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill. I thank Senator Collins for her leadership in this
area and for her willingness to work on a solution that I think will be
good for the Federal Emergency Management Administration, as it is now
known, in the Department of Homeland Security, and result in a better
effort by the successor to FEMA in the future.
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the support of my colleagues
in the Senate as we have gone through the aftermath of Katrina and we
have come to the floor three or four times asking for help in a variety
of areas to help us with the recovery, to get funds for the different
Federal agencies, to get funds even to the Federal Emergency Management
Administration to help us recover. A lot of progress has been made. I
want to acknowledge that.
In 3 years or 5 years, we are going to look back and say that the aid
we received from the Federal Government was absolutely indispensable
and allowed us to get through this very difficult process.
In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, there were wonderful
stories that could be told about the actions of the Coast Guard
specifically, let me point out, and by other military installations,
faith-based groups, volunteer groups, charitable organizations, by
corporate America that sent aid, supplies, money, people. The utilities
worked laboriously to get power back on and telephones operative. It
was a monumental undertaking.
For those who want to be critical of the recovery effort--and I am
one of those--you have to first acknowledge that this was a devastating
disaster of Biblical proportions, more than any of us could have
comprehended, more than any of us who lived in the line of fire from
Hurricane Katrina understood even in the immediate aftermath, including
me.
I was there in the immediate aftermath. We lost our house. We are
like everybody else along the coastline of Mississippi and Louisiana.
It is a very difficult experience. But our people have been resilient,
they have been determined, and we are making progress.
We did get through the preparations for the hurricane, saving lives
immediately after, getting basics to people who needed them--just basic
water and ice. We have gotten almost all of the debris removed, except
in some of the swamp and water canals and channels that still has to be
removed. We are seeing rebuilding start. Just yesterday, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development released $3 billion for the home
grants through CDBG so that people who lost their home, had no
insurance, and had a mortgage and probably lost their job and their
car, their truck, or their dog will have some way to get up to $150,000
to get their homes repaired or rebuilt. So we have made a lot of
progress.

I think it is time that we look even more to the future: How are we
going to get through the rebuilding period? We are working with
elevations, heights that FEMA is requiring; we are dealing with small
business loans, all that goes on with the rebuilding effort.
But I am worried about the next disaster. There were some very
disappointing results at FEMA. And I want to hasten to say that FEMA,
which became a dirty, four-letter word, has a lot of good people in it
and has done a lot of really good things, but it could have been and it
should have been better. And what troubles me so much, as a Congressman
and Senator and even before that as a staff member--I have dealt with
the recovery effort after five hurricanes, two major tornadoes, two
major ice storms, and a flood. I have dealt with disasters. I have
dealt with the emergency arm of the Federal Government, going back to
1969 after Hurricane Camille, when the disaster effort and recovery was
carried out by the Office of Emergency Preparedness, OEP. Its offices
are right across the street from the Old Executive Office Building, run
by a general, a retired Army general, and reportable only to the
President of the United States.
They did a marvelous job after Hurricane Camille. The chain of
command was short. In those days, the Corps of Engineers brought in the
heavy equipment, the trucks, the bulldozers, the front-end loaders, the
Bobcats. They cleaned up the debris. Now you have to go through
Treasury, a check goes to FEMA, FEMA goes to the Corps, the Corps of
Engineers goes to the contractor--out of State probably--and the
contractor goes to subcontractors, to sub-subcontractors and,
meanwhile, a lot of money is frittered away as everybody takes their
bite, on down the line.
Of course, one of the most difficult things was getting the trailers,
the temporary housing to people in the area. The logistics of getting
trailers is not a big problem, but getting them to the people turned
out to be a huge problem. The insanity of how it was managed was
inexplicable. I won't go through how difficult it was.
We are still dealing with that. We still have some people who are
living in tents because FEMA said: We won't deliver you a trailer if
you are in a flood zone. If that is all the property you have--you
could bring a trailer into a flood zone, and if you had to, you could
hitch it up and pull it out. But people are still living in very
difficult circumstances.
I believe we made a mistake when we were creating this huge, new,
mammoth Department of Homeland Security where we put all of these
different entities, agencies, and bureaus into that agency that wound
up having 150,000 or more people in it.
I remember when we were discussing creating this Department of
Homeland Security in an office right down the hall. Senator Stevens and
Senator Collins and some of us raised questions about how the Coast
Guard was going to be handled, and we wound up carving out a special
arrangement for the Coast Guard. I won't get into the details of it at
this moment. But I raised questions about FEMA, too: Are we sure we
want to put our emergency management organization into this big,
mammoth department and maybe become overrun by homeland security and
terrorism? And the answer was: Oh, absolutely. They need to coordinate
manmade disasters, natural disasters, disaster preparation, disaster
recovery; it needs to be seamless and they all need to be operating
under the same authority.
Well, I relented. I think it was a mistake. I think the emergency
management organization has a unique responsibility in preparation for
disasters. Yes, they can be manmade as well as natural disasters, but
also in the recovery. But I think the chain of command was out of
control. The number of officials who were meeting in a room, they would
fill up the room and identify all the problems: Oh, we have a flood
main broken here. We have schools where the wall is falling in. We have
debris in the road. They would get through with the meeting, everybody
would leave, and somebody would say: Did anybody get any assignments?
Did they agree to do anything? No.

[[Page S7319]]

The people that did do something, though, were in the Coast Guard.
They helped move people out before the hurricane, rescued people during
and after the hurricane, and generally did a magnificent job. Do you
know why? Because they had this carved-out, unique position, even
though they were in the Department of Homeland Security. They didn't
have to go through the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
to do what was necessary.
Another example was the Seabees at Gulfport, MS. When they went to
these meetings with all of these muckety-mucks, all of these different
agency heads, to hear the problems and do nothing about it, the Seabees
would make lists of things they could do and they went out and did it.
They went out and stopped the leaky water main. They went and removed
the debris so you could get into a neighborhood. They went to the
school and they took action to tear down or repair or fix a wall so it
would at least be safe for their children. You know what. They just did
it.

By the way, they could have gotten in trouble because if FEMA hadn't
agreed to reimbursement, they would have had to eat the cost of what
they did, and some captain in the Seabees could have been in real
jeopardy. But, thank goodness, they worked through it. They got
reimbursed and did well.
So I think that is part of the problem. I asked the Seabees: Why were
you able to do that?
They said: Well, the chain of command was so long and laborious, we
decided we would find the things we could do and we would just go out
and do it.
FEMA, I think, meanwhile, had been sort of pushed back into the back
40 part of Homeland Security. They had been underfunded, undermanned,
and had not been really getting the involvement and the attention they
needed. Plus, I was shocked one time when I heard the Secretary of
Homeland Security complaining that the head of FEMA was going around
him directly to the President. Yes, he should have. You shouldn't have
the emergency management and recovery people having to check with the
Assistant Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Secretary, the Chief of
Staff, the OMB, to get to the President. This is an emergency. It is a
disaster, for heaven's sake. So I don't think it worked well.
I don't blame a lot of the good men and women at FEMA; I blame us. We
did it. We created a system that didn't work.
So I introduced legislation to move FEMA, like its predecessors, back
into a role as an independent agency with specific authorities for
natural disasters, reporting only to the President. I was joined in
sponsoring that legislation by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton,
who knows something about how the predecessor to FEMA worked under its
Administrator at the time, James Lee Witt, who also had a little
experience with disasters, although the ones he dealt with on 9/11, as
the Senator from New York knows, were manmade. Others joined in
cosponsoring that legislation.
I still believe that is the best way to go. I think it should be
independent.
In the House, you have two separate approaches. You have the
independent approach and you have the approach that would keep it
locked in Homeland Security. But it seemed to me that there was a third
way. There is always a third way, if you will just look for it. I think
that is one of the things we have lost in this institution. We get
locked into the Republican position, the Democratic position, or some
other division, and then we won't talk to each other.
So Senator Collins, to her credit, on her own initiative, said: Can I
come talk to you about the proposal that Senator Lieberman and I have,
which was to keep it in the Department of Homeland Security, with some
changes, and some recommendations I thought would have been positive
but still was not the solution I thought we needed. But she came and
took the time to explain it to me. It had some attractive features to
it. She gave it more authority.
But then I thought about it for a while and I went back to her and I
said: Let's find this third way. I think maybe the thing to do is to
carve FEMA out into a position like the Coast Guard but within the
Department of Homeland Security but with an independent authority, the
ability to report directly to the President of the United States. Yes,
they could be involved in coordinating and in the preparation for
disasters of all kinds, but set them up basically independent within
the Department of Homeland Security.
I think it will work. An example is the Coast Guard. So much of the
language that we have in this amendment came from the Coast Guard
language. I know Senator Collins has taken the time to explain the
details of what is proposed here, and I am painting a broader picture
of what is involved. But we were able to come to an agreement. Her
staff was cooperative. My staff, which has had a lot of experience with
this sort of thing, worked with them, and we came to an agreement. By
the way, I then went to Senator Clinton and said: I think we can get
something done if we do this, rather than just having a big fight. Do
you want a big fight or do you want a result? The new hurricane season
is upon us.
Now, the media made it sound like on June 8, or whatever the date was
that hurricane season begins, we would get hit immediately. Well, those
of us who are hurricane pros know that hurricanes generally don't hit
in June and July, but they will come in August and September, and this
time it may not be Mississippi or Florida; it may be Maine. But it will
come somewhere. I don't want to be sitting around here complaining
about what it was like because FEMA did not have the authority they
needed, didn't have the money, didn't have the power they needed 6
months or a year from now. So we needed to get something done.
Senator Clinton understood what I was trying to do. It is part of the
way I think we need to do things around here. It is part of being
honorable with each other. She had been a cosponsor. I thought I should
explain what I was working on doing. So we came to the agreement that
has been produced with this amendment. I think it makes good sense. I
think the House will find some wisdom in it, and the most important
thing is we will get something done.

It is so difficult to move something through the Senate anymore. Do
you think we could really move a whole new, freestanding bill through
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, get it to the
floor of the Senate, all kinds of amendments--and let me tell you, I
would be one of the ones waiting here with lots of amendments. I have
lots of other things stuck in my craw about the hurricanes that I am
worried about for the future--or could we go with an amendment, which
seems appropriate to me, to the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill, get it to the House, get their input, and get a
result. Even then, it won't be perfect, but I believe it will be
better. This is something we should do.
I will be coming back, until the last day I serve in this
institution--whenever that may be--to talk to my colleagues about
lessons we learned and things we can do that will hopefully help our
people be more secure; that will help people who will be hit with other
kinds of disasters such as tornadoes, earthquakes, crickets, or
whatever, but we will do it better because of what we learned from
Hurricane Katrina.
So I am delighted to be here to support this amendment. In a perfect
world I might do it differently, or I might still insist that it can be
a separate entity. The amendment even proposes that it be renamed the
Emergency Management Administration, I believe--EMA. It is something we
can say, and it is not a four-letter word. I think while that is not
going to cure a single problem, it is part of creating a new atmosphere
and a different mindset, hopefully.
I think the Administrator of FEMA that we have in place now, Mr.
Paulson, is a good man. I think he is going to move toward trying to
get professional disaster-experienced people in FEMA throughout this
country, and I certainly hope he will.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and then support
this appropriations bill. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for
his

[[Page S7320]]

comments, for his support, and for his enormous contribution to the
amendment that is before us today. He, more than any other Member of
this body, has personal experience with the devastation that Hurricane
Katrina caused, and he has been, along with Senator Cochran and the two
Louisiana Senators, a fierce advocate for reforming the system to make
sure that never again does government at all levels so fundamentally
fail in its obligation to our citizens.
I very much appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Lott to
strengthen the language in our bill to make sure that the exact same
safeguards and protections that the Coast Guard enjoys would now apply
to the new FEMA organization: USEMA. I think that was an excellent
suggestion. We used the same language, and we will protect the new
agency from being reorganized by the Secretary, from having its mission
altered, from having it split up or dispersed or its budget cut through
administrative fiat. Those kinds of changes should come to Congress,
and we have put those protections in place.
As Senator Lott recommended, we have upgraded the status of the whole
agency. The head of the new agency will be the equivalent of a Deputy
Secretary and will have the clout and the stature that is needed to
deal with other agencies. We have done enormous reforms. This version
of an emergency management agency will have authorities that the
current FEMA has never had. In addition, we restored the preparedness
and the grant-making functions, and I think we have come up with a very
good product.
So I want to thank my colleague and friend from Mississippi for his
considerable contributions to this amendment, and I am very grateful
that he was willing to sit down and find--as he put it--a third way
and, indeed, I believe, a far better solution. So I thank him for his
support.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are working toward getting an agreement.
For the edification of Members, if we can work that out, we will have
two votes in approximately an hour, but that is not necessarily going
to happen.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4563

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up amendment 4563 on behalf of
Senator Clinton, myself, and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself and Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg,
and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 4563.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment for
myself and my good friend from New York to restore the Federal
Emergency Management Agency--FEMA--to its proper place as an
independent agency.
Before I speak on our amendment, I would like to thank the chairman
and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee for their hard work on this issue. We disagree on this one
point, but I appreciate all they have done over the past year to ensure
that the failures of Hurricane Katrina are never repeated.
As my colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee know, the placement of FEMA in the Department of Homeland
Security--DHS--is a subject that has troubled me since the concept of
the Department was first debated in 2002. As a senior member of this
committee, I can tell you that the structure of Federal agencies
matters. Combining too many disparate functions some of which have
nothing to do with homeland security into one agency can be unworkable,
which is a primary reason why I voted against the creation of DHS.
Some say reinstating FEMA's independence now is brash and premature.
Respectfully, I could not disagree more. To me, it was premature to
place FEMA within DHS, a huge, terrorism-focused agency, where FEMA's
traditional mission of responding to disasters would be neglected. The
FEMA of yesterday has been downgraded, dismantled, and demoralized
which I believe contributed to the muddled response to Hurricane
Katrina.
DHS failed as a department during Hurricane Katrina and failed to
give FEMA the opportunity to succeed. During the Committee's Katrina
hearings, we heard numerous examples of information and initiative
getting lost in DHS during the Hurricane Katrina response. Witnesses
described sending information updates and requests out to the
Department, never knowing where those messages went or if requested
action had been taken. DHS was a black hole where information and
accountability were lost.
Since FEMA was folded into the Department, FEMA has been deprived of
funding and resources. FEMA has been forced to transfer significant
resources to other parts of the Department. In 2003 and 2004, $169
million of FEMA's funding was transferred to DHS, in part because of
lost programs, but also because of a so-called management tax to help
pay for shared services within the Department.
Congress and the American public never knew about these funding
shortfalls because FEMA was buried within DHS. Former FEMA Director
Michael Brown testified that instead of taking FEMA's budget proposal
to the President, he was required to clear the budget through another
Undersecretary at DHS, then the Secretary, and then the President.
With a loss of funding and programs, came a loss of staff. FEMA's
staff has been reduced by 500 positions since 2003. And within the
existing positions at FEMA, there has been a 15 to 20 percent vacancy
rate over the past few years.
FEMA needs to be an independent, Cabinet-level agency to avoid having
its budget and staff siphoned off for other activities within the
Department. Restoring the FEMA Director to the President's Cabinet will
better serve America. Restoring FEMA's place at the table will ensure
transparency and accountability while allowing the Director to present
funding needs directly to the President. In 1996, recognizing the
importance of emergency response, President Clinton elevated the FEMA
Director position to the Cabinet level. Former FEMA Director James Lee
Witt said being a member of the President's Cabinet allowed him to task
other Federal agencies more effectively during disasters and provided
an established and direct line of communication to the President.
There are those who argue that FEMA needs to remain in DHS so that
the Department's other personnel and assets can be accessed more
readily. This is a hollow argument because under the Stafford Act, FEMA
has the authority to utilize resources across the Federal Government
during a disaster. The Stafford Act allows FEMA to task Health and
Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Defense, and many other Federal agencies during disasters. Should all
those entities be incorporated into DHS as well? There is no reason the
same mission assignment procedure cannot be applied to DHS assets as
well.
Separating FEMA from DHS not only will improve FEMA's ability to
manage preparedness and response, but it also will allow DHS to focus
on its mission to prevent a terrorist attack. DHS cannot be all things
to all people.
The dedicated public servants of FEMA agree. The American Federation
of Government Employees--AFGE--which represents 1,200 FEMA employees,
strongly endorses an independent

[[Page S7321]]

FEMA. AFGE's June 13, 2006, letter to Congress states:

(T)he merger of FEMA into DHS may have sounded good in
theory, but in reality it has proven to be impractical and
counterproductive. When Hurricane Katrina struck the U.S.,
the DHS structure simply imposed an extra layer of
bureaucracy on top of FEMA, and wound up impeding, not
assisting, the response.

Former FEMA Director Witt also believes FEMA does not belong in DHS.
In a recent editorial, he stated:

Though most agree FEMA must be mended, we don't have the
luxury of gambling with another experimental restructuring of
the department. And why gamble when a simple reversion to its
pre-2001 incarnation would fix the problem? . . . As it
stands under today's DHS structure, annual hazards such as
hurricanes, floods, and tornados are allowed a 25 percent
focus, even though they have a 100 percent probability of
occurring at some point. An independent FEMA would again give
all disasters 100 percent of its attention.

I agree with Mr. Witt. Fortunately, since DHS was created, there has
not been another terrorist attack in the U.S. although there have been
over 100 Presidentially-declared natural disasters. I support ensuring
the U.S. is prepared for a terrorist attack, but we should not forget
that natural disasters are guaranteed to occur every single year.
Mr. President, we have tried the superagency approach, and now it is
time to get back to basics. I ask my colleagues to think about what is
practical when they cast their vote on our amendment. Our constituents
should feel confident that FEMA and its resources will be there in
their time of need.
I urge support for our amendment. I yield back my remaining time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from
Hawaii, who has been a strong voice on behalf of our Nation's security
and joins with me in putting before the Senate one of the most
important issues we face: How will we manage our emergency preparedness
and response?
I have the greatest respect and regard for my colleagues, Senator
Collins and Senator Lieberman. They have done an extraordinary job in
leading a committee that has had so much responsibility over the last
months for the well-being and the homeland security of our Nation. I
respectfully disagree with the solution they are putting forth, but I
know it comes after not only many hearings but incredible thought and
extraordinary attention to the details about how best to rescue the
situation in which we find ourselves.
We had a functioning, effective Federal Emergency Management Agency
5\1/2\ years ago. By all accounts, on all sides of the political
spectrum, we had a crown jewel, an agency where performance was highly
regarded not only in our own country but literally around the world.
Unfortunately, that agency became a victim of the governing philosophy
of the current administration.
We have seen, in stark terms, the failures of the existing Federal
Emergency Management Agency, so-called FEMA. We saw it in the
disastrous failures in the days and weeks, continuing until this day,
along our gulf coast when people lost everything--their homes, their
neighborhoods, their churches, even their loved ones. Our Nation lost
something precious as well: we lost faith in our Federal Government and
in the response capabilities of the organization that until 5\1/2\
years ago we could count on.
When we created the Department of Homeland Security after September
11, I warned, along with others, that moving FEMA into that large
bureaucracy was a mistake. I said that on the basis of what I thought
was the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which was,
first and foremost, to deal with the potential for terrorism and to
deter and prevent terrorist attacks like the horrific attacks of
September 11.
The decision was made to move FEMA into the Department of Homeland
Security, and my worst fears came true. It became a stepchild. It
became a holding pen for political cronies. It was no longer viewed as
the crown jewel of the Federal Government but as a stepchild that did
not really deserve the attention and the resources of this
administration. Our worst fears about what would happen to FEMA in the
Department of Homeland Security came true when we saw the images on
television coming out of New Orleans and up and down the gulf coast.
I applaud Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for the
extraordinarily thorough investigation they did. We got even more
sickening detail of e-mails from FEMA officials at the time the
disaster struck, what their concerns were--which were hardly focused on
saving the people who were suffering. We have seen thousands of people
displaced. We see 10,000 mobile homes sitting empty at the Hope, AR,
Municipal Airport, and on and on. We have a GAO report that says there
may have been up to $1 billion--yes, that is billion with a ``b''--$1
billion in Federal assistance that has been misspent.
It is not only the facts about Katrina that bring me to urge we
restore FEMA to an independent status, give it back Cabinet-level
access, make it independent of the behemoth that the bureaucracy of the
Department of Homeland Security has become, but it is also my worry
about the future.
Hurricane Katrina was a foreseen disaster. We watched it on the
Weather Channel. We saw it coming across the gulf. It was not a sneak
attack by suicide bombers in airplanes, it was a huge storm. I worry,
as incompetent as FEMA has become, how would they handle the
unforeseen?
It is tragic to me that we have come to this position, and I think
the new leadership at FEMA is laboring mightily to try to turn the
situation around. But I worry it will be impossible, if FEMA stays
within the Department of Homeland Security. If it stays within the
Department and is renamed and reconfigured, I do not think that
eliminates the primary problem, which is that it is stuck in a
department with a focus and mission that cannot help but be to try to
prevent and deter terrorist attacks. Believe me, I am all for that. We
are about to come up on the fifth anniversary year of the attacks of 9/
11.
Although I really respect what Senators Collins and Lieberman are
trying to do, I think they are trying to fit a square peg into a round
hole. They are stuck with the Department of Homeland Security, and so
they are trying to figure out a way to shoehorn it in, to detour around
the dysfunctional organization and leadership that the Department has.
And I do not think that will work.
The amendment Senator Akaka and I and others have offered would do
three things: first, reinstitute FEMA as an independent Cabinet-level
agency; second, require the Director and Deputy Director to have the
appropriate emergency service qualifications; and third, require the
FEMA Director to report directly to the President of the United States.
During Katrina, who was in charge? Was it our President? Was it the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? Was it the FEMA
Director? I do not know who it was. And one of the problems is that no
one was. If we just sort of move the deck chairs on the Titanic, I do
not think that solves the problem.
FEMA's response capabilities have been degraded since Katrina even,
because people are not there. They are not able to have the same sense
of morale and commitment. When you look at all the reports that have
been done--one from the White House, one from the Senate, one from the
House, as well as the various reports from the Government
Accountability Office--you can see all of the things that went wrong.
Unfortunately, these reports have not been coordinated, and it is very
difficult to figure out how we are going to get ourselves back on the
right track with a functioning world-class FEMA, and I just do not
believe the answer is for it to operate as a subagency within the
Department.
Now, I know there are those who are rightly concerned that if we take
FEMA back to an independent status, then we will have duplicative
efforts, we will not have coordination. I think the amendment tries to
specifically say this does not detract in any way from the Department
of Homeland Security's mission to secure the homeland. But I believe
having it back in an independent status, with full accountability to
the President, statutory authority under the Stafford Act to carry out
all of the necessary mitigation, response, and recovery actions, is the
way to go. If under our amendment we

[[Page S7322]]

make FEMA report directly to the President, then the FEMA Director will
have more authority under Stafford Act designation than if he is a sub-
Cabinet official within DHS.
My bottom line is we should get FEMA back to a functioning, effective
agency again, and there is a difference of opinion about how best to do
that. Obviously, we are back in hurricane season. We do not want to do
anything, either within a reorganization or an independent status, that
would further disable FEMA from responding. But if we reempower FEMA,
restore its independence, and staff it with qualified people, we will
be back on the right track.
We have a regional structure for FEMA, and it is not clear from the
proposal from the committee how that will work, who appoints those
regional directors, who has to be in charge. I do not want people
exchanging business cards at the site of a disaster, which is what has
been happening. I believe we have to build on the strong track record
FEMA had during the 1990s.
I know the committee has said this would be comparable to the Coast
Guard, but I think that is a slightly different role and mission. The
Coast Guard is a military, multimissioned maritime service. It is one
of our Nation's five armed services. Its mission is to ``protect the
public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests--in the nation's
ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in
any maritime region as required to support national security.''
They did a superb job with respect to Katrina and Rita. But FEMA has
a different role. It is supposed to be managing dollars of considerable
numbers in advance of catastrophic events, coordinating Federal
agencies, carrying out the President's statutory authority for
emergency response. It is supposed to be the go-to entity for full
management.
I believe we have a better chance of getting back the FEMA we should
have, that the people should be able to count on, that can work with
State and local governments, that can help to mitigate disasters, by
returning it to independence.
So, Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to support the amendment to
restore FEMA to an effective, independent, Cabinet-level agency once
again and send a message to the country that FEMA is back--it is back,
it is ready for business, and people can have trust in it once again.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in deciding how to vote on this issue, I
would encourage our colleagues to consult the experts, the first
responder organizations that overwhelmingly support the Collins-
Lieberman-Lott-Carper approach and do not support the amendment that
has been proposed by my colleagues from New York and Hawaii.
For example, the International Association of Fire Fighters, which
represents 270,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical
personnel, has endorsed the Collins-Lieberman-Lott-Carper amendment and
says this about the alternative approach we have just heard described:

We believe that proposals to return FEMA to its status as
an independent agency would hinder efforts to reform our
nation's emergency response system. Removing FEMA from DHS
would create competing agencies, sowing confusion among
emergency responders. Furthermore, such an approach would
undermine an all-hazards approach, leading to the perception
that DHS deals with terrorism while FEMA is in charge of
natural disasters.

That is what the International Association of Fire Fighters says.
Other groups, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association, say
something very similar; the National Troopers Coalition, the National
Association of Police Organizations, Advocates for EMS--the list goes
on and on and on. The fact is, those who put their lives on the line,
who are on the front lines of emergency response, say it would be a
colossal mistake to take FEMA out of DHS, to sever that connection.
Does the Senator from New Hampshire wish for me to yield the floor?
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield so we could enter into a
unanimous consent agreement. I believe we have reached an agreement
where we can proceed to lock in the vote on the Senator's amendment and
the amendment offered by Senator Akaka and Senator Clinton.
Mr. President, the request is as follows: I ask unanimous consent
that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, Senator Lautenberg be
recognized for 15 minutes, and that at the conclusion of his remarks,
we would go to a vote on Senator Collins' amendment, with no second
degrees being in order--and there would be 2 minutes equally divided
prior to that vote--and that at the conclusion of the vote on Senator
Collins' amendment, we would go to a vote on the amendment offered by
Senator Akaka and Senator Clinton, with 2 minutes equally divided prior
to that vote----
Mrs. MURRAY. With no second degrees.
Mr. GREGG. With no second degrees and no points of order against
either amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. That would mean--how long will the Senator probably be
speaking?
Ms. COLLINS. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. GREGG. So that would mean the votes would begin at around 6:15,
one would presume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, those who are on the front lines--our
police associations, our firefighters associations, the emergency
medical personnel organizations--have all endorsed the approach we have
suggested. This approach would strengthen FEMA but leave it within the
Department of Homeland Security so we can establish a comprehensive
all-hazards approach to emergency management.
We do not want to take FEMA out of the Department in the way
particularly that Senator Clinton's and Senator Akaka's amendment would
entail. I refer my colleagues to page 7 of their amendment, section
612, ``Transfer Of Functions.'' This provision says the functions FEMA
has as of the date of enactment should be transferred to the new
agency. Well, let me tell you what that means. That means that
preparedness would still be separate from response despite the fact
that the experts agree that one of the reasons for FEMA's weak
performance was the separation of preparedness from response--two sides
of the same coin that should be together in one agency. Yet the
Clinton-Akaka amendment keeps preparedness within the Department of
Homeland Security and only has the response functions going to the new
independent agency that they would propose.
Our bill consolidates the grant-making for preparedness--that is
billions of dollars of preparedness grants--we would put in the new
FEMA. Infrastructure protection, the national communications system,
the chief medical officer, the cybersecurity office all would be in
this new agency which we call the U.S. Emergency Management Authority.
So we are not simply leaving FEMA within the Department of Homeland
Security; we are strengthening, reforming, and upgrading FEMA so it can
be effective.
I must say, I am at a loss why the proponents of the alternative
approach want to take a FEMA that everyone deems is inadequate and has
poorly performed, take this shell of an agency that has been stripped
of many of its essential functions and cast it adrift by making it an
independent agency. That approach makes absolutely no sense at all.
If the problem were FEMA's location, then why did the Coast Guard do
such a stellar job in performing in response to Hurricane Katrina? By
all accounts, the Coast Guard's preparedness and its response were
superb. It pre-positioned its assets, it responded quickly, and it
rescued some 35,000 people.
If the problem, in fact, were the location of the agency, then how
did the Coast Guard manage to do such a good job? It is part of the
Department of Homeland Security. Obviously, that is not the issue.
What we have done in our proposal is give the new emergency
management agency the same kinds of protections that the Coast Guard
has within DHS. No longer could the agency's mission be altered or its
assets stripped away or could it be reorganized. You would have to come
to Congress to do that. The issue is how can we best create a

[[Page S7323]]

strong emergency management agency. That is the question that our
proposal answers. It stresses giving FEMA back the authorities that
were stripped away. It emphasizes giving it new authority so that it
can be a strong, all-hazards agency. It elevates the stature of the
appointees. It requires them to have relevant experience for those
positions. It gives it the tools to do the job effectively. It protects
it from reorganization. It makes the head of the new agency the
principal adviser to the President on emergency management, but it
allows it to have all the advantages of being part of the Department of
Homeland Security, the advantage of a close relationship with the Coast
Guard, a close relationship with the law enforcement agencies that are
within DHS.
Taking the weakened version of FEMA and casting it adrift and
thinking that somehow that is going to solve the problem flies in the
face of the 23 hearings that we held to get to this solution, the
838,000 pages of evidence, the 325 people we interviewed, and the
expertise of the first responder community. It would be a terrible
mistake.
The Hart-Rudman commission 5 years ago said FEMA is the essential
core of DHS, and they are right. If FEMA were pulled out of DHS, DHS
would be forced to create a very similar, costly, duplicative agency in
order to handle a response to terrorist attacks. It makes no sense to
have one agency that deals with natural disasters and another agency
within DHS that deals with the response to terrorist attacks. If the
levees in New Orleans had been bombed rather than breached, the same
challenges of evacuation, sheltering, and caring for individuals would
have been present. It makes no sense and will be extremely costly--to
the tune of billions of dollars, according to Secretary Chertoff--for
us to have to recreate within DHS essential capabilities that DHS will
need if FEMA is taken out of the Department.
I am reminded during this debate of a saying by H.L. Mencken that for
every problem there is a solution that is neat, plausible, and wrong.
Taking FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security is wrong. At
first blush it may look like the easy solution. But after looking at
this issue for more than 8 months, it is not the solution. I hope our
colleagues will listen to the true experts, our first responders and
their organizations warning that this would be a disaster, that it
would force them and State and local emergency managers to have to deal
with two agencies, two sets of regulations, depending on whether or not
this was the result of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. That
is contrary to the all-hazards approach that the experts have
encouraged us to take.
The Homeland Security Council, a very prestigious group of private
sector businesses and experts, conducted its own 6-month review of what
went wrong with the preparedness and response to Hurricane Katrina. It,
too, concluded that DHS preparedness assets and FEMA need to be more
closely aligned, not split apart into two separate agencies.
I am going to reserve the remainder of my time. It is my
understanding Senator Lautenberg will be speaking on this issue.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, since Senator Lautenberg has not arrived,
I am going to continue to expound on why the Collins-Lieberman-Lott-
Carper amendment should be agreed to and the Clinton-Akaka amendment
should be rejected.
As I look at this issue, I realize that people look back at FEMA with
rose-colored glasses. There is this myth of the golden age of FEMA.
Indeed, FEMA in the past has had some talented leaders which proves my
point that this really is about leadership more than anything. Clearly,
Michael Brown was an abysmal failure as FEMA's leader. There is
unanimity on that as well. But the fact is, when FEMA was an
independent agency, it also experienced severe problems dealing with
major disasters.
If you look at the GAO and other reports, and, indeed, the hearing
records before the committee I now chair back after Hurricane Andrew in
1992, you could take out the word ``Andrew'' and substitute
``Katrina,'' and you would get exactly the same indictment. In the
hearing after Hurricane Andrew, my colleague, Senator Akaka, noted the
difficulties that FEMA has had with response to catastrophic disasters.
It is those catastrophic disasters, the fact is, that FEMA has never
been able to handle, both when it was independent and when it was in
DHS.
Our committee's bipartisan recommendation seeks to correct that
problem by creating an agency with the capabilities for the first time
to manage catastrophic disasters.
The Government Accountability Office found that FEMA's response to
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 ``raised serious doubts about whether FEMA is
capable of responding to catastrophic disasters.'' This is when FEMA
was an independent agency. In particular, the GAO said that ``the
Federal strategy for response lacked provisions to assess damage, the
needs of victims, to provide food, shelter, and other essential
services when the needs of victims outstrip State and local
resources.''
You could apply exactly the same words to what happened after
Katrina. What we need is to build an agency that does have the capacity
to respond to not just small- and medium-sized disasters but to true
catastrophes. That is what our bill would do. We would have a stronger
agency, better led, better organized, with new authorities and powers
that FEMA has never had. We would give it the resources to be
effective.
Another important part of our amendment that, again, the Clinton-
Akaka amendment completely lacks is the creation of regional strike
teams that would be located in regions of the country and have
representatives of all the Federal agencies that are involved in
responding to a disaster. These strike teams would plan, train, and
exercise with their State and local counterparts and with private
sector groups that are involved in responding to a disaster such as the
Red Cross and the Salvation Army. That is the kind of approach we need
to be effective. We should have people in the region who already know
the local officials, the vulnerabilities, the weaknesses, the
strengths, the capabilities of the State and local systems, and can
make sure that there are effective plans in place. We don't have that
now.
When Katrina struck, people were sent from region 1 in New England
down to New Orleans and Mississippi to help out. They didn't know the
people. They didn't know the geography. They didn't know the culture.
They didn't have that much experience in dealing with hurricanes. That
doesn't make any sense at all. We should have regionally based teams
that can work with their partners at the State and local level and in
the private sector. I am talking about working not just with the
nonprofits such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army but also with the
private sector, such as the local utility companies. That is an
important partner as well. Instead, what we found with Katrina were
problems in credentialing utility workers and other private sector
workers so they couldn't, in some cases, gain access to the disaster
area.
We have given a lot of thought to how to do this right. This wasn't
cobbled together overnight. It avoids the simplistic solution, which is
no solution at all, of just saying: Let's take this weak, dysfunctional
agency, this discredited agency, cut it loose from DHS, and somehow all
will be well.
All will not be well. In fact, it would be a disaster to have FEMA,
with its very limited current authorities, cast off as a separate
agency.
Thad Allen said it well when he pointed out that since FEMA and the
Coast Guard have been part of the same Department, there has been a
350-percent increase in joint training. That is what we want. We don't
want a bureaucratic structure. We want people to plan, train, and
exercise together. If they are in different agencies, that is not going
to happen. FEMA is not going to have the advantage of working closely
with those relevant agencies within the Department.

[[Page S7324]]

Another problem of the Clinton-Akaka amendment is that it would leave
the preparedness functions in the Department of Homeland Security. I
suspect I know why they did that. They did that because they realize
the Department of Homeland Security has to have those preparedness
functions. It needs to be able to prepare to respond to a terrorist
attack. So they kept that function there.
But how does it make sense for FEMA to be only a response agency?
That is what led us to the failed response to Katrina. Preparedness had
been stripped off from FEMA. So this makes no sense at all.
Another criticism has been that FEMA lacks right now the authority to
award preparedness grants. Yet the Clinton-Akaka amendment keeps that
problem. It would keep the preparedness grants that go to State and
local governments in the Department of Homeland Security, and yet would
have this agency, FEMA, which is supposed to be working with State and
local governments, with no authority over the funding for preparedness.
That doesn't make any sense either.
I hope this body will recognize that the Homeland Security Committee
has done a great deal of work. I hope they will listen to these first
responder groups who say: Keep FEMA within DHS, but make it work. That
is exactly what our amendment would do.
I see that the Senator from Connecticut has come to the floor. I
would like to yield to him, if that is acceptable with the manager of
the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as I understand the time agreement, the
Senator from Maine had no limitation on her time, but at the conclusion
of her remarks, the Senator from New Jersey was to be recognized for 15
minutes. If her remarks are completed, the time will begin to run
against the Senator from New Jersey. It will take a new unanimous
consent request, I suspect, to yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
How much time does the Senator from Connecticut wish?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would just say amen to everything Senator Collins
has said, but I will speak for 5 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes, then the Senator
from New Jersey be recognized for 15 minutes, and then the vote occur
20 minutes from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to quite literally
say amen to everything Senator Collins has said on behalf of our
amendment and in respectful opposition to the amendment that Senator
Clinton has proposed.
We had a disaster, a catastrophe last year in Hurricane Katrina that
was natural, and then we had a manmade disaster which was the
shockingly inadequate response of the Federal, State, and local
governments to that catastrophe that was called Katrina. So our
committee spent months investigating, told the story, and considered
what we could do to make sure nothing like the Federal Government's
inadequate, incompetent reaction and response ever occurred again.
We considered the responsibility that some have raised of taking
FEMA, or a replacement agency such as we are proposing, out of the
Department and making it independent again. But it made no sense to us.
If you have a Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to be
our major Department to prepare for and respond to disasters, natural
and manmade, then why would we want to take the emergency management
agency, which is all about responding to disasters, natural and
terrorist, out of that Department? It would be, as I said at one of our
hearings, like taking the U.S. Army out of the Department of Defense
because you were not happy with the management of the U.S. Army, so you
take it out. Or you had memories that there used to be a Chief of the
Army who was good in a different time way back when it was independent,
and you make it independent. It makes no sense. It is inefficient. I am
afraid it would compromise the ability of our Government to prepare for
and respond to another disaster.
In some ways, this is a comparison between James Lee Witt and Michael
Brown. I will be real specific about it. I am happy to say in public
that James Lee Witt did a great job, and Michael Brown did not,
particularly in Katrina. That shouldn't lead us to think that going
back to the time when FEMA was independent and James Lee Witt was the
Director would solve all of our problems.
FEMA, under James Lee Witt, as good as he was--and he was very good--
never faced a catastrophe such as Katrina. We heard testimony to this
effect from people in the Department, from inspectors general, from
outside authorities that FEMA never, no matter how good James Lee Witt
was, could have independently given an adequate response to a
catastrophe such as Hurricane Katrina or, God forbid, a catastrophe
such as a significant terrorist attack. That is why we kept FEMA, our
new USEMA, in the Department of Homeland Security.
We have strengthened it considerably. Senator Lott, who was an
initial cosponsor of the amendment to take FEMA out of the Department
of Homeland Security, is now with us on keeping it in the Department
because we made some significant changes. We gave the U.S. Emergency
Management Agency that we would create, USEMA, the special legal status
that only the Coast Guard and Secret Service have within the Department
of Homeland Security. That means it cannot be changed except by
statute. No executive action can change its status.
We also made clear that during a time of crisis, though the head of
the U.S. Emergency Management Authority normally reports to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, that person reports directly to the
President of the United States.

I happen to have joined with Senator Specter, my friend and colleague
from Pennsylvania, in introducing the original legislation to create
the Department of Homeland Security. We did it a month or two after 9/
11 because we felt we had entered a new age. We had been attacked here
at home, innocent citizens were killed by terrorists, and we needed a
whole new structure to prepare to defend the American people against
similar attacks in the future--our enemies are still obviously out
there--and to respond to those attacks.
We built our proposal on the work of an independent commission headed
by our former colleagues Warren Rudman and Gary Hart. They said loudly
and clearly that FEMA must be the heart of this new Department if it is
to adequately protect the American people from disaster or terrorism.
It would be a profound mistake to take it out. That is why I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment that Senator Collins and I are
offering with Senator Carper and Senator Lott, and to oppose the
amendment of Senator Clinton.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I saw Senator Lautenberg come into the Chamber. I do
not see him now, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 13 minutes 25 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the
Senator from Maine, the chairperson of the committee on which we both
serve. I am trying to figure out why a name change might be part of the
plan to try to make FEMA a more efficient agency. I think we are
chasing our tail around the tree because I don't see how we can do it
under the present structure.
I want to start at the beginning. I don't plan to take all the time
that is available. I would like to go back a little bit.
When we look at the structure of DHS, the Department of Homeland
Security, we see the complications that exist even today with its
general functioning: Are the screeners doing an effective job? Do we
have too many?

[[Page S7325]]

They were once publicly owned groups across the country, and they were
doing a poor job. Then we brought them into the Government and their
performance improved substantially. Now there is talk about whether we
ought to put them back into private hands.
I think about the task of Secretary Chertoff--and Secretary Chertoff
is someone I know very well and for whom I have a great deal of
respect--when we look at the assignment--22 Departments, 180,000
people, budgets that are insufficient to start with, and then the
squabbling, the arm wrestling that has to take place within the
Department to try and get FEMA enough money. It just doesn't make sense
to have this Department of Government surrounded by the rest of the
structure that is so complicated within DHS.
There was a time when FEMA was called upon to act as a result of
natural disasters, and they did it very well. James Lee Witt was the
head of FEMA. In 1993, we had what was the equivalent of a 100-year
flood in Mississippi, and FEMA acted professionally and efficiently and
got the job done. Then we had the Northridge earthquake which was one
of the worst disasters we have seen. Once again, FEMA stood up to the
task and did it efficiently and responded very promptly to get that
done.
I, for one, believe, as does the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton,
that FEMA ought to be removed, ought to be independent, and to give it
a chance to fight for its own budget, to make its own case, to be able
to have direct contact with the President's office.
When we think about it, we worry an awful lot about a terrorist
attack on our soil, and we should, and we should fight to protect our
citizens from the consequences of that kind of an event. But, also,
when we look at what happened with natural disasters and the
significant--just look at Katrina and see what has happened there.
There is a whole sector in our country that has yet to recover.
We are going to be at the first anniversary of Katrina in less than 2
months, and there are still people living in unacceptable conditions,
still the restoration has not taken place--the theft, the waste, the
fraud that has taken place there, and we look and we say: What has
happened here? Why isn't it better? It isn't better because the
structure doesn't permit it to get better with any degree of ease. In
my view, FEMA has to be a separate department, as it once was, to be
able to function as it once did under a different kind of leadership.

Who can forget the consequences of the first strike of the storm when
the President of the United States was busy in California. He didn't
visit the scene until a couple of days had passed, and he did that from
30,000 feet in the air and called it a devastating sight and gave
congratulations to Mr. Brown: Brownie, heck of a job.
Did the President not know what he was saying or did he make a
mistake? The fact is, there was so much confusion with the
communications links that it was almost impossible to decipher what was
going to happen, who was responsible, who was out to dinner when they
were crying for help in the various communities, until someone reached
over the top, went past the organizational structure, and got to the
President's office. Then things began to happen. And they didn't happen
very efficiently, nor did they happen thoroughly.
I think if we separated FEMA from the Department of Homeland
Security, it would give our new director--who holds high hope, I think,
for all of us; he is a competent person. He has experience before he
came to FEMA. He has a very positive background for this kind of job.
He is new on the job, and I think it would give him a much stronger
hand in the annual battle over the agency's budget and appropriations.
Obviously, then, it would free FEMA of several layers of bureaucracy at
DHS and make it easier for the agency to do its job.
We talk so often around here about the bureaucracy and how tough it
is to work your way through it. But here we have this critical agency,
the agency that has more direct responsibility for our national
security within our boundaries, on our land, than any other agency, and
we keep it as a part of a total mechanical structure that says: OK,
make sure you get A, B, C, and D. I think that is the wrong approach to
having FEMA do the job we want it to do.
It is obvious that FEMA was weak and ineffective and showed a great
deal of incompetence. What we want to do is streamline the agency as
much as we can, and this is an opportunity to do just that. We are not
going to rely on picking friends--cronies, if I can use the term,
political campaign workers--to do this job and expect to have it
succeed. That is not the way you take a position like this and have it
be able to do its job, the job of jumping in there in the middle of a
natural disaster of people searching for relatives, searching for a way
out. What do you do to replace a reasonable living condition for them?
It is a very tough job.
I think FEMA's subservient position inside DHS has contributed to low
morale and the loss of qualified professional staff, and it is
difficult attracting experienced personnel back to the agency. The
agency has lost so much of its former excellent reputation that people
are not anxious to go to an agency like that.
So I think the way we have to do it is the way Senator Clinton and I
and others are supportive of, which is the separation of FEMA from the
Department. Separate FEMA. Let it stand on its own two feet. Let it
strive for its own budget. Let it hire its personnel under its own
structure and give it the responsibilities that it deserves and the
resources that it needs.
So I hope at this point that people will vote against the amendment
Senator Collins has presented and support the Clinton amendment that
calls for FEMA to be separated from DHS, stand alone, and let it make
its case.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the
approach offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and
Senator Lott, Senator Carper, and myself, and reject the approach
offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Akaka.
Senator Clinton said earlier that we are rearranging the deck chairs
on the Titanic but, in fact, that is what her amendment does. It takes
the weak FEMA that we have now and moves it outside of the Department
with no new personnel, no new function, no new authorities, no new
funding, no infrastructure protection responsibilities, no new
communications assets, no new medical assets, no new cyber-security
assets.
That is exactly contrary to the approach that we have taken. We have
built a new FEMA within the Department with strong authorities--
authorities that FEMA has never had--to allow it to respond effectively
to a disaster, regardless of its size. We create a new regional
structure that will improve the management and the relationship with
State and local governments. That is why the first responder groups are
all supporting the Collins-Lieberman amendment, and I hope my
colleagues will, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield back the time in opposition, and I
ask for the yeas and nays on the Collins amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

YEAS--87

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein

[[Page S7326]]

Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--11

Akaka
Boxer
Bunning
Clinton
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Pryor
Schumer

NOT VOTING--2

Ensign
Santorum

The amendment (No. 4560) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4563

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the
Clinton amendment.
The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the recently passed amendment did try to
improve upon the status quo, and I commend Senators Collins and
Lieberman for attempting to do so. But the answer is we need to restore
the independence of FEMA. We need to give back to it Cabinet-level
status with a direct line to the President. My amendment will allow us
to do that. I urge you to vote for this amendment even if you voted for
the last amendment because it improves the status quo vote which gets
us back to the kind of independent FEMA that can actually respond to
disasters and mitigate and help us prepare for them.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Clinton-Akaka amendment does nothing
to strengthen FEMA. It takes a weak FEMA and casts it adrift as an
independent agency. It is not the answer. My colleagues, you have just
voted for the right reform. I urge opposition to the Clinton amendment,
as do all the first responder groups.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 66, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

YEAS--32

Akaka
Baucus
Boxer
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow

NAYS--66

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Ensign
Santorum

The amendment (No. 4563) was rejected.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Feinstein
amendment the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Feinstein amendment is the pending
question.

Amendment No. 4577 to Amendment No. 4556

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 4577 to amendment No. 4556.

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

(Purpose: To provide for immigration injunction reform)

At the end of the amendment, add the following:

SEC. 541. IMMIGRATION INJUNCTION REFORM.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act of 2006''.
(b) Appropriate Remedies for Immigration Legislation.--
(1) Requirements for an order granting prospective relief
against the government.--
(A) In general.--If a court determines that prospective
relief should be ordered against the Government in any civil
action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States, the court shall--
(i) limit the relief to the minimum necessary to correct
the violation of law;
(ii) adopt the least intrusive means to correct the
violation of law;
(iii) minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the
adverse impact on national security, border security,
immigration administration and enforcement, and public
safety, and
(iv) provide for the expiration of the relief on a specific
date, which is not later than the earliest date necessary for
the Government to remedy the violation.
(B) Written explanation.--The requirements described in
subparagraph (A) shall be discussed and explained in writing
in the order granting prospective relief and must be
sufficiently detailed to allow review by another court.
(C) Expiration of preliminary injunctive relief.--
Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on
the date that is 90 days after the date on which such relief
is entered, unless the court--
(i) makes the findings required under subparagraph (A) for
the entry of permanent prospective relief; and
(ii) makes the order final before expiration of such 90-day
period.
(D) Requirements for order denying motion.--This paragraph
shall apply to any order denying the Government's motion to
vacate, modify, dissolve or otherwise terminate an order
granting prospective relief in any civil action pertaining to
the administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of
the United States.
(2) Procedure for motion affecting order granting
prospective relief against the government.--
(A) In general.--A court shall promptly rule on the
Government's motion to vacate, modify, dissolve or otherwise
terminate an order granting prospective relief in any civil
action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States.
(B) Automatic stays.--
(i) In general.--The Government's motion to vacate, modify,
dissolve, or otherwise terminate an order granting
prospective relief made in any civil action pertaining to the
administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States shall automatically, and without further order
of the court, stay the order granting prospective relief on
the date that is 15 days after the date on which such motion
is filed unless the court previously has granted or denied
the Government's motion.
(ii) Duration of automatic stay.--An automatic stay under
clause (i) shall continue until the court enters an order
granting or denying the Government's motion.
(iii) Postponement.--The court, for good cause, may
postpone an automatic stay under clause (i) for not longer
than 15 days.
(iv) Orders blocking automatic stays.--Any order staying,
suspending, delaying, or otherwise barring the effective date
of the automatic stay described in clause (i), other than an
order to postpone the effective date of the automatic stay
for not longer than 15 days under clause (iii), shall be--

(I) treated as an order refusing to vacate, modify,
dissolve or otherwise terminate an injunction; and
(II) immediately appealable under section 1292(a)(1) of
title 28, United States Code.

(3) Settlements.--
(A) Consent decrees.--In any civil action pertaining to the
administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States, the court may not enter, approve, or

[[Page S7327]]

continue a consent decree that does not comply with paragraph
(1).
(B) Private settlement agreements.--Nothing in this
subsection shall preclude parties from entering into a
private settlement agreement that does not comply with
paragraph (1) if the terms of that agreement are not subject
to court enforcement other than reinstatement of the civil
proceedings that the agreement settled.
(4) Expedited proceedings.--It shall be the duty of every
court to advance on the docket and to expedite the
disposition of any civil action or motion considered under
this subsection.
(5) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Consent decree.--The term ``consent decree''--
(i) means any relief entered by the court that is based in
whole or in part on the consent or acquiescence of the
parties; and
(ii) does not include private settlements.
(B) Good cause.--The term ``good cause'' does not include
discovery or congestion of the court's calendar.
(C) Government.--The term ``Government'' means the United
States, any Federal department or agency, or any Federal
agent or official acting within the scope of official duties.
(D) Permanent relief.--The term ``permanent relief'' means
relief issued in connection with a final decision of a court.
(E) Private settlement agreement.--The term ``private
settlement agreement'' means an agreement entered into among
the parties that is not subject to judicial enforcement other
than the reinstatement of the civil action that the agreement
settled.
(F) Prospective relief.--The term ``prospective relief''
means temporary, preliminary, or permanent relief other than
compensatory monetary damages.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section shall apply with respect to
all orders granting prospective relief in any civil action
pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States, whether such relief
was ordered before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Pending motions.--Every motion to vacate, modify,
dissolve or otherwise terminate an order granting prospective
relief in any such action, which motion is pending on the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall be treated as if it
had been filed on such date of enactment.
(3) Automatic stay for pending motions.--
(A) In general.--An automatic stay with respect to the
prospective relief that is the subject of a motion described
in paragraph (2) shall take effect without further order of
the court on the date which is 10 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act if the motion--
(i) was pending for 45 days as of the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(ii) is still pending on the date which is 10 days after
such date of enactment.
(B) Duration of automatic stay.--An automatic stay that
takes effect under subparagraph (A) shall continue until the
court enters an order granting or denying the Government's
motion under subsection (b)(2). There shall be no further
postponement of the automatic stay with respect to any such
pending motion under subsection (b)(2)(B). Any order,
staying, suspending, delaying or otherwise barring the
effective date of this automatic stay with respect to pending
motions described in paragraph (2) shall be an order blocking
an automatic stay subject to immediate appeal under
subsection (b)(2)(B)(iv).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to end a
decades-old, obsolete Federal court injunction designed to impede the
Department of Homeland Security's use of expedited removal and
enforcement of our immigration laws.
In 1988, a Federal court in Los Angeles issued a permanent,
nationwide injunction that requires immigration authorities to afford
detained Salvadorans a host of substantive and proposal rights--rights
afforded to literally no other immigrant group.
Largely as a result of this 1988 Orantes injunction, Salvadorans have
now become the single largest component of what is known as OTMs or
``other than Mexican'' immigrants.
Both the border tunnel amendment that Senator Feinstein has offered
and my immigration injunction second-degree amendment deal with illegal
immigration and are designed to deal with criminal activity. They go
together well because they both close border vulnerabilities that are
being exploited by gangs and smugglers.
The injunction amendment passed as an amendment in committee, and
there has been little opposition. It is currently in the compromise
bill endorsed by a majority of Senate Democrats.
The amendment requires courts to narrowly tailor injunctive relief
orders against the Government in immigration cases and to take into
account national security, border security, public safety, and
immigration enforcement concerns.
Decades-old, obsolete Federal court injunctions continue to impede
the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to enforce our
immigration laws.
For example, if you look at June of 2005 through February of 2006,
you can see why this specific injunction, which impedes the use of
expedited removal when it comes to immigrants from El Salvador, is such
a problem and why this amendment is necessary.
For example, in June of 2005 there were some 4,181 Brazilians subject
to apprehension. At the same time, there were roughly the same number
of El Salvadorans: 4,011. But because of the improvements in expedited
removal and immigration law enforcement inso far as it relates to
Brazilians--not subject to the Orantes injunction that impedes the use
of this important procedure--we saw the number of Brazilians drop from
4,181 in June of 2005 to 72 in February of 2006.
During the same time period, because of the impediment created by the
Orantes injunction, which prohibited the use of expedited removal when
it came to Salvadorans who illegally immigrated into the United States,
we saw, in June of 2005, 4,011 Salvadorans; and in February of 2006,
that number has virtually not changed at all, to 3,906.
So, clearly, the impediment created by this Orantes injunction, that
would be overturned and remedied by this amendment, creates an
impediment for the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to
enforcing our immigration laws.
This amendment, it is important to note, would not eliminate
injunctive relief but would require that any injunction granted be
narrowly tailored and to not unnecessarily impede on enforcement of our
immigration laws.
Specifically, it would provide that injunctions must be narrowly
tailored to precisely address the actual harm identified. It would
require that injunctions do not extend forever and must end on a date
certain. It provides that an injunction is suspended unless a court
acts within 30 days of the date when the Government moves to vacate an
injunction. And for any injunction in which the Government has already
filed a motion to vacate--and which remains pending 10 days after
enactment of this bill--that injunction is automatically stayed on that
10th day.
Mr. President, I conclude by saying, in my conversations with the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, he regards this
amendment as important to providing the Department of Homeland Security
the tools it needs in order to enforce our immigration laws and to make
sure the use of expedited removal, which is so important in terms of
the deterrence that it provides, be uniform across populations that
would be affected.
So, as he told me, if this amendment passes, he would be able to end
catch-and-release, which is a de facto policy of this Government,
within a matter of months.
I would think this is an issue we can all support, and I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. 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. 4579

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it
be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside, and the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and
Mr. Byrd, proposes an amendment numbered 4579.

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

On page 118, strike line 7 through page 119, line 2 and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 524. Using funds made available in this Act:
(a) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Department of

[[Page S7328]]

Homeland Security shall revise DHS MD [Management Directive]
11056 to provide for the following:
(1) that when a lawful request is made to publicly release
a document containing information designated as SSI, the
document shall be reviewed in a timely manner to determine
whether any information contained in the document meets the
criteria for continued SSI protection under applicable law
and regulation and shall further provide that all portions
that no longer require SSI designation be released, subject
to applicable law, including sections 552 and 552a of title
5, United States Code;
(2) that sensitive security information that is four years
old shall be subject to release upon request unless:
(A) the Secretary or his designee makes a written
determination that identifies a rational basis why the
information must remain SSI;
(B) the information is covered by a current sensitive
security information application guide approved by the
Secretary or his designee in writing; or
(C) such information is otherwise exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.
Any determination made by the Secretary under clause
(a)(2)(A) shall be provided to the party making a request to
release such information and to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives as
part of the annual reporting requirement pursuant to section
537 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-90; 119 Stat. 2088);
(3) common and extensive examples of the individual
categories of SSI information cited under 49 CFR 1520(b) (1)
through (16) in order to minimize and standardize judgment by
covered persons in the application of SSI marking; and
(b) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives on the progress that the Department has
made in implementing the remaining requirements of section
537 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-90; 119 Stat. 2088), including
information on the current procedures regarding access to
sensitive security information (SSI) by civil litigants and
the security risks and benefits of any proposed changes to
these procedures.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4579) was agreed to.

____________________