To require consideration of high-risk qualifying criteria in allocating funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program.

IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued

Amendment No. 352 Withdrawn

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Menendez, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 352, which he had
introduced earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 354 to Amendment No. 275

Mr. LIEBERMAN. On his behalf, I send another amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for Mr.
Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 354 to amendment No.
275.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 improve the security of cargo containers destined for the
United States)

On page 219, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 804. PLAN FOR 100 PERCENT SCANNING OF CARGO CONTAINERS.

Section 232(c) of the Security and Accountability For Every
Port Act (6 U.S.C. 982(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Not later''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Plan for 100 percent scanning of cargo containers.--

[[Page S2663]]

``(A) In general.--The first report under paragraph (1)
shall include an initial plan to scan 100 percent of the
cargo containers destined for the United States before such
containers arrive in the United States.
``(B) Plan contents.--The plan under paragraph (A) shall
include--
``(i) specific annual benchmarks for the percentage of
cargo containers destined for the United States that are
scanned at a foreign port;
``(ii) annual increases in the benchmarks described in
clause (i) until 100 percent of the cargo containers destined
for the United States are scanned before arriving in the
United States;
``(iii) the use of existing programs, including the
Container Security Initiative established by section 205 and
the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism established
by subtitle B, to reach the benchmarks described in clause
(i); and
``(iv) the use of scanning equipment, personnel, and
technology to reach the goal of 100 percent scanning of cargo
containers.
``(C) Subsequent reports.--Each report under paragraph (1)
after the intial report shall include an assessment of the
progress toward implementing the plan under subparagraph
(A).''.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania
is here. I will yield to him in a moment.
I am pleased to note the presence of the Senator from Illinois, who
has come to the floor to propose an amendment with regard to the
funding formula in the bill. This would make the third such amendment.
I hope we will have a good, hearty debate on those three and then go to
votes either later today or tomorrow morning on them which, of course,
I hope will reject all three and sustain the wisdom of the committee,
but that will be determined by the body.
I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 286 to Amendment No. 275

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, Senator Dodd,
and myself, I call up amendment No. 286. This is an amendment which
would repeal the provisions of the Military Commission Act, striking
Federal court jurisdiction for habeas corpus except for the Circuit
Court for the District of Columbia.
I have previously talked to Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Jon
Kyl to give them notice that we would be calling up this amendment. I
discussed the issue with Senator Lieberman, the manager of the bill, as
to procedures which we may follow, but I wanted to call it up and have
it pending and proceed to debate it at a later time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside and the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself,
Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 286
to amendment No. 275.

The amendment follows:

(Purpose: To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United
States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY
THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).
(b) Title 10.--Section 950j of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and
Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in
section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus
provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or
consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including
any action pending on or filed after the date of the
enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating
to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military
commission under this chapter, including challenges to the
lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this
chapter.''.
(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made
by this section shall--
(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Specter amendment
which was just called up.
Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment just introduced by Senator Specter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 338 to Amendment No. 275

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
business be set aside so I may call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 338 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama], for himself, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Coburn, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Menendez,
Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered
338 to amendment No. 275.

The amendment follows:

(Purpose: To require consideration of high-risk qualifying criteria in
allocating funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program)

On page 69, strike line 15 and all that follows through
page 70, line 2, and insert the following:
``(d) Minimum Allocation.--
``(1) In general.--In allocating funds under subsection
(c), the Administrator shall ensure that, for each fiscal
year--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), each State
(other than the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) receives an
amount equal to not less than 0.25 percent of the total funds
appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program;
``(B) each State (other than the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands) that meets any of the additional high-risk
qualifying criteria described in paragraph (2) receives an
amount equal to not less than 0.45 percent of the total funds
appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program;
``(C) the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands each receives an
amount equal to not less than 0.08 percent of the total funds
appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program;
and
``(D) directly eligible tribes collectively receive an
amount equal to not less than 0.08 percent of the total funds
appropriated for the State Homeland Security Grant Program,
except that this subparagraph shall not apply if the
Administrator receives less than 5 applications for that
fiscal year from directly eligible tribes or does not approve
at least 1 such application for that fiscal year.
``(2) Additional high-risk qualifying criteria.--The
additional high-risk qualifying criteria described in this
paragraph are--
``(A) having an international land border; or
``(B) adjoining a body of water within North America
through which an international boundary line extends.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it was a typical fall day in New York City.
People were headed to work, cars were stuck in traffic, the subways
were packed, and the construction crews were busy rebuilding at Ground
Zero. Nearby, Con Ed personnel were at work in a manhole, and they made
a tragic discovery: ID tags and human remains not seen since that other
fall day 5 years earlier. The city paused again. It launched another
effort to recover and identify those taken from us on that dark
September day.
The recovery is continuing after all this time. The recovery
continues 5\1/2\ years later, and just last week more victims were
unearthed. After all this time, we are still recovering from September
11. Our prayers remain with the family members and friends who still
mourn and miss the fathers and mothers and children who made their
lives complete. During the Homeland Security Committee meeting to
discuss the underlying bill, I met with some of those loved ones.
That is why we are here today. We are here to do the work that
ensures no other family members have to lose a loved one to a terrorist
who turns a plane into a missile, a terrorist who straps a bomb around
her waist and climbs aboard a bus, a terrorist who figures out how to
set off a dirty bomb in one of our cities. This is why we are here: to
make our country safer and make sure the nearly 3,000 who were taken
from us did not die in vain; that their legacy will be a more safe and
secure Nation. That is what lies at the heart of this 9/11 bill. It is
not just

[[Page S2664]]

about how we send the money from Washington to States and local
governments; it is about saving lives and doing everything in our power
to prevent another attack, to prevent another tragedy, to ensure no one
climbs down a manhole expecting to do their work only to find the
deceased left in darkness 5 years earlier. That is why we are here--to
protect our people.
Most of us had hoped these steps would have already been taken, would
have been taken many years ago, that we would have capitalized on the
unity and national spirit we shared after the towers fell, the Pentagon
was hit, and the Pennsylvania field smoldered. It is never too late to
do, however, what is right for our country.
It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission issued
its report. Not only did the panel of dedicated American researchers
find out what happened that day, but they also gave a list of serious
recommendations about how to make our country safer in the future. The
9/11 Commission showed us how to move beyond the politics of division
in order to achieve the solemn task of better protecting our country.
In its report, the Commission said the following:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an
assessment of risks and vulnerabilities [and] federal
homeland security assistance should not remain a program for
general revenue sharing.

This is one of the goals of the 9/11 Commission. My amendment that I
just introduced moves us closer to a true system of risk-based
allocation of State homeland security grants and ensures that funding
goes to areas most at risk of terrorist attacks.
This is not an issue of big States versus little States or urban
States versus rural States. It is about good policy and about
maximizing our use of the people's money.
Today, the system is set up so that all States receive at least .75
percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program dollars. After
each State receives that minimum level of funding, the dollars are then
allocated according to risk. As a result, the current amount of State
minimum funding eats up approximately 40 percent of that funding.
While the new bill does attempt to address this problem--and I
applaud Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for trying to bring the
.75 percent down to .45 percent--the bill does not go far enough. It is
a good first step, but we are already 50 yards behind, sending too much
money to areas where there are not real risks, threats, and
vulnerabilities. That is why we must use the most dollars in those
areas which are at the greatest risk of attack. We cannot afford to
waste a single cent on places that do not need immediate help when
first responders in major cities still lack the basic communications
equipment they need to talk to one another if, Heaven forbid, tragedy
strikes again.
That is why the families of 9/11 recently issued a statement saying:

Reports of air conditioned garbage trucks being purchased
with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity
that results from non risk-based methods. When the threat
against our Nation is so real, we cannot afford not to take
it seriously.

That is why the 9/11 Commission said Congress should not use this
money as porkbarrel. That is why in 2005 the Commission issued a report
giving the Nation an ``F'' for risk-based funding. That is why 9/11
Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton recently sent me a letter. He wrote:

Since 9/11 and since the issuance of our report, the United
States has not allocated homeland security resources wisely.
Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so it is
thus essential that they be distributed based on a careful
analysis of the risk, vulnerability and potential
consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk-
based approach would make the best use of our homeland
security resources, and would make the American people safer.

That is why 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer wrote in support of this
amendment, saying:

We cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort.

That is why the amendment I offer today, a bipartisan amendment with
the support of Senators Warner, Coburn, Landrieu, Kennedy, Menendez,
Clinton, and Schumer, reduces the guaranteed State minimum to .25
percent and allows those States on our northern and southern borders to
see an increased minimum of .45 percent. This basic framework was
adopted by a wide bipartisan margin in the House in January.
It is time for all of us to approach homeland security funding not as
something we can bring home to the States we represent but funding we
can use to better protect the United States of America. As we lower the
guaranteed amount, we increase the funding available to protect those
places most at risk, and 40 States will receive either the same amount
or an increase in the funding they need to better protect our borders,
our ports, our railways, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear
powerplants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers,
and EMTs.
We have waited more than 5 years to better develop our approach to
funding our security in a post-9/11 world. Sometimes division and
politics have prevented us from doing what we need to do. But I believe
those days are finally behind us. We have a real chance to not only
learn from our mistakes but to get the job done and better protect our
people. That is why we are here--to make our country as safe and secure
as we can. That is the common cause we all share. The American people
need to see that in us today. The 9/11 Commission experts that from us.
The families and friends of the 9/11 victims are owed that from us--
that we will never forget those who died. We will never forget those
who are suffering and sick because of their heroism that day. We will
never forget that 60 percent of the victims were never identified. We
will never forget that we are still recovering from 9/11--and that is
why our work goes on.
Mr. President, let me add one last point.
I recognize it is difficult for some to see any shift of funding
because it is difficult if that State potentially sees their funding
reduced. But even within Illinois, I confront some of these same
issues.
The fact of the matter is I have fought at the State level and have
said publicly we should make sure risk assessments entirely determine
how money within Illinois is allocated. That is the same approach we
need to take for the Nation as a whole. Keep in mind my home city of
Chicago is actually doing quite well under the current formula. So this
is not something that is based solely on any parochial concerns.
I ask unanimous consent that the statements of the 9/11 families, the
9/11 Commission chairman, Lee Hamilton, and 9/11 Commissioner Tim
Roemer be printed in the Record, as well as a chart showing how each
State would fare under my amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2007.
Senator Barack Obama,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Barack: Thank you for inquiring about my position with
regard to risk-based homeland security funding.
In our report, the 9/11 Commission issued the following
recommendation:
``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on
an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Now, in 2004,
Washington D.C. and New York City are certainly at the top of
any such list. We understand the contention that every state
and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for
emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance
should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It
should supplement state and local resources based on risks or
vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress
should not use this money as a pork barrel.''
Since 9/11, and since the issuance of our report, the
United States has not allocated homeland security resources
wisely. Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so
it is thus essential that they be distributed based upon a
careful analysis of the risk, vulnerability, and potential
consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk-
based approach would make the best use of our homeland
security resources, and would make the American people safer.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Lee H. Hamilton,
President and Directors.
____

Washington, DC,

March 5, 2007.
Senator Barack Obama,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee has produced a strong bill and is off to a
productive

[[Page S2665]]

start, yet there are areas in need of improvement.
I am writing today to support your efforts to more fully
implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that State
homeland security grants should be based solely on an
assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.
Your amendment moves in the right direction. By reducing
the amount of funding available through the ``minimum
allocation,'' this amendment increases the availability of
funding for our most at-risk facilities and infrastructure.
As you know, the bi-partisan National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, said:
``We understand the contention that every state and city
needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency
response. But Federal homeland security assistance should not
remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should
supplement state and local resources based on risks or
vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress
should not use this money as a pork barrel.''
Two years ago, the Commission gave Congress and the
administration failing grades in their implementation of our
recommendations: five Fs, twelve Ds, and 2 Incompletes. On
homeland security, the government received an F because too
many of our vulnerabilities received too few resources. We
cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort.
Obviously, there is much more to accomplish to make America
safer. I commend these efforts to move the Senate in a better
direction and believe this amendment creates the opportunity
for the full spirit of the 9/11 Commission's recommendation
to be realized in conference with the House.
Yours sincerely,
Timothy J. Roemer,
Former 9/11 Commissioner.
____

Families of September 11,

New York, NY, February 26, 2007.

Statement Regarding Homeland Security Grants

Families of September 11 stands in strong support of
allocating all homeland security grants based on risk. There
are limited funds to protect our homeland--each and every
dollar should be spent effectively on protecting the areas at
most risk as a first priority. None should be used for
general revenue sharing or political purposes.
The 9/11 Commission recommends that homeland security
assistance be based ``strictly on an assessment of risks and
vulnerabilities.'' They continue to say that ``Congress
should not use this money as a pork barrel.'' We stand in
complete agreement.
Reports of air-conditioned garbage trucks being purchased
with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity
that results from non risk-based allocation methods. When the
threat against our nation is so real, we cannot afford not to
take it seriously.
Congress has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely to
protect the homeland. Sometimes the right choices are not
easy--we understand that. But the stakes are too high not to
make them. We ask Congress to do what is right and to
legislate that all homeland security grants be allocated
strictly on appropriately-assessed risk.
____

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama          S. 4 as     Obama amendment
State                                  amendment        amended        less S. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................     $12,173,119     $11,988,972        $184,147
Alaska.........................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Arizona........................................................      13,232,207      12,961,248         270,959
Arkansas.......................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
California.....................................................     134,446,429     130,575,288       3,871,141
Colorado.......................................................      14,354,975      14,106,024         248,951
Connecticut....................................................      10,039,748       9,918,964         120,784
Delaware.......................................................       5,368,960       5,386,903         (17,943)
District of Columbia...........................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Florida........................................................      60,448,703      58,830,723       1,617,980
Georgia........................................................      29,078,462      28,392,210         686,252
Hawaii.........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Idaho..........................................................       7,753,324       7,645,093         108,231
Illinois.......................................................      49,264,671      47,978,868       1,285,803
Indiana........................................................      14,726,698      14,466,707         259,991
Iowa...........................................................      10,007,425       9,887,601         119,824
Kansas.........................................................      10,928,653      10,781,467         147,186
Kentucky.......................................................      12,981,213      12,773,065         208,148
Louisiana......................................................      22,565,218      22,072,415         492,803
Maine..........................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Maryland.......................................................      11,688,262      11,518,515         169,747
Massachusetts..................................................      24,488,484      23,938,558         549,926
Michigan.......................................................      32,771,939      31,920,631         851,308
Minnesota......................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Mississippi....................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Missouri.......................................................      27,139,035      26,510,385         628,650
Montana........................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
Nebraska.......................................................       9,603,377       9,495,554         107,823
Nevada.........................................................       8,876,092       8,789,870          86,222
New Hampshire..................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
New Jersey.....................................................      16,019,650      15,721,257         298,393
New Mexico.....................................................       4,109,312       4,109,312               0
New York.......................................................      75,487,831      73,367,819       2,120,012
North Carolina.................................................      21,886,418      21,413,777         472,641
North Dakota...................................................       6,234,105       6,170,997          63,108
Ohio...........................................................      24,319,267      23,719,012         600,255
Oklahoma.......................................................      12,690,299      12,490,791         199,508
Oregon.........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Pennsylvania...................................................      27,632,456      26,933,796         698,660
Rhode Island...................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
South Carolina.................................................      11,866,043      11,691,016         175,027
South Dakota...................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Tennessee......................................................       2,362,848       4,109,312      (1,746,464)
Texas..........................................................      71,301,900      69,306,214       1,995,686
Utah...........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
Vermont........................................................       6,428,048       6,359,179          68,869
Virginia.......................................................      13,352,937      13,133,748         219,189
Washington.....................................................      24,610,182      24,001,285         608,897
West Virginia..................................................      10,152,882      10,028,738         124,144
Wisconsin......................................................      13,377,664      13,102,384         275,280
Wyoming........................................................       2,282,951       4,109,312      (1,826,361)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Lieberman and
Senator Collins for their hard work on this issue. I acknowledge that
the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo. It is just
that we can do so much better. I ask that we ensure this amendment be
included in the final package we vote on.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for
his thoughtful statement on his amendment. I rise to respectfully
disagree with it.
In our committee, we work very hard to not just balance the political
interests, but to balance the needs of all parts of our country for a
reasonable amount of homeland security funding, which we, consider, I
think, consistent with the most progressive thinking on this subject
which is to be not just terrorist-related funding but all-hazards-
related funding.
In other words, when we send homeland security funding to a State or
a municipality, we are trying to help them not only prepare for the
possibility, God forbid, of a terrorist attack but also to be ready to
respond to the much more common occurrence, which is to say a natural
disaster. The funding formula we have presented, which was part of our
bill that came out of our committee with strong bipartisan support,
including the support of the

[[Page S2666]]

distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Delaware, is I
think a balanced proposal.
This distributes, in fact, most of the homeland security grant money
based on risk, as the 9/11 Commission called for, but respectfully
disagrees with the Commission that the money should all be distributed
based on only risk because our conclusion is not based on theory but
reality. Terrorists may strike anywhere in this country, not just in
the big cities or the highest visibility targets, and we base that on
what has happened around the world, what has happened here, in fact,
with domestic terrorism, striking at the Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City, as we all remember some years ago, but around the world,
terrorists striking at apartment buildings, discos, schools, in
communities large and small.
Unfortunately, in this age we are living in post-9/11, we can all
imagine, and I use that term in the way the 9/11 Commission did, that
part of our failure as a nation before 9/11 was a failure of
imagination, which is to say that we could not imagine that human
beings would do what the terrorists did to us on 9/11.
After that, we started to imagine, and one can imagine the various
targets in this open society of ours that terrorists who want to create
havoc and fear can strike all around the country.
The other point is this, that everyplace in the country, as we saw in
the case of Katrina, most visibly and movingly, can be struck by
natural disasters. So the funding formula in the committee bill learns
both from the tragic lessons of 9/11 and Katrina.
We have different grant programs. The Urban Area Security Initiative,
the so-called UASI Grant Program, is totally and strictly, in terms of
the 9/11 Commission, distributed based on risk. In fact, the State
Homeland Security Grant Program which Senator Obama's amendment deals
with, we think 95 percent of that will be given out based on risk.
Let me give a brief explanation of what is happening. This is in the
weeds, but under current law, .75 percent is guaranteed--of the total
funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program--is guaranteed to
each State. That is a minimum for each State for the reasons I have
stated.
The House of Representatives, in their judgment, altered that and
went to a minimum amount of .25. They did not literally respond to the
9/11 Commission recommendation for total risk, which is to say,
whatever the Department of Homeland Security decided is a risk
assessment formula for distribution, they lowered it to .25, as the
amendment from the Senator from Illinois would do. The committee
decided to reach for a compromise on this one and set a minimum of .45
percent of the total funding for every State.
We have done some runs on this. The formula says that, distribute the
funds first based on risk, but then if States fall below the .45
percent, then give them that minimum. By our run of the numbers,
based on the risk assessment standards the Department has been using,
we think 95 percent of the money will, in fact, be distributed based on
risk.

I wish to make this point, something that I think is sometimes
overlooked in the discussion. Take the existing formula which has .75,
three-quarters of 1 percent of the total, going to each State. The fact
is, even under that formula, which only Senator Leahy, in his wisdom,
would preserve in his amendment--even under that formula, the lion's
share of the money, or a very large share of the money, has gone to a
very few States.
This graph shows that. The fact is, this is fiscal year 2006 funding.
In fiscal year 2006, the State of California received $226 million in
homeland security grant funding. That is more than the total received
by the 22 States at the bottom that received the least funding, the
minimum.
Now, as you can see in this chart, that is California. Next is New
York. Next is Texas. The fact is almost half of the entire distribution
of funding went to five States: California, Florida, Texas, Illinois,
and of course New York. So what I am saying is that we are lowering
that. I think the big States, the high-visibility potential targets are
receiving a lot of money. It would be unfair to cut that even more.
Now, Senator Feinstein does not only do what Senator Obama does, she
cuts into the minimums we have established in the new dedicated grant
funding program for interoperability communications.
There I think we have a very strong argument that we want people, our
first responders, to be able to communicate with one another, not only
in acts of terrorism--in times of terrorism--but in times of natural
disaster. The interoperability grants are important for that reason.
We have placed a chart on the desks of all the Senators, and it lists
all the States. It shows that under the amendment the Senator from
Illinois has introduced, 32 of the States will receive less guaranteed
funding than they receive now.
Ironically, the District of Columbia is one of the entities that
suffers the greatest cut. Of course, most anybody would say that the
District of Columbia is a high-visibility target, in fact, was targeted
through the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
Respectfully, I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from
Illinois.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Coleman and Senator Coburn be added as cosponsors to the Collins
amendment No. 342.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Illinois to reduce the minimum guarantee to
States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program.
My colleague and friend from Connecticut has done an excellent job
explaining the problems with this amendment. Let me reinforce a few of
the points he has made. As my colleagues can see from the chart behind
me, under Senator Obama's amendment, 32 States and the District of
Columbia would have a decrease in the guaranteed funding. Under the
Obama amendment, two previous targets of attack, both the District of
Columbia and Oklahoma, would receive less guaranteed funding than 18
other States. Indeed, Senator Obama's own projections show that the
District of Columbia, presumably one of the highest risk areas in the
country, would lose almost 45 percent of its total funding under his
proposal
I think we need to keep in mind that assessing risk is not an exact
science. Who would have guessed that Portland, ME, would have been the
departure point for two of the hijackers on 9/11? Who would have
guessed that four of the hijackers would train and live in Norman, OK?
Who would have guessed that two of the hijackers would have spent
considerable time in Stone Mountain, GA? My point is the evidence is
clear that terrorists train, hide, and transit through more rural
areas, which is one reason that the chairman and I have put such
emphasis on preventing terrorist attacks and have allocated a
percentage of funds to be used specifically for that purpose.
Now I wish to specifically address the chart that is being circulated
by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. The breakdown of the
winners and losers under his amendment on his chart relies upon the
Department of Homeland Security allocating future risk-based funding in
the same manner as it did in 2006. We know that is not going to happen.
The process by which the Department allocated funding based on its risk
analysis was denounced all around. I could quote the Senators from New
York and California, as well as the Senator from Connecticut,
Minnesota, and myself. All of us believed that whether we represented
big States, small States or medium-sized States, the methodology was
flawed.
Indeed, the Department has moved away from that methodology. So it is
a false assumption to assume the exact same risk analysis is going to
be used in future years, when, in fact, we know it would not be. I wish
to point out, in fiscal year 2006, 60 percent of the Homeland Security
Grant funds were allocated based on risk. We are requiring that an
estimated 95 percent be allocated based on risk, but we want that risk
formula reported to Congress. We want to take a look at it. We are
working with the Department on it. If we

[[Page S2667]]

are going to become better prepared as a nation, all States must have a
predictable, steady stream of homeland security funding. We need to
bring all States up to reach minimum levels of preparedness, because
otherwise the terrorists will exploit the weak links.

We also know many of the parts of our critical infrastructure are
located in more rural areas. Nuclear powerplants are a prime example.
Military bases are yet another example. So the problem is one cannot
assume the only targets are in large urban areas. That is not true.
There was another point the Senator from Connecticut made that is a
very important point, and that is this is an all-hazards approach to
funding. As the Presiding Officer well knows, because he participated
so actively in the investigation held by the Homeland Security
Committee into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, there is
virtually no area of our country that is immune from natural disasters.
The same kinds of communications equipment that come into play when
there is a terrorist attack are also needed when a hurricane or an ice
storm or an earthquake strikes. So I think we have struck the right
balance in our proposal.
Now, I would note the Senator's proposal does not hit my home State.
It does not hurt Maine, because he has additional funding for border
States, so I am not arguing out of a parochial interest. I am arguing
for the formula in our bill because it takes an all-hazards approach.
It understands all States have vulnerabilities. It recognizes we need
to improve every link in the chain, that we need to bring all States up
to minimal levels of preparedness, and they are simply not there now.
It recognizes we need predictable funding streams so that States,
regions, and communities can enter into multiyear projects, because a
lot of these projects, such as with interoperable communications,
require more than 1 year to get to the goal.
The potential of terrorist attacks against rural or at least nonurban
targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. Our
committee held hearings on the threat of agri-terrorism--an attack on
our food supply. That would be devastating for our Nation. A study
conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health shows rural areas
face profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and
water supplies, as well as virtually our entire food supply, are
located outside of urban areas.
The RAND Corporation has repeatedly warned:

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

Again, that report recognized much of the Nation's infrastructure and
potential high-value targets are located in rural areas.
I hope our colleagues will join us in voting against the amendment
offered by the Senator from Illinois. I truly believe it would not
advance the goal we all share of strengthening our homeland security.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. OBAMA. If the Senator from Maine will yield, I want to ask a
couple of questions based on my understanding. Maybe I am confused.
We based our assessment of which States see an increase, which States
do not see an increase, and which States see a decrease under our bill
on the CRS analysis, assuming $913 million appropriated. They tell us
34 States will see an increase in funding, 6 States will see the same
amount of funding under my amendment to S. 4, and 10 States will see a
loss. We have not had the benefit of the analysis that was just
presented on that chart indicating 32 States would see a decrease, so I
am curious if either the chairman or the Senator from Maine would tell
me where they got that statistic. Because I understand the statement
was made: Well, the formulas may change, and this was based on the
previous formula.
I have no problem with changing the formula so it is more risk-based
assessed. But I don't understand how it is that simply because we are
going to eliminate some of the flaws of the previous formula that
somehow--or the risk assessments, that somehow that is going to change
the basic assessment that was made by the Congressional Research
Service.
I am happy for either Senator to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will start a response. Senator Obama has circulated
a document which indicates if this formula is applied, I believe 34
States will get more money than under our proposal. We have a chart we
are circulating which says that, in fact, 32 States lose. That is
translated into the map here. Here is what the difference is, because
in some sense we are measuring different things. In our chart, we are
measuring the guaranteed funding of .45 under ours and .25 under that
of the Senator from Illinois. The reason we are doing that is because
that is all we can say with certainty that is guaranteed. We are both
in fact using the same bottom line or top line, which is $913 million,
which is the level the bill, S. 4, authorizes for the State Homeland
Security Grant funding. The reason this says 32 States and the District
of Columbia will lose guaranteed funding under the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois is because that is what we have studied: the
guaranteed minimum. Because the rest is an assessment of risk that is
left to the Department of Homeland Security which it applied this year
and it has already said it would never apply again because it was so
criticized by New York and others.
So let me in fairness yield--it takes two of us to equal the Senator
from Illinois on this.
Mr. OBAMA. Very briefly----
Mr. LIEBERMAN. We will roundrobin. I yield to my friend from
Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much. I want to make clear now, it sounds
to me as if we are comparing apples and oranges. Assuming we--which is
what CRS did--apply the same formula on my amendment, my amendment
would have 34 States see an increase in funding, and 6 States would
remain the same. Now, if the funding formula changes, it might change 1
or 2 States, depending on what the risk assessments were, but it is not
going to result in 32 States suddenly seeing a decrease in funding.
This is a decrease in funding based on the bare minimums without
applying any of the additional funding which we know is going to be
coming. So it strikes me that chart does not describe at all the
reality of what would happen under my amendment. I want to make sure I
am clear in terms of what we are preparing here, because the best
estimate of how this funding will be impacted is based on the CRS's own
assessment of what would have happened this year.

Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Does the Senator yield?
Mr. OBAMA. It is their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. I certainly yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine
to respond to my inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from
Illinois so that I may respond to his questions.
The only thing we can count on is what the minimum is going to
produce. CRS, the same as the Senator from Illinois, used last year's
DHS risk assessment--a risk assessment we already know DHS has
abandoned; a risk assessment that resulted in significant cuts in
funding to New York City; a risk assessment that was roundly criticized
by virtually every member of our Homeland Security Committee. What we
are trying to do is to share with our colleagues what we know for sure,
and what we know for sure is what the impact of the minimum funding
percentage is under our proposal versus under the proposal of the
Senator from Illinois.
What we did is we looked at what the guaranteed funding--that is why
it says guaranteed funding--would be under Senator Obama's amendment,
and as you see 32 States and the District of Columbia would lose under
the amendment. I say to my friend from Illinois that I am surprised he
would want to cut funding for the District of Columbia when that is a
high-risk area that did not do well under the Department's formulation
of applying risk

[[Page S2668]]

and thus does not do well under the formula of the Senator from
Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I want to be exactly clear on what we are
talking about here so there is no confusion among my colleagues. No one
disputes that under my amendment, the minimum funding changes. That is
the whole point of the amendment, is to change the minimum funding
levels and shift more of the money into the risk-based assessment. So
to state that 32 States lose on the minimum funding levels is to state
the obvious. That is the point of the amendment.
The point is more money then goes into the risk-based funding, and
when you factor that in, unless there is going to be no risk-based
funding--I mean I suppose that is a possibility, but I don't think so--
all that money, when you factor it in, will result in, under last
year's formula, 34 States gaining and 6 States staying the same.
Now, I also agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that
there were problems with last year's formula, and I am fine with
changes to that formula. I have actively supported changes to that
formula, including any possible shortchanging of high-risk areas such
as Washington, DC or New York.
The point of my amendment is very simple, and that is more money is
allocated on the basis of risk. I am not concerned about predetermining
where those risks are. That is the job of the Department of Homeland
Security, and that is the purpose of our amendment.
I want to be clear. Under your chart, Illinois loses money that is
guaranteed under the minimum funding, as does New Jersey, Oklahoma, and
Louisiana. But I would note that Senators Menendez, Coburn, and
Landrieu were all cosponsors because they understand when the money is
allocated based on risk, then wherever we live throughout the United
States, we are going to be potentially better off.
I am going to make one last point and then I am happy to listen to a
response. Both Senators Lieberman and Collins talked about an all-
hazards funding approach. I have no objection to that either. But keep
in mind, we are talking here about the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, which is not supposed to be targeted at all hazards. We have a
separate program--the Emergency Management Grant Program--that is
supposed to be addressing all hazards and that is why this amendment
does not touch that portion of homeland security funding that is
directed at all hazards. That is not the purpose of the State Homeland
Security Grant Program. The purpose of that is supposed to be to deal
with potential terrorist threats. That is why the 9/11 Commission and
Chairman Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families, all
of whom I think have great concern about the safety of all Americans,
indicate it makes sense for us to allocate this as much on the basis of
risk as possible.
It is for that reason that the House allocated funding on the basis
of the formula we are discussing. I wish to make sure that anybody who
is listening understands, yes, the guaranteed minimum funding might be
less for 32 States, but that is because more of the money goes into the
pot based on risk. When you add the funding that will be allocated on
the basis of risk, then we can assume that at least 34 States would see
an increase under my amendment, and 6 States would see about the same
amount of funding. If the formula changes, it is conceivable that
instead of 34 States, it may be 32 States or 36 States that see an
increase in funding; instead of 6 States with the same amount under
both amendments, it might be 4 States or 8 States. But the basic
principle is that the funding is going to be allocated on risk. The
Emergency Management Planning Grant Program deals with all-hazards
funding.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, very briefly, this is an important
debate. I say this to my friend from Illinois about the CRS estimate of
his amendment.
If you take the risk analysis the Department of Homeland Security
applied for this year, those numbers look correct. But what we are
saying is we know the Department of Homeland Security would not use
that same risk analysis because they have said so. We also know the
risk analysis has changed year by year through the Department of
Homeland Security. I am going to be real local about this. My hometown,
New Haven, CT, in the fiscal year 2004 grant, got a grant under the
Homeland Security Grant Funding Program, specifically the Urban Area
Security Initiative. In the years since then, because the risk analysis
changed, New Haven has received zero UASI money. So that is the basis
on which we contend that the Senator's amendment would amount to 32
States getting less money than they would under our proposal.
Our proposal is evaluated based on the guaranteed minimum because
that is all we will know for sure after we adopt the law.
My friend from Illinois is good, but he has not reached the level of
prophet. None of us can know--perhaps Secretary Chertoff--what the
Department of Homeland Security will use as a risk analysis formula in
the years ahead. The top five States are getting about half of the
homeland security grant funding now at the .75 level, and we are coming
in, in the spirit of compromise, at .45. So they will probably get a
larger share of that money--California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and,
of course, New York.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I think it has been a good debate. The
Senator from Illinois offered a thoughtful amendment, raised some
questions, and I think the managers of the bill, the Senators from
Connecticut and Maine, have defended well the language in the bill.
For our colleagues who may be watching this--or if they are at
committee hearings, perhaps their staffs are watching--I ask a couple
of rhetorical questions as we decide how to vote on Senator Obama's
amendment.
Should most of the funds for homeland security be allocated on the
basis of risk? Sure. Should the lion's share of the funding be
allocated on the basis of risk? Certainly, it should. Should all the
funding for homeland security be allocated on the basis of risk? No.
What Senator Obama is trying to do is thread the needle and get us
closer to somewhere between the lion's share and all the funds being
allocated on the basis of risk. We have all heard the old adage that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is risk. Senator Collins
talked about some staging that was done by the perpetrators of violence
on 9/11 from places such as Stone Mountain, GA; Portland, ME; and maybe
Norman, OK. Maybe Senator Lieberman talked about the kinds of targets
that terrorists have chosen in this country and others that maybe would
not have come to mind, such as the Federal courthouse in Oklahoma City,
in a disco or a bus or a train.
I don't think most people think of Delaware as a very high-risk
State. As we think what is a target for terrorists, in my State we have
a lot of chemical plants. Delaware used to be known as the chemical
capital of the world; I don't know if it still is. We have a lot of
inviting targets for people who want to do mischief. There are nuclear
powerplants across the river in New Jersey, and they are closer to my
home than to the Senator's from New Jersey. We have northeast corridor
train tracks, not just for passengers, that run up and down my State on
which all kinds of hazardous cargo is carried by Norfolk Southern and
CSX Railroad. We have a busy Delaware River; hazardous cargo goes down
that river every day.
Some people might look at those in my State and say there is not much
risk there and, as a result, they don't need extra money. In my
judgment, those are risky targets, which invite some mischief. We don't
need an enormous amount of money to help prepare for some harm that may
come to those targets and the people who live around them, but we need
a reasonable amount. The idea that .45 percent of one program, among
several that are funded through this bill, is somehow too much, I don't
buy that. The real compelling point is that, if you do the math,
multiply .45 percent times 50 percent, you come up with .22, .23
percent on the basis allocated by the fact that your State is under the
minimum.

[[Page S2669]]

When you run through the numbers, as the Senators have said, 95 percent
of the money under this funding program, the State Homeland Security
Grant Program, would be allocated on the basis of risk. For the Urban
Area Security Initiative, I think all the money is allocated on the
basis of risk.
That having been said, we can have ``food fights,'' I call them, and
debates all day trying to figure out should the minimum be .75 or .45
or .25 percent. Our committee said .75 percent is too much. We believe
.25 percent as a minimum is too little. We believe .45 percent, which
leads to about 95 percent of the funding under this specific grant
program being allocated on the basis of risk, is about right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I have a very quick comment, and then I
will yield to the Senator from New Jersey, who wants to speak on this
amendment. I wish to make perfectly clear that the statement made by
the Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Every State has some
risks. I have no doubt that Delaware has chemical plants and there are
ports and various facilities that constitute real risk. Under the
formula I am advocating, the funding is allocated on the basis of risk
that will take into account such infrastructure. The notion somehow
that the Department of Homeland Security will not take chemical plants
into account is simply incorrect.
Rural States, small States, large States--for all states, all of the
allocations that are made, other than the .25 percent guaranteed level
of funding, would be made on the basis of risk. The Department of
Homeland Security will presumably make an educated, expert assessment
on the risk that exists in Delaware, Maine or Connecticut. So it is not
as if those States would not be getting money under this amendment. It
is simply that the judgment of those experts, who are paid to determine
what the threats are and what the risks are, would be the guiding basis
upon which we make these decisions.
Mr. CARPER. Before the Senator yields, I have one further comment. I
take far greater comfort in the words of my friend from Illinois. But
what we heard about Washington, DC,--this place was a target. We had
people who lost their lives not many miles from where we are. There was
another plane trying to get here. Somehow this place, our Nation's
capital, which we acknowledge was a prime target on 9/11, and probably
is today, should somehow be allocated less funding under the formulas--
not the one in the bill but allocated less funding--doesn't make sense
to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois still has the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I would like to yield the remaining time
to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no controlled time.
Mr. OBAMA. The Senator from New Jersey has been waiting for quite
some time.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside for the purpose of resubmittal of a
technical correction to an existing amendment and laying down a second
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 317, as Modified

Mr. KYL. First, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 317 be
modified, and I send the modification to the desk. The minority has
been given a copy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
The amendment (No. 317), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the rewarding of suicide bombings and allow
adequate punishments for terrorist murders, kidnappings, and sexual
assaults)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. __. PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF TERRORIST SUICIDE
BOMBINGS AND TERRORIST MURDERS, KIDNAPPING, AND
SEXUAL ASSAULTS.

(a) Offense of Rewarding or Facilitating International
Terrorist Acts.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 2339E. Providing material support to international
terrorism

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `facility of interstate or foreign commerce'
has the same meaning as in section 1958(b)(2).
``(2) The term `international terrorism' has the same
meaning as in section 2331.
``(3) The term `material support or resources' has the same
meaning as in section 2339A(b).
``(4) The term `perpetrator of an act' includes any person
who--
``(A) commits the act;
``(B) aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures
its commission; or
``(C) attempts, plots, or conspires to commit the act.
``(5) The term `serious bodily injury' has the same meaning
as in section 1365.
``(b) Prohibition.--Whoever, in a circumstance described in
subsection (c), provides, or attempts or conspires to
provide, material support or resources to the perpetrator of
an act of international terrorism, or to a family member or
other person associated with such perpetrator, with the
intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage that act or other
acts of international terrorism, shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and, if
death results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or
for life.
``(c) Jurisdictional Bases.--A circumstance referred to in
subsection (b) is that--
``(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce;
``(2) the offense involves the use of the mails or a
facility of interstate or foreign commerce;
``(3) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or
encourage an act of international terrorism that affects
interstate or foreign commerce or would have affected
interstate or foreign commerce had it been consummated;
``(4) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or
encourage an act of international terrorism that violates the
criminal laws of the United States;
``(5) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or
encourage an act of international terrorism that is designed
to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United
States Government;
``(6) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or
encourage an act of international terrorism that occurs in
part within the United States and is designed to influence
the policy or affect the conduct of a foreign government;
``(7) an offender intends to facilitate, reward, or
encourage an act of international terrorism that causes or is
designed to cause death or serious bodily injury to a
national of the United States while that national is outside
the United States, or substantial damage to the property of a
legal entity organized under the laws of the United States
(including any of its States, districts, commonwealths,
territories, or possessions) while that property is outside
of the United States;
``(8) the offense occurs in whole or in part within the
United States, and an offender intends to facilitate, reward
or encourage an act of international terrorism that is
designed to influence the policy or affect the conduct of a
foreign government; or
``(9) the offense occurs in whole or in part outside of the
United States, and an offender is a national of the United
States, a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the
United States, or a legal entity organized under the laws of
the United States (including any of its States, districts,
commonwealths, territories, or possessions).''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendments.--
(A) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``2339D. Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist
organization.
``2339E. Providing material support to international terrorism.''.

(B) Other amendment.--Section 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``2339E
(relating to providing material support to international
terrorism),'' before ``or 2340A (relating to torture);''.
(b) Increased Penalties for Providing Material Support to
Terrorists.--
(1) Providing material support to designated foreign
terrorist organizations.--Section 2339B(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``15 years'' and
inserting ``25 years''.
(2) Providing material support or resources in aid of a
terrorist crime.--Section 2339A(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``15 years'' and inserting ``40
years''.
(3) Receiving military-type training from a foreign
terrorist organization.--Section 2339D(a) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``ten years'' and
inserting ``15 years''.
(4) Addition of attempts and conspiracies to an offense
relating to military training.--Section 2339D(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or attempts
or conspires to receive,'' after ``receives''.
(c) Denial of Federal Benefits to Convicted Terrorists.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by this section, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

[[Page S2670]]

``Sec. 2339F. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists

``(a) In General.--Any individual who is convicted of a
Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g))
shall, as provided by the court on motion of the Government,
be ineligible for any or all Federal benefits for any term of
years or for life.
``(b) Federal Benefit Defined.--In this section, `Federal
benefit' has the meaning given that term in section 421(d) of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862(d)).''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by this section, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``2339F. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists.''.

(d) Addition of Attempts or Conspiracies to Offense of
Terrorist Murder.--Section 2332(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, or attempts or conspires to kill,''
after ``Whoever kills''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``ten years'' and
inserting ``30 years''.
(e) Addition of Offense of Terrorist Kidnapping.--Section
2332(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(b) Kidnapping.--Whoever outside the United States
unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps,
abducts, or carries away, or attempts or conspires to seize,
confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away, a
national of the United States, shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both.''.
(f) Addition of Sexual Assault to Definition of Offense of
Terrorist Assault.--Section 2332(c) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(as defined in section
1365, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242)'' after
``injury'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(as defined in section
1365, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242)'' after
``injury''; and
(3) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``ten years'' and inserting ``40 years''.

Amendment No. 357 to Amendment No. 275

Mr. KYL. I send a second amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 357 to amendment No. 275.

Mr. KYL. 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 the data-mining reporting requirement to protect
existing patents, trade secrets, and confidential business processes,
and to adopt a narrower definition of data mining in order to exclude
routine computer searches)

At page 174, strike line 1 and all that follows through
page 175, line 18, and insert the following:
``The terms ``data-mining'' and ``database'' have the same
meaning as in Sec. 126(b) of Public Law 109-177.
(c) Reports on Data Mining Activities by Federal
Agencies.--
(1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or
agency of the Federal Government that is engaged in any
activity to use or develop data mining shall submit a report
to Congress on all such activities of the department or
agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The report
shall be made available to the public, except for a
classified annex described in paragraph (2)(H).
(2) Content of report.--Each report submitted under
paragraph (1) shall include, for each activity to use or
develop data mining, the following information:
(A) A thorough description of the data mining activity, its
goals, and, where appropriate, the target dates for the
deployment of the data mining activity.
(B) A thorough description, consistent with the protection
of existing patents, proprietary business processes, trade
secrets, and intelligence sources and methods, of the data
mining technology that is being used or will be used,
including the basis for determining whether a particular
pattern or anomaly is indicative of terrorist or criminal
activity.''

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise today to address an amendment that I
have filed to the 9/11 recommendations bill, amendment no. 317. This
amendment would prohibit rewarding the families of suicide bombers for
such attacks, and stiffen penalties for other terrorist crimes.
The first part of the amendment would create a new offense of aiding
the family or associates of a terrorist with the intent to encourage
terrorist acts. This provision is targeted at those individuals who
give money to the families of suicide bombers after such bombings. The
amendment would make it a Federal offense to do so if the act can be
connected to the United States, and if die defendant acted with the
intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage acts of international
terrorism.
Let me offer an example of why this amendment is necessary. In August
2001, a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a Sbarro pizza parlor in
Jerusalem. He killed 15 people. Among those killed was an American
citizen, Shoshana Greenbaum, who was a schoolteacher and who was
pregnant at the time.
Shortly after this bombing took place, the family of the suicide
bomber was told to go to the Arab Bank. The bomber's family began
receiving monthly payments through an account at that bank, and later
received a lump sum payment of $6,000.
According to accounts in the press, this is not the only time that
the Arab Bank has funneled money to the families of suicide bombers.
One news account describes a branch of the bank in the Palestinian
territories whose walls are covered with posters eulogizing suicide
bombers.
According to other news accounts, suicide bombers in the Palestinian
territories are recruited with promises that their families will be
taken care of financially after the attack. Saudi charities, the
Palestinian authority, and even Saddam Hussein have rewarded suicide
bombers' families for their acts. According to the BBC, Saddam Hussein
paid a total of $35 million to terrorists' families during his time.
Obviously, Saddam Hussein's actions are no longer a concern, but we
should all be deeply concerned about other wealthy individuals and
financial institutions who continue to pay out these rewards. It is
undoubtedly the case that in some instances these payments make the
difference in whether an individual will commit a suicide bombing.
My amendment would make it a Federal crime, with extraterritorial
jurisdiction in cases that can be linked to U.S. interests, to pay the
families of suicide bombers and other terrorists with the intent to
facilitate terrorist acts.
My amendment also makes several other needed improvements to our
antiterrorism laws.
The amendment increases the maximum penalties for existing material
support offenses. The material-support statutes have been the Justice
Department's workhorse in the war against terrorists, accounting for a
majority of prosecutions. These statutes are also very effective at
starving terrorist groups of resources. My amendment increases the
penalty for giving material support to a designated foreign terrorist
organization from a maximum of 15 years to a maximum of 25 years. The
penalty for providing material support to the commission of a
particular terrorist act is increased from a maximum of 15 years to a
maximum of 40 years. And the maximum penalty for receiving military-
type training from a foreign terrorist organization is increased from
10 years to 15 years. The amendment also adds attempts and conspiracies
to the substantive offense of receiving military-type training, and
denies Federal benefits to persons convicted of terrorist offenses.
Finally, my amendment expands existing proscriptions on the murder or
assault of U.S. nationals overseas for terrorist purposes, so that the
law punishes attempts and conspiracies to commit murder equally to the
substantive offense. The amendment adds a new offense of kidnapping a
U.S. national for terrorist purposes, regardless of whether a ransom is
demanded. And the amendment adds sexual assault to the definition of
the types of injury that are punishable under the existing offense of
assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
I ask unanimous consent that a number of news articles be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Federal News Service, May 11, 2005]

Program Transcript--Funding Terrorism

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Following the money in the war on
terrorism. As NBC News first reported a few weeks ago, U.S.
government regulators have uncovered evidence that suggests a
prominent Middle Eastern bank with

[[Page S2671]]

a branch here in New York City has had dozens of suspected
terrorists as customers and may even have transferred funds
for suspected al Qaeda terrorists through its New York
office.
Now U.S. News has learned a criminal investigation of the
bank is under way. Our NBC News senior investigative
correspondent, Lisa Myers, has our exclusive report in depth.
LISA MYERS: August 2001. A suicide bomber hits the Sbarro
pizza parlor in Jerusalem, killing 15, including an
American--Shoshana Greenbaum, a pregnant schoolteacher.
The Palestinian bomber? Izz Ad-Din Al-Masri. His parents
told NBC News that soon after the bombing a group which helps
families of suicide bombers told them they'd be compensated
for their son's `sacrifice.'
`They told me to go to the Arab Bank and open an account
and you will receive a salary.'
He says almost immediately he began receiving $140 a month.
And after the Israelis leveled his house, he says he was told
to go the bank and pick up more money.
(Myers' question to Shuhail Ahmed Al-Masri, Izz Ad-Din Al-
Masri's father): So you went to the Arab bank, and they gave
you $6,000?
SHUHAIL AHMED AL-MASRI: Yes. Six thousand dollars.
MYERS: This is the branch of the Arab Bank where Al-Masri's
father says he was told to open an account, where he says
received money almost every month for the last three years.
The branch, plastered with posters eulogizing suicide
bombers, isn't the only one allegedly paying bombers'
families. This ad in a Palestinian newspaper told dozens of
martyrs' families to pick up money at the nearest branch of
the Arab Bank.
Jimmy Gurule was a top U.S. official in charge of cutting
off money to terrorists.
JIMMY GURULE (former U.S. Treasury official): Those types
of payments were aiding and abetting terrorism.
MYERS: The FBI tells NBC News that it's now conducting a
criminal investigation into the Arab Bank's alleged movement
of funds for suspected terrorists. The investigation was
triggered after U.S. regulators examined Arab Bank operation
in New York City, here in this building on Madison Avenue.
U.S. officials tell NBC News that regulators found that the
bank had as customers 40 to 60 suspected terrorists and
groups allegedly associated with al Qaeda, Hamas and
Hezbollah. Officials say all had accounts with the bank or
had moved money through the NEW YORK office.
GURULE: I'm not aware of another situation involving a bank
operating in the United States that has conducted itself in
such a manner.
MYERS: The Arab Bank, headquartered here in Jordan, turned
down repeated requests for an interview, so we visited bank
headquarters in Amman.
(Myers at the bank): Lisa Myers with NBC News.
MYERS: We only got as far as the lobby.
OMAR AL-SHEIK (Arab Bank official): Of course not.
MYERS: Does the bank believe it's proper to move money to
help terrorists'?
OMAR AL-SHEIK: Of course not.
MYERS: In a statement, the Arab bank denies ever knowingly
doing business with terrorists. And officials insist the bank
has never moved money for anyone officially designated a
terrorist by the U.S. government.
However, NBC News provided the bank with these documents
showing it dealt with three Hamas terror groups, even after
they were blacklisted by the U.S. It's against the law for
banks in the U.S. to handle transactions for terrorists on
the blacklist.
The bank says these three transactions still were legal
because they occurred outside the U.S., but that in the
future it will honor the U.S. blacklist worldwide.
As for suicide bombers, the Arab Bank strongly denies ever
knowingly handling payments for bombers' families. 'Arab Bank
considers suicide bombings an abominable human act.'
Then what about the ad telling bombers' families to collect
money at the Arab Bank?
The bank says it didn't place the ad.
After NBC provided account numbers for the Al-Masris, the
bank froze their account, which the bank claims was opened
before the bombing.
Shoshana Greenbaum's father, who moved to Israel after her
death, is now suing the bank.
ALAN HAYMAN (Greenbaum's father): This organization, if
allowed to continue in business with a mere slap on the
wrist, would be sending a message that it's perfectly all
right to support terrorism.
MYERS: The Arab Bank, which Israeli officials call `the
Grand Central Station of terrorist financing,' has been
forced down much of its U.S. operation but remains a dominant
player in the Middle East.
____

Arab Bank's Terror Trial Hit

A Federal judge in Brooklyn ordered Jordan's Arab Bank to
stand trial in New York on charges that it knowingly financed
the Palestinian suicide bombers who have killed and maimed
thousands, including many American citizens.
The survivors of suicide attacks in Israel and family
members of Americans killed or wounded in the attacks sued
Arab Bank last year.
The suits argue the bank had full knowledge of the acts
committed by their clients from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigades.
The victims also charge Arab Bank's distribution of
payments to the families of suicide bombers was a part of the
terror recruiting process.
``[The charges] support an inference that Arab Bank and the
terrorist organizations were participants in a common plan
under which Arab Bank would supply necessary financial
services to the organizations which would themselves perform
the violent acts,'' wrote U.S, District Judge Nina Gershon in
an opinion released yesterday.
In July, The Post broke the story that the bank required
intricate and official so-called Martyr's Kits to process the
payments, concrete proof that the bank knew where its
payments were destined.
A bank spokesman said ``Arab Bank remains confident that it
will prevail at trial. The bank abhors terrorism and has not,
and would not, knowingly or willfully support terrorism.''
Judge Gershon dismissed the bank's argument that these were
``ordinary banking services.''
She said ``there is nothing routine about the services the
bank is alleged to provide.''
____

Sick `Martyr Kits'--Secret Files Finger Bank in Mideast Terror Payoffs

Secret documents known as ``martyrs' kits'' obtained by The
Post provide a startling glimpse into the world of suicide
bombers, who are recruited with promises that their families
will be well taken care of financially.
These kits ensure that the families of Hamas, PLO and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad killers get generous ``charitable
donations'' from Saudi Arabia-based organizations and, while
he was in power, Saddam Hussein.
The documents reviewed by The Post include a martyr kit for
Maher Kamel Hbeishe, a Hamas fanatic who blew himself up on a
Haifa bus Dec. 2, 2001, killing 15 Israelis and wounding 40.
Much of the kit's paperwork carries the corporate logo of
the Arab Bank--the Middle East's most important and
influential financial institution--and the numbers of the
accounts through which his family was paid.
The cover on Hbeishe's file--in the records of Saudi relief
committees--proclaims: ``the martyrs receive reward from
their Lord, they and their light.''
Replete with florid Arabic tributes to dead terrorists, the
paperwork explains the manner of death, making it clear that
the bank knew exactly whom it was giving money to and why.
If the terrorist were successful, the family would receive
$5,316; being wounded or captured would earn them a lesser
amount.
Though small by Western standards, the payments are more
than six times the West Bank's average annual income of $850.
To get its money, Hbeishe's family was most likely
contacted by the so-called ``social welfare arm'' of Hamas
and instructed to open up an Arab Bank account. Then
representatives of Hamas would use the information in the
martyrs' kit to provide the bank with the name of the
attacker and the beneficiaries getting checks.
The Saudi charities--called relief committees--that provide
the funding for the terrorists make no secret of their
activities, even taking out full-page ads in newspapers. One
such ad listed more than 1,000 individuals who had been
wounded or captured by the Israelis during the intifada and
whose families were eligible for benefits.
Every ad explicitly directs the family members to go to
Arab Bank.
A bank spokesman said, ``Arab Bank abhors terrorism. The
bank would never do business with individuals or
organizations it knows to be terrorists.''
It said that the documents obtained by The Post proved only
that relatives of the two suicide bombers had accounts there,
which is not surprising given the bank's 50 percent market
share in the West Bank.
Lee Wolosky, a lawyer suing the bank on behalf of families
murdered in terrorist attacks, said, ``New Yorkers would be
outraged if a bank on Madison Avenue was alleged to have
provided financial support to the families of al Qaeda
terrorists. These allegations are no different.''
____

[From the BBC News]

Palestinians Get Saddam Funds

Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to
families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other
militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to
receive cheques.
``Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero,''
read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.
With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers
condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the
ceremony as support for terrorism.
One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their
cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a
local pro-Iraq group.
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the
others--relatives of militants killed in fighting or
civilians killed during Israeli military operations--all
received $10,000 each.
Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the
``blessings of Saddam Hussein'' and PALF speakers extolled
the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

[[Page S2672]]

``Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom
attacks as people who have won the highest degree of
martyrdom,'' said one.
The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to
Palestinian families since the current uprising began in
September 2000.
Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his
missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him
wide backing in the territories.
Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for
terrorism.
``It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that
is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the
Middle East,'' said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign
Ministry.
However, families at this week's ceremony said the money
would be used to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel and bring
up orphaned children.
``Saddam supports the families of the martyrs, not
terrorism,'' said Ahmed Sabah, 69, whose son was killed by an
Israeli missile strike in December.
``It is a shame that Arabs stand silent as America prepares
to occupy Iraq.''
Israel blamed Mr Sabah's son Mustafa for bomb attacks on
three Israeli tanks which killed seven soldiers in 2002.
Tahseen Maghani, whose Hamas militant son Karam was killed
trying to infiltrate the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, said
he would use the money to plant crops and build a house.
``These are tough times for Saddam but his kindness will
help us a lot,'' he said.
``Saddam is the only one that has stood with us.''
Sabri Salama, a relative of two Palestinian teenagers
killed in an Israeli air strike on Gaza in January, said
America was ``the chief terrorist state''.
Ibrahim Zanen, a PALF spokesman, said he hoped the ceremony
would not be the last.
____

[From the Daily Standard, Dec. 19, 2005]

Meet the New Boss--President Abbas's Palestinian Authority Looks
Distressingly Familiar

(By Scott Johnson)

Are things getting better in Israel? Charles Krauthammer
recently observed that ``the more than four-year-long
intifada, which left more than 1,000 Israelis and 3,000
Palestinians dead, is over. And better than that, defeated.''
Krauthammer believes that Israel's Gaza withdrawal was a
success and that the electoral campaigns underway in both
Israel and the Palestinian Authority can fairly be attributed
to Israeli unilateralism and Palestinian maturation.
All of which may be true. Yet the news from Israel isn't
all good. Far from it. The terror war against Israel
certainly continues. Every day Israeli security forces
receive 10 to 30 security alerts regarding prospective
attacks within Israel. Only the successful attacks make the
news, such as the December 5 bombing that took five lives at
the mall in Netanya.
More worrisome is that the terror groups operate at will
within the Palestinian Authority. Among them are Hamas,
Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad--all groups with
foreign bases of support in Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
These groups parade openly and operate with impunity within
the territory of the Palestinian Authority. The numerous
security services of the Palestinian Authority have yet to
disarm them. Other terror groups actually operate as militias
under the umbrella of Fatah, the party over which Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas presides. Among them, for
example, is the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.
The Palestinian Authority has also taken action to support
terrorists within its jurisdiction. Rachel Ehrenfeld reported
on the Palestinian Authority's continuing financial support
of terrorists in a November 29 Jerusalem Post column.
Ehrenfeld cited a senior PA official explaining that the
Palestinian Authority has created a special committee to
determine the pension eligibility of all members of armed
organizations. Earlier reports indicate that the Palestinian
Authority contributes $4 million a month to support
terrorists held in Israeli jails. (For those looking to see
the glass as half full, PA finance minister Salam Fayad
resigned over this issue--which is a truly optimistic
development.)
Earlier this month Israel National News reported that
President Abbas approved a law providing financial support to
the families of ``shahids'' (martyrs)--including suicide
bombers. Abbas's approval of the law was announced in the
pages of the semi-official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida
the day of the Netanya bombing. (In addition to the sums
indicated in the linked story, the law provides for a lump
sum payment of $2,200 to the surviving family of
``martyrs.'')
The law would allow the Palestinian Authority to step into
the role--recently vacated by Saddam Hussein--of providing
financial support to the families of suicide bombers
attacking Israel. Asked for comment, a U.S. State Department
Near East spokesman noted that Abbas had not signed the law
and that the State Department had expressed its concern to
Abbas regarding it.
That's technically true: The law has been passed twice by
the PA legislative council. Abbas's signature and a third
approval of the law by the PA legislative council are
necessary for final enactment. Perhaps the State Department's
expression of concern will head off its final enactment. Yet
that the law that reached President Abbas's office--and that
he appears to have announced his approval of it--seems
telling.
____

[From the Washington Times, July 31, 2006]

Islamist Terror Twins; Shi'ite, Sunni Jihadists Pose Danger

(By Rachel Ehrenfeld)

It took the United States four years after September 11 to
develop a useful working definition of the gravest danger to
world peace. Last October President Bush finally identified
our enemies: ``Islamic Radicals . . . empowered by helpers
and enablers . . . strengthened by front operations who
aggressively fund the[m].'' Making no distinction between
Sunni or Shi'ite radicals, he concluded that defeating ``the
murderous ideology of the Islamic Radicals,'' is the ``great
challenge of our century.''
Mr. Bush keeps addressing the turmoil in the Middle East
focusing on Hezbollah as a regional struggle. Yet, defeating
Israel and controlling the Middle East is only part of the
global mission of both Sunni and Shi'ite terrorists. Their
goal is to establish the Caliphate, extending the rule of
Shariah to the entire world.
Israel is now fighting two of radical Islam's most virulent
versions--the Shi'ite Hezbollah and the Sunni Hamas. Israel
fights not only for its own survival. Its ability to defeat
Hamas and Hezbollah will determine the survival of the United
States and all Western-style democracies.
When Hezbollah attacked Israel over two weeks ago, Mr. Bush
accused Syria of being the primary sponsor of Hezbollah,
providing it with shipments of Iranian-made weapons. The
president added: ``Iran's regime has also repeatedly defied
the international community with its ambition for nuclear
weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten
the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the
current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled
region.''
One wonders what the leader of the free world needs to
witness before he connects the dots. Radical Islam, or
Islamofascism, as he himself described it on other occasions,
is not limited to the Middle East, or promoted and advanced
only by Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. Sunni radicals such as
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the numerous offspring of al Qaeda
pose similar threats to Israel, the region, the United States
and the rest of the world.
All radical Muslims, according to the president, are
terrorists ``target[ing] nations whose behavior they believe
they can change through violence.'' Their goal, he said, is
to ``establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain
to Indonesia.'' Then, they ``would be able to advance their
stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to
destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American
people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.''
``Against such an enemy there is only one effective
response,'' concluded Mr. Bush: ``We will never back down,
never give in, and never accept anything less than complete
victory.'' Yet, Israel is pressured for restraint by most
U.S. allies, including the Saudis.
Nonetheless, the White House, politicians and the
international media fall all over themselves to praise the
Saudis for admonishing Hezbollah as yet more evidence of
their commitment to ending extremism. In fact, the Saudis
demonstrate their commitment only to end Shi'a extremism. In
typical double-talk, while lambasting Hezbollah, the Saudis
refrain from condemning Hamas, and in fact, they are its
principal financiers from the beginning.
On Tuesday, the Saudi Government announced generous
financial contributions to rebuild Lebanon and Palestine. The
Saudis also held a well-advertised ``popular fundraising
campaign,'' urging Saudis, all Arabs and Muslims ``to show
the usual generosity and commitment towards the Arabs and
Muslim Nation.'' Last week's Saudi Telethon raised $32
million, and an additional $13.5 million was raised in the
UAE. There is little doubt that some of this money would find
its way to the families of ``martyrs'' from Hezbollah, Hamas
and Islamic Jihad carrying out the ``mission'' of Jihad.
This fundraiser brings back memories of previous Telethons
such as the April 2002 King Fahd-sponsored fundraiser for the
Palestinian intifada, and the August 2005 Saudi fundraiser
for the Palestinian cause, aired on Iqra TV. The organizers
then stated: ``Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam. A person who
cannot wage Jihad with his soul is required to wage Jihad
with his money . . . our brothers in Palestine desperately
need financial support, which goes directly to this cause,
and helps them to carry out this mission.'' On July 27, $29
million were raised in the latest Saudi telethon. Some of
this money would surely find its way to the families of
``martyrs'' from Hamas and Islamic Jihad carrying out the
``mission'' of Jihad.
The radical Sunni modus operandi differs not at all from
that of Hezbollah's Shi'ite terrorists. Al Qaeda and Hamas
also provide social services, jobs, medical care and schools
to the needy. And like Iran and Hezbollah, the Saudis use
their fortunes both to fund radical terrorist groups and to
develop vast international Islamic communications networks
which they leverage in order to expand their anti-American
and anti-Israel propaganda, while aptly manipulating U.S.
leaders and the media.
The Saudi fears of a nuclear Iran are behind their
condemnation of Hezbollah. However, since Hassan Nasrallah is
now the leading figure of the Arab world, supported by

[[Page S2673]]

The Muslim Brotherhood, and ``the most prominent cleric in
the Arab world, [Sheikh Yousef Al] Qaradhawi,'' the Saudis
can not afford to ignore Nasrallah's popularity. That is why
the Saudis publicly asked the United States to pressure
Israel into ceasefire. But the growing violence of and anti-
American propaganda by Sunni radical groups worldwide funded
by Saudi paymasters should serve as potent reminder for the
U.S. to demand that our Saudi ``ally'' stop their own
terrorist financing and the propagation of their own version
of radical Islam, Wahhabism, around the world. Moreover, the
United States should focus on developing alternative energy
sources, consequently reducing billions of dollars now
available to fund terrorism.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

Amendment No. 338

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment by my distinguished colleague from Illinois. His effort is
not about Illinois or any of the other significant States. His effort
ultimately culminates in 34 States getting additional funds and moving
far closer to the 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation
that funding for homeland security should follow risk and risk alone.
Having said that, he still doesn't deny to other States the
opportunity to have some baseline of homeland security funding. He
still preserves an element for all States. But I think here is how we
determine the equation. It is very interesting that one chart says 32
States and the District of Columbia will lose, but that depends upon
the factor you are using.
The reality is, under Senator Obama's amendment, which I am proud to
cosponsor, when you include the totality of homeland security funds, 34
States receive an increase--that is a significant majority of the
States--and we move closer to the public policy recommendation the 9/11
Commission made that all homeland security funding should be based on
risk and risk alone.
Now, whether you were on the street below at the World Trade Center
or across the river in New Jersey watching the towers burn or halfway
across the country watching the horrific events unfold on television,
we all experienced the blow our Nation suffered that day.
I say to my distinguished colleague from Maine who mentioned a
stone--I forget exactly--a location in Georgia and some other locations
in rural parts of America where supposedly some of the terrorists were,
but where were their targets? Not where were they hiding, but where
were their targets? Their targets are very clear.
We all suffered a blow that day, but there is something unique about
the locations that were chosen by the terrorists to strike. Thousands
work in the Pentagon. Roughly 50,000 people worked in what was the
World Trade Center, and 200,000 visitors used to go there on any given
day, including many of the people from my home State of New Jersey who
perished that day. Where were the planes coming from? They were coming
from major airports--Logan, Newark, Dulles. To where? To major cities
in California--Los Angeles, San Francisco.
So the terrorists made calculations about where and how they could
inflict the most damage on our Nation because while New York and the
Pentagon were the epicenters of that act, the reality is the ripple
effect came across economically as well as in terms of the loss of
lives across the whole country. But they understood the unavoidable
facts of where their targets were. Their targets were not in rural
parts. They may have hidden there as they got ready to commit their
dastardly act. Their targets were in the places they could make
unavoidably the greatest impact. The fact is, these targets are
consistently in some of the most densely populated areas of the Nation
where the greatest risk lies.
This debate should not be about fighting to maintain a certain level
of funding as general revenue sharing. At issue is how to best allocate
limited resources to those parts of our Nation facing the greatest
risk. Senator Obama does that by having 34 States enhance their
position and 6 being unchanged.
We cannot deny that some States simply have more risk than others.
Some States simply have more risk than others. Just as I would not
argue for the same share of agricultural funding for New Jersey as
Iowa, or I could not possibly make an intellectually honest fight for
the same level of hurricane preparedness as Florida, neither can many
of my colleagues argue that some States have the same risks as other
States throughout the Nation. If we had unlimited funds, that would be
different. That is not the case. The case is, we have limited funds.
Senator Obama's amendment clearly drives us closer and closer to risk
being the determining factor. That is what the 9/11 Commission
unanimously said, that is what the 9/11 families have said, that is
what the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, that
is what the amendment of the Senator from Illinois ultimately does, and
that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment and one that
ultimately understands that there clearly are greater risks in certain
parts of the Nation. The terrorists know that. They understand the
greatest consequences they can strike at and create the greatest horror
for their efforts, and that is going to be a continuing truth. It is a
continuing truth I hope the Senate will acknowledge in voting for
Senator Obama's amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
New Jersey for an eloquent summation of what this amendment is about.
What I would like to do is reiterate my response to some of the issues
that were raised by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut and
Maine.
No. 1, we are talking about real money. We don't have exact figures,
but let's assume we are talking about around $80 million that would be
shifted from guaranteed funding to the States and instead would be
allocated on the basis of risk. That $80 million will mean firefighters
are getting the equipment they need in States that have higher risks.
It will mean more money will be available for interoperability systems.
It means this money will be allocated to States that have chemical
plants and nuclear plants in higher proportion than those States that
do not. In each case, this money, under my amendment, will be allocated
on the basis of the risk assessments made by experts, as recommended
under the 9/11 Commission Report, and will not be allocated simply on
the basis that every State gets a piece of the pie regardless of risk,
threats and vulnerabilities.
To go back to the issue of how many States benefit or lose, my main
point is that we all win when the money is allocated on the basis of
risk. We all win. Every State wins. But in terms of the estimates of
which States gain and which States lose, I reiterate, the chart that
was put up by the Senator from Maine is only talking about the amount
of money that is allocated on the basis of guaranteed funding, not
based on risk. The additional funding, the lion's share of the funding,
as the Senator from Delaware stated, will be allocated on the basis of
risk, and once you factor that in, then you can be assured that the
overwhelming majority of States will get more money under my amendment
than they will under the underlying bill. That is the central point.
Don't get confused when it is stated that 32 States stand to lose money
under this amendment. They stand to lose the guaranteed money because
more money goes back into risk assessment, and once it is put back into
the States, then you will see a majority of States gaining under my
amendment.

Madam President, there is one last point I wish to reiterate. One of
the seemingly plausible arguments made by the Senator from Connecticut
and the Senator from Maine was that we want an all-hazards funding
approach--hurricanes, natural disasters. We want to make sure that
money is fairly allocated. I reiterate, that is not the point of this
program. We have another program that allocates on the basis of all
hazards. That is the Emergency Management Planning Grant Program.
So if they want to make an argument that money should be allocated to
all States at a certain percentage to guarantee minimum funding for all
hazards funding, that is entirely sensible, but that is not what this
funding stream is all about. This funding stream is supposed to address
the specific risks and

[[Page S2674]]

threats of terrorism. So if we want to follow the recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Report, then we must protect against those
particular risks for which the program is designed.
I appreciate the healthy debate. This does not always happen on the
floor of the Senate. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, the
chairman of the committee, for entertaining as many questions as he
did, and I thank him for his patience.
I reiterate that the underlying bill is an improvement over the
status quo, but the same principles that drove the Senator from
Connecticut and the Senator from Maine to change and reduce the amount
of minimum funding each State obtains is the same principle of my
amendment. I just take it a step further.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you applied the manner of
calculating funding that was up on the chart behind the Senator from
Maine, it is not clear to me you wouldn't see a whole bunch of States
losing under the change the Chairman has proposed as well. But what he
realizes and the reason he thinks the underlying bill makes sense is
because that money is going to be distributed based on risk, and in the
end a lot of States will do better. This amendment is no different. It
simply takes it a step further in line with what the House has done and
in line with what the 9/11 Commission Report recommends.
I urge all my colleagues to join on this amendment. I believe it will
be an improvement not just for some States but for the entire country.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. It
has been a good debate. Again, we don't have these often enough on the
floor.
I hope our friends understand the difference. Again, we know we are
basing our comparison of the two formulas on the guaranteed minimums,
which are the only things we can be sure about. My friend from Illinois
takes the risk assessment from this year and projects it forward. It
happens to have underfunded the District of Columbia, which is why they
lose under this proposal as well. I will leave that for the moment and
simply say that we are having a good debate about how to distribute the
money.
One thing I believe we all agree on--I know my friend from Illinois
and I certainly do--is that the Federal Government has been
underfunding the State Homeland Security Grant Program and all the
others. So while we have these significant arguments about how to
divide the pie, the other part of this debate--which, fortunately, we
have an agreement on--is that the pie should be bigger.
In this bill, for State homeland security grants, we go back to the
high level of fiscal year 2004, $3.1 billion. Quite shockingly, the
administration has lowered the money in each of the years since then,
though no one's estimate would say the threat to homeland security is
less than it was in 2004. That agreement we have, though we have a
mutually respectful disagreement about how to divide the pie.
While we are on this subject, there was a reference earlier on the
question of how the money is being spent. We hear references to this
now famous air-conditioned garbage truck from New Jersey. Likewise,
there was apparently a police department that is purported to have
purchased leather jackets for its officers. Presumably, allegedly,
these items where purchased with State homeland security grant funds.
If, in fact, that is what happened--although there is some suspicion
that the air-conditioned garbage truck was bought with funds that came
through the Department of Justice, not the State homeland security
grant funding--it was, obviously, wrong and unacceptable. This has been
used to undercut support for the program generally.
I assure my colleagues, however they vote on the funding formula--
and, incidentally, New Jersey is one of the States, as the Senator from
New Jersey indicated, that would gain under the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois high-risk States can misspend money just as
easily as low-risk States. In fact, they have more money to spend, so
the probability is higher.
Here is what I want to assure my colleagues: S. 4, the underlying
bill, is designed to make sure the money we send back to the States and
localities is spent for homeland security. Under Homeland Security
Presidential Directive No. 8, the Department of Homeland Security has
issued target capabilities for prevention, preparedness, and response
that all communities must be able to achieve. What are target
capabilities? They include risk management, citizen preparedness,
information sharing, intelligence gathering, and medical triage--all
necessary elements of homeland security and disaster response.
Under the Post Katrina Act that stemmed from our committee's
investigation of Government failures during Hurricane Katrina, the
Senate and the House and the President implemented these target
capabilities as statutory requirements. So S. 4 requires that all
homeland security grants must be spent in a way that works to reach the
specific target capabilities stipulated by the Department of Homeland
Security and the national preparedness goal. Obviously, this air-
conditioned garbage truck would be an illegal expenditure, as would the
purported purchase of leather jackets for a police department somewhere
in America. In turn, each of these expenditures, whether at the State,
local, or tribal level, must be consistent with a State homeland
security plan that is required by S. 4.
S. 4 authorizes specific uses for the grants; among which are the
following:

Developing plans and risk assessments, which are essential for the
optimal and most efficient allocation of resources;
Designing, conducting, and evaluating training and exercises,
including for mass evacuations, as we learned was so essential in
Hurricane Katrina;
Purchasing and maintaining equipment, such as interoperable
communications devices that are critical to responding to a disaster;
Additional measures, including overtime personnel costs, when
required to respond to an increase in the threat level under the
Homeland Security Advisory System;
The protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and
Establishing fusion centers that comply with specific information-
sharing guidelines as described in title I of this bill.
S. 4 also ensures that the Department has the flexibility to approve
activities funded by the grants, but again, all expenditures must be
tied to the achievement of target capabilities.
Additionally, S. 4 contains explicit restrictions on the use of
homeland security grants: We prohibit funds from being spent on
recreational or social purposes.
These provisions, backed up by extensive accountability and audit
requirements, will ensure that funds are spent in the most efficient
and effective way possible. Some have suggested that the misuse of
grant funds in the past has been a result of extraneous funds being
distributed in the form of a State minimum. But, in fact, I point out
that the air-conditioned garbage trucks were purchased by New Jersey--a
State which my colleagues have pointed out is one of the higher-risk
States, and has, in fact, received a significant portion of
antiterrorism funding. Likewise, the leather jackets were purchased by
the D.C. Police Department--again, one of the areas of the country with
the highest risk assessments. So no State should be considered immune
from such expenses, and it is wrong to imply a link to State minimums.
S. 4 will ensure that each grant awarded is tied to a carefully
analyzed homeland security plan, and is expended for a specific target
capability.
Madam 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.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, earlier today, the Senate tabled an
amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, that
would have struck all of the provisions in the bill related to the
employment rights of the employees of the Transportation Security
Administration,

[[Page S2675]]

TSA. Last night, I filed an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator
Voinovich, Senator Warner, Senator Sununu, Senator Coleman, and Senator
Stevens that seeks to strike a middle ground in this area.
Through our committee's work on homeland security, it has become
clear that the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing
conditions, to emerging threats, and to crisis situations is essential.
From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to
this response is flexibility, putting assets and, more importantly,
personnel where they are needed, when they are needed.
My question about giving TSA employees the right to collectively
bargain is whether this additional right would hamper flexibility at
this critical time.
I have been a strong supporter of Federal employees throughout my
time in the Senate. I very much appreciate the work they do not only in
the Department of Homeland Security but throughout the Federal
Government. It is my hope that we will be able to work cooperatively to
forge a compromise that preserves the needed flexibility that has been
described to us in both classified sessions and open hearings while
protecting the rights of TSA employees. These are employees who are
working hard every day to protect us.
The TSA is charged with great responsibility. In order to accomplish
its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation
Security Act provided TSA with the authority to shift resources and to
implement new procedures daily--in some instances hourly--in response
to emergencies and changing conditions. This authority enables TSA to
make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated
workforce.
We have already seen the benefit of this flexibility. In both the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in
Great Britain last year, TSA was able to change the nature of its
employees' work and even the location of their work in response to
these emergencies. Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area
and many local TSA officers were unable to get to the airport, the
agency acted quickly, flying in voluntary TSOs from Las Vegas to cover
the shifts and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers transferred
temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without the ability to rapidly ask for
volunteers and deploy them to Denver, the Denver airport would have
been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential.
The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the
unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Most of those
recommendations were enacted in 2004, but when we look at this report
we don't see recommendations about changing the employees' conditions
at TSA. Before we so dramatically change the TSA personnel system, we
must ensure that we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out
its mission.
That doesn't mean the status quo is adequate. I believe we know
enough now that we should proceed with providing TSA employees
important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees. Let me
mention two such important protections with which we should proceed.
The first is to bring them under the Whistleblower Protections Act.
There is simply no reason TSA employees should not enjoy the formal
protections and procedures set forth in that act.
Second, these TSA employees should have the same kinds of rights as
other Federal employees to appeal adverse employment actions--
disciplinary actions, for example, demotions, even firings--to the
Merit System Protection Board. That would give them an independent
agency to review their complaints, and that is an important protection
as well.
In addition to these two very important provisions, the amendment
makes clear that TSOs have the right to join labor unions. My amendment
also requires TSA to establish a pay-for-performance system. That
already exists in the agency, but we want to codify that.
Finally, the amendment would require TSA and the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, to report to Congress in 1 year to assess
employment matters at TSA, indicating what further changes, if any,
should be made in the TSA personnel system.
I believe this takes the right approach. This is not an all-or-
nothing debate, and yet that is what we seem to have boiled it down to.
I urge my colleagues to take a look at the amendment. I am very pleased
to have the cosponsorship of several Senators, and I hope that we will
have the opportunity to vote on it, if not today, tomorrow.
Madam 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. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 294

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to discuss an amendment that has
been previously called up, amendment No. 294. This is an amendment on
the
9/11 bill.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I have no objection, obviously, to the Senator from
Oklahoma proceeding to the discussion. I want him to know that Senator
Collins and I are negotiating a consent agreement on votes on the
funding formulas and we may, with the Senator's permission, interrupt
him as he goes forward if we reach that agreement.
Mr. COBURN. I will be more than happy to be interrupted by the
chairman.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am a member of the Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee, as is the Presiding Officer today. We
have gone through this bill--this is the second time--looking at 9/11
and what we need to do in terms of our risk, in terms of how we protect
the homeland.
As this bill is drafted, its implementation authority never expires.
It never stops. So what we have is approximately $4 billion a year from
now on. Actually, what we say is: however much money is needed in year
four of the bill to be spent on homeland security, whether or not we
need to or whether it is time to relook at the priorities of the bill.
This is an amendment that I offered in committee. I got one
Democratic vote for it and my own. But what this amendment does is
sunset this bill in 5 years and says it is time to take a look at it
again.
One of the critical things we did following 9/11 was the PATRIOT Act,
and we sunset it. Last year we took it up again and we sunset a good
portion of it again. So we will look at it again.
This bill is never sunset. It is like the hundreds of other bills
this body has passed, that we pass and we never look at again. We never
do oversight. We never make the decisions. We just let the money keep
rolling out the door and charging it to our grandchildren. This is a
very simple, straightforward amendment.
All this amendment says is that 5 years from now, this one goes
``time out,'' it is over, do it again with a fresh look at the problems
that we face in this very dangerous world, a fresh look at the success
we have made, the accomplishments today, and ask where we need to go.
The bill, as written, assumes that nothing in the future, in terms of
our risk, is going to change. I would put forward 5 years from now
everything will have changed in terms of the risks that we are going to
face. If we have done our jobs right with this bill, many of the areas
of preparedness that we are attempting to direct funds to in this bill
will be solved. Why should we continue to have money going to areas
that we have solved rather than redirect money to areas that we have
not solved, or maybe for our children's sake, not spend any money
because there is no need other than the need for politicians to tell
people at home that we sent money to them.
So this is a very simple, very straightforward amendment that says
improving America's security by implementing the unfinished
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

[[Page S2676]]

Act of 2007 will cease having an effect on December 31, 2012.
Good government is what the American people both expect and desire.
They also deserve good government. They deserve the wisdom of knowing
we cannot know what is in the future today, so let's limit what we do
until we can relook at it again.
Having held 46 hearings with Senator Carper in the last 18 months on
the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the Homeland Security
and the Government Affairs Committee, what we know is what Congresses
have done in the past have created about $200 billion worth of waste
per year in this country.
Now, sadly, the Congress refuses to address those duplications, the
fraud and the waste that is associated with that $200 billion worth of
waste, fraud, and abuse. We should not add to that. We should not have
a program that goes on ad nauseum addressing needs of today and saying
it is OK.
All I am asking with this amendment, and I think most commonsense
Americans would ask, what is so hard about saying this ends and we have
to look at it again in 2012? Make the decision again based on what the
very real risks are and, oh, we might even consider what our financial
condition is when we decide what we are going to spend on security and
what else might ought not be paid for by the Federal Government as we
fund homeland security and protect this Nation.
This provision will cause us to review the needed programs and
authorize spending. It will cause us to make better decisions 5 years
from now than we can make today.
I will draw the corollary as a primary care physician, what I know
about my 55-year-old patients with hypertension and high cholesterol.
And I am going to have an example today. I said: Here is what you need
to do for the next 5 years. Do not come back and see me. Your risks
probably are not going to change. I can predict exactly what you are
going to need. Do not worry. I will just give you prescriptions for the
next 5 years.
That is what we are doing on this bill. We are not doing it for just
5 years, we are doing it for the rest of the patient's life. We would
never go to a physician who treated us that way. Yet that is the way
this bill approaches the future.
What are the reasons to oppose this bill? One is lack of a desire to
tackle the hard job of looking at this again in 5 years. One is
arrogance; we know what we are going to need. There is no way we can.
Political expediency, that might have something to do with it, to be
able to tell the special interest groups and our campaign donors that
we have got them taken care of for the next 10 years.
I quote my chairman for whom I have the utmost respect. Here is what
his quote was on the PATRIOT Act.

The best thing we did with the PATRIOT Act was to sunset
it, was to say that it needs to be reauthorized or it will go
out of existence. And we are going to look back and see what
happened with the PATRIOT Act so we can make a better
decision in the future.

I have trouble not understanding why that same wonderful logic and
great common sense should not be applied to this bill.

Senator Reid in 2005:

But we are currently considering renewal of those
provisions that were considered so expensive or so vulnerable
that Congress wisely decided for a 4-year sunset.

The author of the act wanted Congress to reassess in a more
deliberative manner with the benefit of experience. We are presented
with an opportunity again now, 4 years later, to get it right. Why
would we not want to sunset this bill? I have even a bigger one. Why do
we not want to sunset every bill, to go back and look at it and
reassess it so we get rid of the waste, the fraud and duplication, to
do the very things that we were sent to do?
I will not spend a great deal more time. I recognize that the ranking
member, Senator Collins, and Senator Lieberman have some business they
want to consider. I would remind Senators there is no score on this
bill. CBO hasn't scored this bill. We know the one from the House was
$20 billion. Should we not look at $20 billion worth of spending again
in 5 years and ask if it is under our priorities? Were we wise? What
have we learned? What can we do better? What worked? What did not work?
Why would we not want to do that? I think it is a no-brainer to
sunset this bill so that we, in fact, can learn from our mistakes,
learn from our priorities, look at the world the way it will be 5 years
from now rather than the way the world is today, and also, yes,
consider the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves.
I also am adamantly opposed to any piece of legislation that says,
``such sums.'' Well, does this legislation mean we want to spend $100
billion 6 years from now? That is what we are saying if we are giving
to the Appropriations Committee all our power to make the decision on
areas that are under our purview 6 years from now. Don't we believe we
ought to do that? I believe we ought to maintain that power, and
actually it is not 6 years, it is 4 years from now because in the
fourth year is when we do that.
Congress needs more sunsets, not fewer sunsets. We have an
inexcusable situation that we have seen today with much of the
Government operating on expired authority--expired authority. Madam
President, $170 billion of what was appropriated last year was under
expired authority.
Congress has not done its job to reauthorize those programs. So let's
look at this again in 5 years, in 2012. We can start with January 2012.
By the end of that year we can have said: Here is what we need to do
for 2013. We will do it with wisdom; we will be able to do it with
insight. We also will be able to do it with competence that we know
what is best for our country, which we cannot predict today under this
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:10
p.m. today the Senate resume debate on the following amendments, and
that the time until 5:30 p.m. run concurrently: Feinstein amendment No.
335, Obama amendment No. 338, and Leahy amendment No. 333; that all
time be divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member
of the Homeland Security Committee and the sponsors of the amendments;
that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered under
this agreement prior to the vote; that there be 2 minutes of debate
between each vote; that the amendments be voted in the order listed
under this agreement, and that at 5:30 p.m., without further
intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to
each amendment covered under this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that after
the three votes I be recognized on the floor for another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would object for the moment pending a conversation
between the Senator from Oklahoma and the managers of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and
ask that the time be charged equally between both parties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the
Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to make a comment or two about
the distribution of funding for homeland security. Of course, there has
been a great deal of discussion about it, but we haven't heard much
from small States.
I am from Wyoming and I suggest to my colleagues that we have needs--
perhaps at a different level but we have needs--like everyone else for
homeland security. So I have been a little disappointed with my
colleagues' comments yesterday and some today with respect to securing
America. I actually hadn't heard anything about rural areas, as they
are at risk as well. I know we have fewer people. But what I

[[Page S2677]]

did hear is that rural America doesn't need homeland security funding,
and that is not the case.
Most people don't know that Wyoming, which I guess is probably at the
moment our smallest populated State, is the largest exporter of energy
in the United States. We have oil reserves, we have gasfields, we have
coal mines, we have powerplants, we have uranium mines, all of which
contribute to the rest of the country and to the security of the rest
of the country. If folks don't believe our rail lines and transmission
lines and refineries and pipelines are not targets, then we need to
reevaluate that. We need to think about it again. As a matter of fact,
if you were someone seeking to do damage, you might think it is easier
to go into a rather rural area and stop some of the energy development
than to go into an urban area and have to go through all the network
that is involved.
This energy we talk about is the very same energy that drives our
economy; it turns on the lights in Los Angeles and New York City. So
there are important factors to keep in mind, to keep in perspective as
we go about this idea of homeland security and as we think about where
the homeland security risks are.
Certainly I will tell my colleagues that Wyoming is not as at risk as
Washington and New York, but, nevertheless, there is a fairly high
level of risk on rural States that provide these kinds of resources.
Our State is nearly 100,000 square miles in size. It is a State of
diverse topography and harsh weather. Major railroads and interstate
highways that connect the east and the west coasts of this country
traverse the State. Whether it is ships that come into the east and
west coasts or whatever, they go through this area and therefore that
makes it certainly subject to various kinds of events that could happen
in terms of homeland security.
The movement of hazardous waste by train and vehicle puts the
citizens I represent in harm's way every day. When homeland security
grants first began, Wyoming initially received roughly $20 million.
Wyoming's share has dropped to $9 million over the course of time.
Let me put this debate in context. My State stands to receive roughly
$10 million out of $3 billion under the plan that has been suggested
that we have. I certainly understand that cities such as New York need
more than my State; no one is questioning that. I also recognize that
large urban areas have more resources to draw upon than rural areas do.
We have less resources to protect the things we have that are not only
for our State but that are for our Nation. Congress has debated and
established a fair system. Every State should be provided with baseline
funding.
I fully support allowing the Department of Homeland Security to
determine who has the greatest risk to qualify for the urban area
security funding as current law provides. Big-city States have their
own urban programs so I cannot understand the uproar and anger
officials from large populated States have toward their rural
neighbors.
Wyoming generally doesn't ask for a lot, of course, but my State has
a lot more to offer than just wide open country for people on the coast
to fly over.
Let me repeat for my colleagues that Wyoming is the largest exporter
of energy in the lower 48. Protecting Wyoming's infrastructure and
securing our resources is critical not only to our State but to
national well being. I would remind my colleagues who have directly and
indirectly criticized small States that the States they represent are
not the only ones that have risks that need to be addressed.
I strongly support Senator Leahy's amendment to put fairness back
into the process. Protecting rural America is something that should be
important to all of us. It is all a part of our Nation. No one wins by
the current effort to pit big cities against rural America.
I hope we can come to an agreement that does deal with national
security and gives us an opportunity to secure all of the resources in
our Nation for national benefit.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes of the time
allocated to me to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who
will speak on another matter than the three amendments but is
sympathetic to the position I am taking on the three amendments.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, there is a procedural process that
is missing.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, was the time running under the quorum
call being charged equally or just to one side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for this quorum call has been counted
against Senator Lieberman. The Thomas quorum call counted against
Senator Collins.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any
further quorum calls between now and the beginning of the votes at 5:30
be counted equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to
be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 375

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 20, S.
372, the Intelligence authorization, 2007; that the Rockefeller-Bond
amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as
amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table; that a statement by Senator
Rockefeller be printed in the Record as if read, without intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on behalf of another Senator--not
myself--I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, let me take this opportunity to
thank many people but not the particular Senator who is objecting--1
out of 100. Nevertheless, Senators Reid, Bond, myself, and others have
worked very hard to move this fiscal year 2007 Intelligence
authorization bill forward. All parties have been enormously supportive
in this effort. It is one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been
associated with in my 24 years in this body. I must express my dismay,
my absolute dismay. I will hold it to that.
Despite considerable efforts on the part of the chairman and Vice
Chairman Bond and extensive efforts and negotiations to get agreement
on this bill, there is still an objection from one Senator for its
consideration. Is it just another bill? Not quite. The Senate's failure
to pass this critical national security legislation for the past 2
years is remarkably shocking and inexcusable.
In 2005, the Senate failed, for the first time since the
establishment of the congressional intelligence committees, to pass an
annual Intelligence authorization bill. That means for 27 years we
passed authorization bills for the Intelligence Committee. It is not an
inconsequential committee. It instructs how intelligence is to be done.
There are a number of changes that have been agreed to. All of that
failure was followed by a repeat failure in 2006--in 2005 and then in
2006.

[[Page S2678]]

So from 1978 through 2004, the Senate had an unbroken 27-year record
of completing its work on this critical legislation. You cannot move to
appropriations until you go through authorization, particularly in a
field such as intelligence authorization that has an unbelievably
important role. The Intelligence authorization bill has been considered
must-pass legislation for many years--until recently. Now, in the midst
of the war on terror, with things going downhill in Iraq, going
downhill in Afghanistan, and our continued military involvement in both
places, when good intelligence is not just vital but a matter of life
and death--and I emphasize the second--we have been prevented from
passing that bill that provides the legislative roadmap for our
intelligence programs.
Similar to the Defense authorization and appropriations bills, the
Intelligence authorization bill is at the core of our efforts to
protect America. That is why it is simply incomprehensible, shocking,
and debasing that we cannot find a way to bring up and pass this
critical legislation.
The result of this continued obstruction will be diminished authority
for intelligence agencies to do their job in protecting America. I hope
the Senator involved takes satisfaction in that. I am not sure his
constituents--if it is a he--would. Yes, I am angry.
The authorization bill contains 16 separate provisions enhancing or
clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The
bill includes major improvements in the way we approach and manage
human intelligence, information sharing, protection of sources and
methods, and even the nominations process for key intelligence
community leaders.
I came to the floor several times last year to explain those
provisions in detail. Today, I reiterate how important this legislation
is to the war on terrorism and to every other aspect of our national
security, including the ongoing fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. This
should have happened years ago. Somebody objects and, of course, it
cannot happen; the rules of the Senate prevail.
There is no reason the Senate cannot pass this bill quickly, so that
we can confer with the House before the committee is required to turn
its attention to drafting and reporting out what will be another
experiment, the 2008 authorization, which we should already be halfway
toward completing. If there is objection to passing this bill by
unanimous consent, we have been--the vice chairman and I, who worked
very well together--more than willing to negotiate a time agreement and
quickly debate and pass this long-overdue national security bill.
It is essential we assist the men and women of the intelligence
agencies to continue their vital work on the frontlines of Iraq and
Afghanistan and something called the war on terror.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I conclude by simply saying we need
this bill.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont will state his
inquiry.
Mr. LEAHY. Has there been time reserved for the Senator from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there an order for
recognition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry: Does anybody else have time
reserved to them?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I do for an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from
California each have 13 minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, may I just appeal to whatever
reasoned and reasonable people there may be around here, and that is
that the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee has something to
say on this matter which relates to what I said. There is a sequential
power in that which I think deserves consideration.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, in order for the Senator from Missouri
to speak, would the Senator from Maine or one of the sponsors have to
yield time to him?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Ms. COLLINS. How much time does the Senator from Maine have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes remaining.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the ranking member of the
committee.
When this committee was formed a long time ago--30 years ago--we
lacked congressional oversight. Since 9/11, we found that congressional
oversight had not been as good as it should have been, and one of my
first acts when I was appointed vice chairman was I suggested to the
chairman that passing the authorization bill was the top priority. He
agreed. We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to
have an impact on the intelligence community.
There are already a number of Rockefeller-Bond amendments on this 9/
11 bill. There will be more.
There are some who say there is nothing an executive branch agency
values more than a lack of congressional oversight. But I believe
congressional oversight can help them do their job better.
Is this bill perfect? No. But it is largely the same bill as last
year, and we have changed provisions that were objectionable. On the
good side, it would ensure that the exemption of Freedom of Information
Act requirements carries over to operational files. There is a specific
provision creating, within the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, a National Space Intelligence Center.
In reviewing all these, we worked very closely together to deal with
problems in the bill. I believe we have taken care of most of the
problems people raised. What I am afraid of is that people are
objecting to the bill without knowing what is in the bill, without
knowing the changes we have made, the accommodations that have been
made by the chairman and by the vice chairman to make this bill
acceptable.
Some have said that the administration has concerns. If the
administration has concerns, obviously they could exercise those
concerns in a veto. But if they have concerns, I am not sure they know
the changes and the provisions we have added to this bill.
I invite my colleagues who have problems with the bill to talk with
me or with the chairman about the bill so we can move it. We have
worked long and hard to help improve the operations of the intelligence
community. Our bill is the one way we have of providing that guidance
and sharing with the intelligence community the issues that the
bipartisan members of this committee believe are important.
I invite anybody, all people or any person who has a hold on this
bill, to come forward and find out what is in the bill. Don't judge it
by what you think it may contain.
Madam President, I yield the floor.

____________________