Mass Evacuation Exercise Assistance Act of 2005

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4659.

Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, on May 17, my colleagues, by a vote of 83 to 16, approved

my amendment to the Department of Homeland Security immigration bill to construct at least 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of the United States. This was based on the statement of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, that this was what he believed was necessary to create a border enforcement system.

Of course, a fence is not a cure-all, but it is a very real and integral component of enforcement at the border. Many of the areas we have the greatest difficulty with are urban areas. You can't put a policeman at every single street corner where people can walk across. So a barrier is necessary.

We have a number of barriers in San Diego and other places, and they have worked very well. Crime on both sides of the border has decreased, property values have increased in those areas, and economic development has occurred.

So there is no doubt--and it is not something that is mysterious-- that a good fencing procedure will help us in many ways. It is something we discussed and debated, and then when we voted, we voted 83 to 16 to approve it--a bipartisan vote.

But what I wish to make clear is this was simply an authorization. It represented a promise, a commitment by the Senate that we would build fencing. We would build fencing, and that, in large degree, is a part of our dialog with the American people in which we told them we are getting serious about enforcement. We are not just talking anymore. We really mean this time to get serious about enforcement, and we are going to do the things that are necessary. We are not going to build a fence along the entire border, but we need a certain amount of fencing--370 miles--and that is what would be put in, and that is what this Congress, this Senate, voted for. The House has more. I think they have 600 miles in their bill. So this was where we were.

I have made this point for some time in the debate: We do a lot of talking, we do a lot of legislating. The things we do often sound very good. The things we say often sound very good. But we don't ever quite get there. The things which will really make a difference, which can be demonstrable in improving lawfulness at the border, somehow, some way, seem not to become law.

This fencing requires a sum of money. We are going to show an increase--an increase--in spending for Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security next year or this year, this period, of over $100 billion. We are talking here about a cost of less than $2 billion, a one-time enforcement enhancement of having a barrier at the border.

The figure we have in here of $1.8 billion contemplates that it will all be done by private contractors at the higher prices for the better fence. I suspect as we move forward in conference the conferees may find that the National Guard, which were not part of the process at the beginning, were not being called out when we first voted on this amendment, could actually build this fencing for what we understand would be one-third the cost per mile. This might be a perfect thing for them to do and participate in. There may be other ways to keep this cost down.

We made a commitment as a body that we were going to take some real steps that would work to enhance enforcement at the border.

So I say to my colleagues, in many ways the vote we are about to take on funding this amendment is a test. The American people should look at us and evaluate us according to this test we are about to take. Were we serious on May 17 when we said we wanted to build this fence? It is not in this bill today. This is the legislation that is the appropriate vehicle to put in the spending for it. It is not in the President's request. It is not in the item that came out of the committee.

I know the committee had many challenges, but this matter is important. It represents a commitment we made to the American people. We need to follow through on that. If we do not, how could anyone say that the Senate has integrity in the commitment that it has made to the American people to create a lawful system of immigration in our country, to end the lawlessness at the border and create a lawful system?

That is what we need to do. We don't need to end immigration. We are going to maintain immigration. We are going to treat people fairly. We are going to allow people to come in and go from the United States. In fact, we can enhance that and make it much easier, but we need to have a lawful system. We need to end this unlawful system, and that is what I would say is so critical about this process.

The bill as presently written appropriates $288 million for necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip, and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to customs and immigration.

None of this $288 million is designated for any construction of new areas of border fencing on the Southwest border, as we voted to do by 83 to 13. The construction funding only includes money to continue land acquisition and construction for the San Diego fence--$30 million-- which is already under construction.

As for vehicle barriers that we have been told are important, especially out in the rural areas, barriers to stop the easy crossing of vehicles, 39 miles of new permanent vehicle barrier in western Arizona only are funded. That is for 39 miles, not the 500 miles that we authorized. It continues construction of vehicle barriers in El Paso for a few miles; $200,000 for vehicle barriers in the Swanton Sector.

Those amounts are the only amounts out of the $288 million that are designated specifically for fencing and vehicle barriers. That is not enough to fund what the Senate voted to authorize, 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.

I know there are ways to contain costs. Frankly, I think if we work at it we might be able to demonstrate this amount of fencing could be done for less than we have here. But I would say to my colleagues, the estimates we have had are these. This will meet the challenge. Unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, we need to follow through on our commitment to fund this.

This amendment appropriates the funds for the 370 miles of fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along the Southwest border that the Senate authorized in May. Although the Department of Homeland Security supported my amendment at the time to add these miles of fencing and barriers when we voted on those issues in May, funding for these miles of fencing is not included in the bill.

The advantages of fencing are numerous. It magnifies, it multiplies the effectiveness of our Border Patrol officers as they go about their work. They have a difficult job to do. They have to maintain a border that is 1,700 miles long. They need help. There is no way we could have enough Border Patrol agents to patrol that entire border. We need to make it more difficult for those who would come in to our country illegally.

Fencing has worked in San Diego, it has worked in Arizona, and it is going to work wherever we put it, to enhance the ability of our law enforcement officers to detain and stop and interdict those who would enter the country illegally, which is what we need to do if we are going to move from this lawless system of immigration to a lawful system of immigration.

These are the kinds of things the American people have been asking for. They are asking for us to demonstrate that business as usual is no longer in effect, that talk is no longer in effect. The American people are looking at us and they are going to be looking at us carefully to see if we are actually going to follow through on what might really work to reduce illegal immigration and to create a system that is lawful and decent and fair, so people who wait in line are not chumps and those who break the law and come across the border illegally are the ones who get rewarded.

We need to stop that. That is wrong. It undermines law and sends a wrong message to those people who come into our country.

I say to my colleagues that we need to do a better job. We have a serious problem with the American people. They are suspicious of us. They are cynical about what we have done. We have been talking about a lawful system of immigration for 30 or 40 years, and we have never produced it. We

passed a bill 20 years ago, in 1986, that was to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. We said we are going to do this one time and after this is done we are going to create a lawful system for immigration.

What happened? Amnesty became law just like that. The people got their amnesty. And there was a promise. As we made a promise on May 17 to build fences, they promised to do the things necessary to secure the border after 1986, and it never happened. It didn't happen in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000. We had a series of Presidents who did not follow through. We have had a series of Congresses that have sat over those years and they have not made this system work. Yet when we go back home to our borders we say we want no amnesty and we want a lawful system. It is time for us to make a decision.

This is a lot of money, you say. It is $2 billion. I say we spend $1,400 billion a year in this country. If you took a poll of the American people, would they say we ought to spend a couple of billion dollars to start making a real dent in the illegality at the border, that they would expect us to find the money somewhere? I think there is no other program in this country not worthy of being reduced to some degree so we could fund this.

My amendment would simply take an overall reduction in funding in this bill because that is what I am limited to, really, as an effective amendment at this point: to cut across all funding levels in the bill a sufficient sum to fund what we committed to do, which is build a fence.

I want to say to my colleagues, this matter is not going away. We are not going to be able to go back to the American people and tell them we have taken seriously their directive to us to fix this system if we don't put up the money necessary to do so.

As I have said for so many years--and recently we have talked about it a lot--you have to get to that tipping point in enforcement. You have to reach that point in which it is quite clear to those who would want to come to this country that the best way to do so is to come lawfully, to wait in line and take your turn.

I talked with President Bush about it on Air Force One. He agreed. He used the phrase ``tipping point.'' That is exactly correct. We want to establish a tipping point; a barrier, sufficient agents, sufficient detention spaces are key to that. It is not going to break the bank.

I am optimistic about our ability to achieve this. But you simply have to close the holes. You have a bucket with three holes in it. If you close two of the holes, you are still going to have the water run out. When we do what is necessary to close the holes in our legal system we can create a system that will actually work, create a tipping point where people wait in line and come legally according to the standards this country establishes for them.

I am very concerned that by not funding what we just so recently voted for, by not funding that we will be indicating, just like in 1986, we were really serious about moving forward with an amnesty but we are not serious about creating a lawful system of immigration in this country. Wouldn't that break faith with the people who sent us here? Wouldn't that undermine their respect once again? It is already at the lowest possible ebb.

They know we have not been serious about the border. Everybody knows that. Who can deny that? It has been an issue for quite a long time. It has been discussed and discussed.

They say we can have a virtual fence. A virtual fence will help a little bit. But I am not able to cash a virtual check at the bank.

I would like to see some real fencing. So we had a discussion about that and we voted. We voted to build a fence. It was a little more than half of what the House voted in size, but it was a significant step that will, in fact, multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol agents who are working their hearts out for us right now, today. It will absolutely do that. It will absolutely work.

That is why some people oppose it so steadfastly. Whatever you present in the matter of immigration, in my experience, that actually tends to work, gets objected to. Somehow it becomes very difficult to pass.

There was objection to this amendment, frankly, until the very end. I think the voices of the American people were heard and all of a sudden we ended up with 83 votes. Some people thought it would be a close vote. It wasn't so close when we voted because we were listening to our constituents, which is what we are supposed to do.

There are 2,000 miles on the border. Many of those are quite remote, not appropriate to build a fence on. Some say they want to build a wall along the border. What we need is strategic fencing. We need to use high technology. We need increased agents. We need enough bed spaces when someone is apprehended so that they can be detained pending deportation, particularly if they are other than Mexicans, because the Mexicans can be taken across the border right quickly, normally. But for those who are from other areas of the world, sometimes it is very difficult to effect a deportation.

As a result, people in our law system are forced to confront a problem. They don't have the bed space for them. They don't have a plane flying back to the Philippines or Brazil or Chile or wherever the people may be from that day, so they are releasing people on bail, called catch and release. They are released and they don't show up to be deported.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this?

Mr. President, that is where we are. What you need to do is reduce the number of people who are coming here illegally. You need to reach a tipping point. People who are coming here illegally, other than Mexicans, have been told correctly until recent months that if they are apprehended, they are not going to be put immediately on a plane back to Brazil or the Philippines or wherever they may have come from. They are going to be released on bail. One study showed that 95 percent of the people released on bail under these circumstances don't show up to be deported. Surprise, surprise.

You need bed spaces. We have some more bed spaces in our bill. You need more agents--not a huge number of bed spaces and not huge increases in agents, but you need more agents and more bed spaces. You need to multiply the impact and effectiveness of Border Patrol agents by barriers.

How much more simple can it be than that, that we have these barriers that multiply the effectiveness of our Border Patrol people?

The strategy among those who support this bill that passed the Senate--the Kennedy-McCain bill, or whatever we want to call it, which moved through the Senate--is that it become law. The strategy is that we will sort of have a conference with the House of Representatives in secret and we will come up with some deal that gives amnesty to everybody who is here. Check the future flow of immigration in the country forever, and we will talk about how to make enforcement work.

A lot of people said: Listen, we went through that in 1986. That is what we talked about in 1986. Remember? Don't forget that. That is what they said in 1986. They said in 1986: Give us amnesty today and we will take care of the enforcement tomorrow.

Senator Isakson offered an amendment to deal with that very specific matter. He said: I am worried about that, too. That is what happened in 1986. That is what I am hearing from my constituents back in Georgia. We are all concerned about that. We know it is a very real problem. Why don't we say amnesty doesn't become effective, or any relief that one may choose to give to those who come here illegally, whatever relief we give them doesn't become effective until we have the border secured. He offered that as an amendment. It was one of the most intensely watched amendments in the entire process.

I have to tell you, it was very discouraging to me and very discouraging, I think, to the American people to see that amendment fail. Why? Why was that amendment important? Because they rightly conclude from that that we never had or never intended to create a good enforcement mechanism. If not, why wouldn't we pass the Isakson amendment? Why wouldn't we pass it? Why wouldn't we pass it if we intended to actually create a lawful system?

It made you think that maybe what we are hearing is rhetoric--talk and

promises--but we are not going to deliver.

That is why I am saying to my colleagues that this border fence is more than just a little matter of $1 billion-plus, as much as that is. It is a matter for the American people to evaluate whether or not they consider that we are acting with integrity when it comes to creating a lawful system of immigration in America.

The Secretary of Homeland Security said it is necessary. We voted 83 to 16 to approve it. Now we have the Homeland Security bill where this project should be funded, and it is not funded.

I know we have difficult choices to make. But that is what they pay us for.

Are people not listening to their phone calls, and not reading their mail?

The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Louisiana, understands this issue. I have heard him speak articulately on it.

It is a matter of legitimate concern for the American people. The American people are not anti-immigrant. They do not want to punish immigrants. They believe in immigration. But they want a lawful system of immigration that serves the just interests of the United States of America--not a system that makes a mockery of the law. They have been asking for it to be fixed for 30 years, and no President and no Congress has responded to their cry.

I am going to tell you, they are going to be heard this November. There may be some people who will have to answer if they voted for this fence and then didn't vote to fund it.

Why not? Why shouldn't they be held to account on that?

We are facing some difficult choices. The American people are concerned about the issue. Fundamentally, the American people are correct. They have good and decent instincts.

This Nation is a nation of laws. And on immigration we can have laws that work. That is what we are looking to do.

I don't know of anyone else who wishes to speak at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are going to proceed with construction over 2 years. Since we don't know what will happen next year, the Congress voted to build a fence, and we ought to fund the fence, in my opinion, when we promised to build it. But we could build it over 2 years and split the money each year, I suppose. It would ultimately slow down completion. It would probably take some time to get it constructed. I don't know whether my colleagues would agree to cut that price in half and do it over 2 years, and whether it would gain their support. If so, I would be prepared to accept that reduction in the amendment.

Let me just say that we know what happened. Senator Gregg did his very best in the supplemental. Judd Gregg, chairman of our committee, is a fine Budget Committee chairman. He also chairs this Homeland Security Subcommittee. He was able to force into the supplemental additional money for border security which was not in the President's request. I salute him for that. But that is not getting us there. We are still talking about nickles and dimes. We are still talking about business as usual. Somehow we need to find this money. We spend over $800 billion a year in discretionary spending. We spend nearly $1.4 trillion a year in entitlement spending, entitlement increases--an increase of over $100 billion next year. So we can't find a couple of billion dollars to fulfill the commitment we made to the American people?

We know how the system works around here. There is no one way that

it works. There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say.

We need a vote for this amendment. And that would send a signal to the Appropriations Committee and send a signal to the White House that this Senate is serious about fulfilling its commitments. Some way between now and then, some way they will find this money through whatever sources are appropriate to fund it. That is where we need to be. That is what we need to achieve.

If we allow it to go through without any money for this fencing, we will rightly be accused of not being serious about the commitments we have made to the American people with regard to actually enforcing the laws of immigration in America, which many Americans already believe we are not serious about. They do not respect what we have done in the past, and they should not; we have failed. It is time for Congress to try to fix it and do better. In fact, we must do better. The Secretary of Homeland Security has told us this kind of barrier fencing is necessary for his success.

Now, we build a bridge in immigration that goes about 8 feet across the 10-foot cavern, and we never quite close the loop. As a result, we never reach the tipping point where it becomes much more logical for someone who wants to come to America to come legally than illegally, so they continue to come illegally. They are rewarded for that. They get to the head of the line, and they get amnesty when they get here after a period of time. That is a bad signal. We need to stop that signal.

By building more barrier fencing, by following up on the President's commitment to call out the National Guard, those activities send a signal to the world that our border is no longer open. Isn't that the message we want to send? We do not have an open border. We have a generous immigration system, far more generous that any nation I am aware of in the world. More generous than Canada, more generous than England, more generous than Mexico. We have a generous system. Don't let anyone put us down that we are somehow an anti-immigrant Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are very generous, but we do need to have a system that is lawful.

About a million people come into our country legally. About 750,000 or 800,000 come into the country illegally. Almost as many come illegally. That is not right. It cannot continue. This is not an extreme position to take.

Let's build the fences that the Secretary of Homeland Security discussed. I don't know where the Senator would get the money for it and exactly how it would be worked, but I believe if we voted a strong vote to fund this fencing, somehow, some way, the leadership of the House and the Senate would get together and figure out a way to fund it appropriately.

I yield the floor.

I make one thing very clear: Fencing should not be a political gimmick. It should not be a suggestion that it would cure all of our problems, but fencing works.

Let me share some thoughts about it. It is proven with the establishment of the San Diego border fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen off dramatically. According to the FBI crime index, crime in San Diego county dropped 56.3 percent between 1989 and 2000. Vehicle drive-throughs--these are people who bolt across the border in a vehicle--vehicle drive-throughs through the immigration prohibited areas have fallen from between six and ten per day before the construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in all of 2004. And those four only occurred where the secondary fence was incomplete.

Fencing has reduced illegal entries in San Diego. According to numbers provided by the San Diego Border Sector Patrol in February of 2004, apprehensions decreased from 531,000 in 1993 to 111,000 in 2003. Let me repeat that, talking about tipping points: They had to arrest, in 1993, along the San Diego border, 531,000 people; after the fence was up in 2003, only 111,000 were arrested, one-fifth. How many hours, how much money was saved because people did not have to be arrested and did not come illegally? How many people did not successfully enter the United States because of this fence?

Fencing has also reduced drug trafficking in San Diego. In 1993, authorities apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across the border, but in 2003 the fence helped stem the tide of drug smuggling and only 36,000 pounds of marijuana were apprehended. In addition, cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to 150 pounds, about one-tenth.

I talked to Congressman Duncan Hunter, who chairs the House Committee on Armed Services. He is very familiar with the border. He explained to me it was an absolute wonder how much good that fence did. That is why the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, has spoken out and said this is what he needs: 370 miles.

I am quite aware there is a shortage of money, and we have to make choices. I repeat, in our discretionary budget, we spend about $870, maybe $900 billion in our entitlement program expenditure. It will increase 9 percent next year. It will increase by over $100 billion. We spend $1.4 trillion-plus on entitlements. That is $1.4 trillion on entitlements. We cannot find $2 billion to deal with the fencing that we voted a few weeks ago to approve? I think we can. I know it is difficult.

I know Chairman Gregg, if he had the money, as he said, would fund it. How do we break this train wreck we are heading to? How do we get off this track of not doing what we committed to do? Vote for this amendment. It will send a message to the appropriators, it will send a message to the administration, it will send a message to those who are working on our appropriations accounts that we as a Senate expect them to somehow, some way, go back and make the tough priority choices and find the money necessary to do this. Maybe we can fund it over 2 years. If so, they will work that out. This is not the final draft of the bill that will ultimately be before the Senate. They will work that out. I am willing to work with them on that.

Also, if the National Guard were to build it, we have been told they would do it for one-third of the cost that private contractors would charge. That could be a savings, and we could get this fencing done without so much money in any one budget year.

We voted to build 370 miles of fencing, 500 miles of barriers for vehicles, and I am hoping we will not disappoint the American people, once again. I am hoping somehow, some way, we will rise to the occasion and say: We made a commitment. It is the right thing to do.

The administration was never out here championing building fencing. That is never something they said would be a cure-all. Frankly, it is a bigger positive step than many people

admit. They did come forward and tell us, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, that these were the figures they needed to create a lawful system at our border. We have areas in developed cities and towns where people can walk across the border without even a checkpoint. There is not even a fence there. This is what we need to do.

If we are serious about it, and I think the American people are, and I think there is a growing seriousness with the President and the Members of the Senate, let's step up and do what it takes. Don't go 8 feet across the 10-foot ravine and fall into the pit. Let's complete the task before the Senate. Somehow, some way, we can find the money in this budget. I know we will if we pass this amendment. If we do not pass this amendment, we will be sending a signal, it is business as usual, and we do not intend to honor our commitments.

That is the wrong thing to do it. It could not be more damaging to have failed to honor our commitments on any bill before the Senate than the immigration bill. This is a bill for which the people have the least confidence in us.

Amendment No. 4660

The other amendment I call up is amendment No. 4660; I ask the previous amendment be set aside, and I will make my remarks about amendment No. 4660.

Mr. President, this amendment deals with sufficient funding of ICE, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement interior agents. ICE is authorized. We voted to authorize and hire 800 new investigative agents in fiscal year 2007. That begins October 1st. Beginning October 1st, we voted to authorize the hiring of 800 new agents under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for 206 investigative agents in 2007. Among other things, those agents are used to investigate illegal employment in the workplace, workplace enforcement. Virtually every Senator, in the context of the immigration debate, has talked about how important it is to increase worksite enforcement. We have talked about it time and time again. The way to do that is to increase the number of agents who are investigating these cases. How simple can it be?

This Senate bill appropriates $57 million, an increase of $19 million, to enhance resources devoted to worksite enforcement. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the $19 million increase would hire 141 new agents. The bill also appropriates funds to hire 27 new compliance investigators. They are similar to but not the same as an investigative agent.

The 141 new agents and the 27 compliance investigators do not meet the President's request for 206 agents. They just do not meet the President's request for 206 agents. And it does not come close to funding the 800 agents that Congress authorized ICE to hire next year.

You see, once again, this is serious business. We talk about enforcement. We say we are going to do it, but when it comes down to the lick log, we spend our money on other things.

So my amendment will ensure that the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security funds the full level that Congress authorized to hire in 2007, a total of 800 new agents. This means that we have to find the money for ICE to hire 659 more agents than the bill currently funds. That is 800, minus 141.

The Department of Homeland Security tells me that it costs as much as $130,000 to fund a fully wrapped new ICE agent for the first year, with training and equipment and all those things. Therefore, the cost for these additional 659 new agents will be $85 million. To pay for these agents, the amendment contains an across-the-board reduction.

This is about making some decisions about what we intend to do with regard to enforcement of immigration laws. It sets some priorities. So that will help us focus on what we need to do.

To me, based on my experience, having worked with Customs agents, having worked with Border Patrol agents, having worked with INS agents back when I was a Federal prosecutor, interior enforcement agents, who are responsible for enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and inside our borders, are a top priority.

Let me tell you, it is not going to be that difficult. We are not going to need tens of thousands of Federal agents to change the workplace illegality that is going on. Most businesses today want to do the right thing. We have not given a biometric card, which is not easily counterfeitable, to those people who come here legally so the businesses can make a legitimate decision about whether they are legal or not. We have created a lawless system in many different ways.

But businesses must be held accountable. We can create, under this bill, a system that gives businesses a greater ability to know what the law is and to comply with the law. Once they know we expect them to comply with the law, once we pass this immigration bill that will create better workplace rules and procedures, we can almost overnight see a dramatic reduction in the hiring of illegals at the workplace. Isn't that what we want?

Some do not want that. They would like to be able to hire as many as they want to at lower wages.

But we as a nation have to look at the national interest and set a policy about how many people should come into the country, only allow those in lawfully, and make sure they are given a good identifier so they can go to work. But we need sufficient investigators to make sure we reach the tipping point in the workplace so that employers know with certainty what the rules are and know that if they do not comply with those rules they will be held to account. Once they know that they will be held to account, we will see, in very short order, a dramatic dropoff in illegal activity. Just this increase would make a tremendous amount of progress.

Mr. President, I have a few minutes left. I would yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. He may want to make some remarks.

Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks on the question of funding of the authorized border fencing in amendment No. 4659 and amendment No. 4660 which would authorize funding for the hiring of a number of interior enforcement agents that we authorized and voted to hire just a few weeks ago. I would like to talk about that.

I am well aware--and I know the argument that has been made by our wonderful Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, and Senator Murray-- that there is just not enough money in this bill to pay for it. I would say to my colleagues: This is an important issue that deals with something that we made a commitment to the American people about just a few weeks ago. And now it comes time for us to fund it and we don't have the money.

We spend almost $900 billion in discretionary spending, $1.4 trillion in entitlement spending. We can find a couple of billion dollars to fund this.

How do we do it? We pass these amendments, and we will send a signal to the appropriators and to the White House that we are serious and find the money somewhere. That is what we will be saying. I know they are going to say: Don't vote for this amendment. I am for the fence. Everybody is for the fence, Jeff. We just don't have the money.

How can we say that? We just voted to build the fence. We can't say we don't have the money. That is not an acceptable answer. So pass this amendment. Yes, it is going to cause some grief. Yes, there is going to be huddling of appropriators and budgeteers and the White House. They are going to have to hammer out a way to get the money to fund this thing. But to let this slip and to be on record as a Member of the Senate who just voted to build a fence and now vote not to fund it is not a good thing to do. It is going to send a bad signal to the American people. It is going to be a bad signal. They are going to say: They have been promising to have some enforcement and the first vote that comes up, the first bill that comes down the pike, they don't put the money in to do just what they voted to do.

Remember the fence can't be built and the agents we authorized to be hired can't be hired unless we appropriate the money. Please, we have to appropriate the money. I know this budget is tight. I will just say to my colleagues, I thank Senator Gregg for his support for the fence, his work in the supplemental to get more money for enforcement. If it had not been for his leadership, we would not have as much as we have. But it is not enough.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is a statement by the Senate that somehow we expect this matter to be funded. There is plenty of money in this Government, if we look for it, to fund this important matter.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk for the two amendments I have proposed. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify those two amendments, as we have proposed them.

Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds to say that this amendment would authorize the appropriating committee to pay for the fencing--give them more discretion to pay for it out of the account they deem is appropriate. It would be across the board but within their discretion, so that no one particular account must be cut or reduced by passage of this amendment. The Coast Guard and other things would not have to be reduced in order to pay for this amendment.

I yield the floor.

This amendment would follow through on our 83-to-16 vote on May 17 to build 370 miles of fencing at the border and 500 miles of vehicle barriers, as requested by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mike Chertoff. Unfortunately, this bill does not fund it. Just a few weeks ago, we authorized it. Now we are not funding it. That is not acceptable and will undermine our credibility with the American people.

Please note that the amendment has been modified. The amendment has been amended, and it does not require any account to be reduced, such as the Coast Guard or others, but it does require discretionary spending in the bill to be reduced to pay for it, so it is paid for.

We need to honor our commitment and our vote of just a few weeks ago in order to maintain credibility with the American people on the question of immigration, an area in which they have great reason to distrust our actions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I know Senator Gregg and his team will figure out a way to fund it if we require it.

Mr. President, this amendment will fund the investigative agents we authorized in the immigration bill that passed this Congress. It would do so by increasing the funding for $85 million and would fully fund the 800 positions we authorized. We authorized 800 positions, but, unfortunately, we have only funded 141.

Once again, it raises serious questions, as in 1986, about whether or not we are going to talk but not be willing to put up the money to fund the bill.

Also, this will be offset by reductions in any discretionary account without mandating across-the-board cuts. The amendment has been amended from that previously filed so that no specific account is required to be cut, such as the Coast Guard.

I believe we need to follow through on our commitment to the American people to increase our investigative agents. This will fund what we authorized.

Madam President, I would like to call up amendment No. 4641, if I may, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I am happy to yield.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, be added as an original cosponsor of this amendment.

Madam President, if the Chair would inform me when the Senator from Connecticut has consumed 15 minutes, I would appreciate it.

Madam President, I rise this morning to offer this amendment that seeks to meet some of the domestic security needs of our Nation as demonstrated by a distinguished group of experts in public policy, national security, and public health. This is not an amendment that I have crafted on my own. Rather, this amendment reflects the tremendous work done by our former colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, who authored this report under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations back in 2003, along with a very distinguished group of Americans who brought a wealth of talent to that report, making significant recommendations as to how we might strengthen the ability of first responders in this country to deal with the national security threats posed by terrorist organizations.

Obviously, all of us here are more than aware of these threats not only because of the events of 9/11, when we were victimized by the attacks of al-Qaida, but because we have witnessed the tragic events in Madrid and London, and most recently, the train bombings near Mumbai, India, where terrorist attacks have taken the lives of innocents. Once again, we realize that we are very, very vulnerable.

Warren Rudman has warned us of this vulnerability. A distinguished group of Americans, who I will identify in a moment, have warned us. I will be offering an amendment now for the fourth time since 2003 urging my colleagues to support an effort to put some very meaningful resources to bear when it comes to the needs of our first responders all across this country.

As I mentioned, this is the fourth year I have offered my amendment, along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. And I thank her immensely for her tireless efforts in this regard as well.

The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to fund the urgent priorities of our Nations's firefighters, law enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, transportation systems, and critical infrastructure, such as our ports and chemical plants around the country.

The amendment would pay for these vital priorities by lowering the tax breaks for individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million.

Politics is always about choices. Choices are never easy. To pay for this, I have to come up with an offset. I realize that. But it seems to me if we cannot make the simple choice of asking those who are the most affluent in our society to reduce, for a period of time--not totally-- but just reduce, by a small amount, the amount of the tax break they would be getting over the next few years in order to fund the needs we have in our communities across this country--it is not a difficult choice to make.

I suspect if we surveyed the Americans who are making this kind of an income, as to whether or not they would be willing to forego the size of the tax cut they would be getting in order to properly fund these efforts, I suspect those Americans, as patriots, would be more than willing to make that kind of a sacrifice, if you wish to call it such, in order to properly fund the efforts that have been identified by Americans who know what they are talking about when it comes to our national security needs.

Four years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations--which I mentioned already--convened an independent task force to identify the challenges faced by our Nation in preventing and responding to acts of terrorism. This group was chaired, as I mentioned, by our former colleague, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.

The task force, in June of 2003, issued a very comprehensive report entitled: ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.'' That was the report issued in 2003.

Senator Rudman was joined on this task force by a very distinguished group of Americans. Let me name some of them, not all of them: George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget; William Webster, former Director of the Centra Intelligence Agency; Charles Boyd, the chief executive officer and president of Business Executives for National Security; Margaret Hamburg, the vice president for biological weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services; Donald Marron, former chairman of UBS America; James Metzl, former staff member of the National Security Council, the Department of State, and former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; and Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center--and on and on, just to give you some idea of who the authors of this task force are.

All I have done is taken their recommendations and put them into legislative form. These are not Dodd proposals. These are proposals that our former colleague, along with the individuals I have just mentioned, have asked us to do. They told us 3 years ago the things we must do to be better prepared to deal with our threats. These are their ideas, not mine. I am just taking their ideas and putting them in legislative form, along with my colleague from Michigan, and asking our colleagues to get behind this and to pay for this by reducing, ever so marginally, the amount of the tax break that individuals making more than $1 million a year would otherwise be receiving.

I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Judd Gregg--we are good friends--and Senator Byrd. They have a very difficult task, along with the other members who serve on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. It is not an easy job at all, and I recognize that. However, concerning the needs of our

emergency responders and our critical infrastructure, I think we are faced with a problem that is far more significant than the budget cap requirements placed on these appropriations bills.

I think we will come back and revisit this if we are faced with the kind of tragedies I think all of us know are out there, when we look back and ask why we didn't do what needed to be done when Warren Rudman and others warned us about what would happen if we didn't provide the kind of support we are asking for. We would be told at some later date: Well, you see, there was a budget cap here where we mandated we could not do any better than what the budget cap required of us. I think we will come back to rue those words. I think we will regret it deeply that we did not provide the kind of support being recommended by this distinguished panel of Americans.

If the tragic events in Madrid and London, the alleged plot to destroy the Holland Tunnel, and most recently the train bombings in India say anything to us at all, it is that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism here at home.

The Rudman report only underscores, in my view, the sense of urgency that we ought to have about protecting our country from the risk of terrorism. However, the needs of our communities far exceed the limited resources we have been given in this bill. Again, I have respect for Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. They have a very difficult job. I will be the first to admit that.

In fact, what I am asking for in this amendment is to spend $20 billion a year for 5 years, to hire, equip, and train first responders and to better protect our critical infrastructure from attack. This bill spends only roughly $4 billion a year, only about a fifth of what we are told by the Rudman report is urgently needed.

Again, we are faced here with a point of order that I know will be raised against this amendment because it violates the cap. And I will be asking to waive that budget point of order when either my colleague from New Hampshire raises it or someone he designates does. But I am asking my colleagues, do not let yourself cast a vote here that I think we will come to regret down the road.

How many more warnings do we need to have as a nation? We are not isolated in the world. We are not that well protected. What happened in India, what happened in Madrid, what happened in London, what happened here only 5 years ago will happen again. We need to provide the kind of protection that our constituents demand of us.

The Rudman report must not become yet another report collecting dust on a forgotten shelf--and that is my fear--until once again we are struck and wonder why we did not take these steps called for in that report.

Let me read, if I may, briefly, the conclusions of the report. Listen to their words. If my words do not move you, listen to the words authored 3 years ago by the people on this distinguished panel of Americans, authored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Listen to what they said 3 years ago. And I quote them. They, and Senator Rudman, said the following:

The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American

people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale

had never been carried out on U.S. soil. The United States

and the American people were caught under-protected and

unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them.

He goes on to say:

In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the

threat or of what the United States must do to prepare for

future attacks can no longer explain America's continuing

failure to allocate sufficient resources in preparing local

emergency responders. It would be a terrible tragedy indeed

if it took another catastrophic attack to drive the point

home.

Madam President, I do not think any words can express the problem before us more clearly than those of Senator Rudman. It would be a terrible tragedy if it took another catastrophic attack to drive this point home.

I would also like to quote from the foreword of this report written by Les Gelb, who is the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Listen to what he had to say at the conclusion of that report:

As I sit to write this foreword, it is likely that a

terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to

attack the United States and/or American interests abroad

using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or

catastrophic conventional means. At the same time, diplomats,

legislators, military and intelligence officers, police,

fire, and emergency medical personnel, and others in the

United States and across the globe are working feverishly to

prevent and prepare for such attacks. These two groups of

people are ultimately in a race with one another. This is a

race we cannot afford to lose.

Again, I can stand here for the next hour and a half or 2 hours. I don't think any words I can utter are going to be as serious as the ones authored by Warren Rudman or Les Gelb. These groups, those that are somewhere in the world as I am standing here on the floor of the Senate, are preparing to attack us again. I know that. Every one of my colleagues knows that is going on. And simultaneously, there are people in Alaska, Connecticut, and New Hampshire that are doing everything they possibly can to protect us. Two groups, one wants to attack us; the other is trying to prepare against that attack. It is a race, and we are being asked by people who know what is going on to provide adequate funding so that the group that defends us will have the means to protect us.

I am asking for the fourth time in 3 years to break this cap and do what ought to be done to give our Nation the kind of protection it deserves.

In October 2002, several months prior to the issuance of the Rudman report, the Council on Foreign Relations convened yet another task force, the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security, which issued the report ``America: Still Unprepared, Still in Danger.'' This task force was cochaired by Senator Rudman and another of our former colleagues, Senator Gary Hart of Colorado. They came to the general conclusion:

America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and

respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The report further warned:

America's own ill-prepared response could hurt its people

to a much greater extent than any single attack by a

terrorist [and] the risk of self-inflicted harm to America's

liberties and way of life is greatest during, immediately,

and following a national trauma.

Here we have two seminal reports issued within 8 months of each other, essentially sounding an alarm to policymakers. We are the policymakers. We the ones who have to make the decision as to whether or not resources are going to be there. We hear the alarm further strengthened each year by our States, localities, and first responders who request more resources to adequately protect those to whom they are entrusted. Yet for all practical purposes, the vast bulk of these reports and requests continue to fall on deaf ears here in the U.S. Congress.

The funding level I am proposing in this amendment is over $16 billion. It is a huge amount of money. I recognize that. It supplements the approximately $4 billion that the underlying measure devotes to emergency responders and infrastructure security.

Together the bill and the amendment provide $20 billion in emergency responder funding over the next year. Again, this is not my recommendation. This is the recommendation of these individuals who have spent a lot of time looking at the issue and believe this is what is necessary. In fact, they might argue for more because that recommendation was made almost 4 years ago. So there is no factor built in for inflation or other costs that may have increased. I assume that number, if they were writing it today, may be larger. But I will still use the number from 4 years ago.

I understand that the need for a budget resolution to set caps on appropriations bills. Effective budget resolutions are those that achieve balance. They curb reckless spending while providing sound investment in our domestic and foreign priorities. Unfortunately, I don't find the current budget resolution and the caps it has imposed as balanced at all. And while constraining our ability to invest adequately in our emergency responders and domestic security, the resolution is projected to increase the national deficit by $296 billion in the coming year, principally because it seeks to make permanent tax cuts that are way too generous and that benefit primarily the most affluent in society.

I thank the Chair. I will take another 5 minutes, if I may.

The report before us presents an uncomfortable reality that we have to face as a country. I certainly applaud the hard work that has been done, as I mentioned earlier. Yet as the tragedy in India vividly showed us on Tuesday, n nation, including ours, is invulnerable. We still possess weaknesses in our domestic security and our domestic infrastructure that must be strengthened. For over 3 years now we have possessed, in the form of the Rudman and Hart reports, a clear message from our most qualified experts that we need to do more to prepare ourselves. And while I recognize that this amendment is expensive, this cost will pale in comparison if we are hit and unprepared to respond to it. This cost will be minor.

We all agree that $16 billion is a considerable sum. In fact, it represents roughly half the cost of the underlying bill. However, our country continues to spend between $4 billion and $5 billion every month in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly a billion dollars a week. So we are talking about 16 weeks of investment, if you want to look at it in those terms, in Iraq as to whether or not we ought to be talking about similar investments here at the local level.

This is funding that would not be wasted. The Rudman report clearly states the need for more resources. The demands we hear from our States and localities and first responders clearly state the need is there. Our ports have identified $8.4 billion to meet Federal security requirements. That is their assessment. Our transit agencies have identified $6 billion to make trains and buses and other forms of transit safer for passengers. Our firefighters and first responders demonstrate over $4 billion in needs annually so that they may perform their critical duties more safely. That is the conclusion coming from our transit agencies, port authorities, and firefighters. Those are their recommendations.

Again, I have asked my colleagues in the past to be supportive. I have not succeeded when I have offered this. But I offer it again because of what happened just a few days ago, halfway around the world in Mumbai, India. How many more times do we have to be reminded of what can and is likely to happen here again and whether or not we will be prepared to respond to it.

Warren Rudman and the people who worked with him to make these recommendations are serious individuals. These are Democrats, Republicans, people who have served as distinguished public policy setters over the last 25 years, from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Secretary of State to the national security agencies. These are not people who casually recommend the numbers they have. They studied the issue carefully. They believe it is the proper amount to request.

I am taking their suggestions, their words, their numbers, and offering to my colleagues an opportunity to take a report that is serious in its intent, serious in its proposals, and asking my colleagues to endorse it by breaking down this cap and offsetting the cost by the means I have suggested.

At the appropriate time, if a budget point of order is raised, I will move to waive that Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays so that my colleagues can be heard on this issue once again. I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can say to our colleagues who chair the committees and the subcommittees, my good friend from Washington, my good friend from New Hampshire--they do a tremendous job in this area--but I think the clear message from the Rudman report is that we need to do a better job. The American people expect nothing less. I will ask for a vote when that occurs.

I withhold the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Let me quickly attempt to rebut my friend from New Hampshire on these issues. I didn't make up these numbers. These are from our States and localities. They are telling us these are their needs; it is not just in the Rudman report. Their request of 4 years ago, based on the cost of items they thought were necessary then, has obviously gone up. Our ports identified $8.4 billion. That is not my request. These are serious people who are running our ports across the country. They need $8.4 billion to meet Federal security requirements; transit agencies, $6 billion. That is what they are telling us they need; firefighters, first responders, an additional $4 billion. Even by the chairman's estimation, we are $10 billion short of what needs to be done. I expect they are certainly making an effort, but it falls way short of what we are being told are the needs across the country.

Again, I am prohibited from getting too specific about this. My colleagues on the committee can make that decision. I think I am correct in that, but I suggest that if you were to ask patriotic Americans who have incomes of more than a million dollars a year whether they would be willing to forgo some of the tax break they are getting--not a tax increase but some of the tax break they are getting--to pay for this, they would agree.

We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq alone. This is calling for $16 billion--16 weeks of what is spent for the effort in Iraq--to make us more secure at home. I don't hear any great complaints about the billion dollars a week we are spending in that particular effort. Yet we cannot find the resources to make us more secure at home.

I urge my colleagues to be supportive of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to add my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, as a cosponsor.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bipartisan amendment which I introduced with my colleagues, Senators DeWine and Mikulski, that helps our Nation's firefighters perform their critical duties more safely. This amendment was passed earlier by unnanimous consent. I would like to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, and the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Byrd. Crafting legislation that meets the varied domestic security needs of our Nation is no easy feat and I thank Chairman Gregg, Senator Byrd, and all of my colleagues on the subcommittee for their hard work and support.

This amendment increases funding to the Assistance to Firefighters Grants, which I initially authored in 2000 with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Levin, and Warner. During the past 5 years, this initiative, which includes the FIRE and SAFER grants, has provided almost $2.5 billion in assistance to over 29,000 fire departments in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. These resources have enabled fire departments to obtain updated firefighting equipment, hire additional firefighters, and improve firefighter training--activities that are crucial toward ensuring that firefighters can protect American citizens safely and effectively in this post-9/ll world.

Our Nation's firefighters are willing to do whatever it takes to perform their duties. We have first-rate firefighters throughout our Nation, but they continue to be under-funded, under-staffed, undertrained, and under-equipped to deal with the various emergencies that may arise and have already arisen in their jurisdictions.

Very few people who are not firefighters stop and think about how much we continue to ask of our firefighters in today's world. They still perform their traditional duties of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. However, refighters have also taken on homeland security responsibilities that include responding to and handling hazardous biological and radiological agents.

The fact remains that cash-strapped municipalities across our Nation simply do not have the financial resources and personnel to assist their fire departments in fully meeting these enhanced responsibilities and, consequently, safeguarding their populations. According to the most recent needs assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies.

More specifically, the study found that, first, using local firefighters, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Second, using local firefighters, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Third, an estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties. And finally, the study found that an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to allow firefighters to respond swiftly to emergency calls.

These statistics are startling and are not improving over time. A new needs assessment that is forecasted to be released in the coming months is expected to conclude that--despite the success the firefighter grants have achieved in individual departments--fire departments across the Nation continue to struggle to carry out their critical duties.

The risks that firefighters are expected to face continue to outgrow the

ability of municipalities fully to provide them with the resources they require. Therefore, it is imperative that the Senate continue supporting our firefighters and working to address their concerns.

The amendment that I have offered increases funding for firefighters by $25 million--$1.5 million for the FIRE Act grant initiative and $12.5 million for the SAFER Act grant initiative. These increases bring the total arpount of funding for the FIRE Grant to $552,500,000 and the SAFER Grant to $127,500,000. While I thank Senators Gregg, Byrd, and their colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for finding the resources necessary to support these important grant initiatives at levels slightly above last year's funding, I believe that more resources need to be dedicated to the FIRE and SAFER grants.

The FIRE Act grant initiative has been one of the most successful homeland security grant initiatives in recent years. It is clear that the need for these competitive, merit-based grants continues to grow in all regions of our Nation. For fiscal year 2006 alone, there were over 18,000 applications submitted, totaling over $2.3 billion in grant requests. Unfortunately, less than $545 million in Federal funding was ultimately made available.

Equally important as the FIRE Grant is the SAFER Grant--an initiative which provides critial resources for fire departments to hire and recruit personnel.

Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act provides the human resources necessary to get those jobs done safely and effectively. Over the past three decades, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the Nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today two-thirds of fire departments in the United States lack adequate personnel. We have fewer firefighters per capita, one firefighter for every 280 people, than nurses and police officers.

In fiscal year 2006 alone, 1,727 applications were submitted, totaling over $1.8 billion in grant requests. Unfortunately, less than $110 million in Federal funding was ultimately made available. Clearly, we must do more in order to ensure that fire departments are adequately staffed and trained to meet the needs of their communities.

The amendment that I have offered is fully offset by reducing administrative funding for the Office of the Homeland Security Secretary and Executive Management and utilizing unused funding from last year for science and technology initiatives. These offsets still allow the Office of the Secretary to meet its obligations fully in the coming year and the Department of Homeland Security to develop new technologies that keep Americans safe.

I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that the fiscal year 2007 authorization levels for the FIRE and SAFER Grants are $1 billion each. The appropriations in this bill for these initiatives are less than one-third the sums authorized. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the future to ensure that firefighters receive more critical resources they require.

America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty to fulfill. We must rcognize their contribution to our domestic safety and see to it that they have the necessary equipment and personnel in order to perform their critical duties safely and effectively.

Madam President, we are now back on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. My hope is, although this is not formalized as a unanimous consent agreement yet--but the understanding I have with the Senator from Washington was that the Senator from Pennsylvania would speak for about 15 minutes and then the opposition, if they wish to speak, would speak for 15 minutes. Then the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, would speak for about 10 minutes on his amendment. Then there will be 10 minutes in opposition. Then we will go to a vote on those two amendments. Either--if they are merged, one vote; if they are not merged, two votes. Then we will go back to the Menendez amendment, the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

I understand Senator Collins wishes to speak on that, and Senator Leahy wishes to speak. I am not sure what the time understanding is before we can get to a vote on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, but my hope would be we could go to a vote fairly promptly on that amendment after completing the votes on the amendments of Senator Kyl and Senator Santorum.

I see the Senator from Washington is here. Is that her understanding?

At this time, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is ready to go and we will get started.

Madam President, I appreciate the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. I certainly intend to support it--strongly support it. I think it is an excellent amendment. I believe it is going to require a vote, however.

We are now going to turn to the Senator from Connecticut who is going to offer an amendment with 30 minutes on that amendment, the Senator from Connecticut having control of 20 minutes and myself having control of 10 minutes. At the completion of the presentation of the Senator from Connecticut, I would hope we would be able to work out an agreement where we can go to a vote on the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana and a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. That has not yet been agreed to.

If the Senator will yield for a second?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on this amendment be 30 minutes, with 20 minutes allocated to the Senator from Connecticut and 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Madam President, I believe I have 10 minutes; is that correct?

Madam President, I am a great admirer of the Senator from Connecticut. He is obviously a significant force within the Senate. He has a lot of good ideas. He thinks big. This amendment is another example of that in some ways in that this amendment would cost $16.5 billion. The bill we brought forward to the floor for Homeland Security is a $32 billion bill. What he is suggesting is that we increase the authorized amount in this bill by half. It is for accounts which already have a large amount of money headed in their direction, first responder accounts.

We have spent, since we began this effort, over $14 billion on first responders. Of that $14 billion, however, that was authorized to be spent, only $6 billion has actually been spent. In other words, the States and localities, which have the right to this money, have put in place plans to spend money for first responders, but they have only been able to plan in a wa that was appropriate to the point where they have been able to use $6 billion. So we actually still have $8 billion in the pipeline before this bill is passed.

When this bill is passed, we are going to add another $2.4 billion to the pipeline. So that instead of having $8 billion available to be spent, we will be up to approximately $10.5 billion that will be available and it has not been spent.

Now the Senator from Connecticut comes along and says we need to put another $16 billion on top of that $10 billion, when we already know that the communities and States haven't been able to spend effectively the money that is available already, plus the additional money that we are going to provide through this bill.

Yes, the Rudman Commission came forward with a series of proposals. Quite honestly, I am obviously a great admirer of Warren Rudman. He was my predecessor, and he was an incredibly strong and effective Senator. He has remained a significant force for a lot of good things, including national security issues, intelligence issues. And his work maintaining the integrity of the financial community has been exceptional. But the report that they put together is a bit stale in many ways because of all the money we put in the pipeline. It is also a touch stale because if you really wanted to spend $16.5 billion on top of the money that we have in this bill, I am not absolutely sure that I would put it on top of the money that is sitting there because it wouldn't get used that quickly.

If you really want to provide these types of resources and you want to raise taxes to do so, you might want to put it on the border, into the Coast Guard, into intelligence. If you want to stop the next attack, the way you will stop it is through intelligence and through border security, especially if you are looking at weapons of mass destruction.

There are things that need to be done that maybe could use some more resources. To put $16 billion on top of $10 billion which hasn't been spent yet and say you have solved some problem, I don't think solves any problems, quite honestly. I think it is a statement, yes. But these cities and towns in the next year aren't going to draw down the $10 billion that is available to them so they are certainly not going to draw down the $16 billion.

My view on the first responder issue has been that we put so much money in the pipeline that it is sort of like putting a fire hose in the system. They haven't been able to handle the money yet. As they work through the system and can handle that money, then we will put in more money.

I am willing to raise first responder dollars, although we have done a pretty good job in this account already with $2.4 billion. But I don't want to use resources that can get me an instant bang for the dollar, such as putting a new Border Patrol agent on the border, which is what we have done, rather than put in a dollar that is going to sit in the Treasury for 2 or 3 years while communities get their act together.

I don't think from a policy standpoint this type of expenditure is necessarily the priority I would choose. From a pure budget standpoint, let's face it, this is the biggest increase I have seen proposed on this bill. There have been others. Senator Biden proposed to add a billion dollars of new money for rail transit, but this is $16.5 billion. That is a huge amount of money.

The title of the amendment says it is going to be paid for by tax increases. It doesn't say what tax increases. The Senator from Connecticut says we are going to be taxing the rich. The amendment doesn't say it is going to be taxing anybody. Its title says it is going to tax. There is no operative language for taxes.

So it is actually not even paid for. It is not paid for under the terms of the

amendment. In my opinion, this type of tax-and-spend amendment is not justified, and it is very hard, in the context of the budget process and in what we have already done in these accounts, to justify. I oppose it.

At the proper time, I will make a point of order against the amendment as exceeding our budget cap. I don't think the policy demands it, and I certainly think the number is far out of anything that is logical in the context of what we are trying to deal with relative to setting up homeland security and making sure it is effectively pursued in this country.

At the termination of this debate, I hope we can get to a vote on Senator Vitter and Senator Dodd. We are waiting to hear from the other side of the aisle whether they are going to allow us to vote on Vitter. I think in the next 5 minutes we may have a couple of votes. We are still awaiting word, for the information of our colleagues.

I reserve the remainder of my time

Madam President, I believe I have about 3 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to reiterate the fact that we already have $8 billion in the pipeline. We are going to have $10.5 billion, which has not been spent after this bill is passed. This amendment is a $16 billion plus-up on a bill that cost $32 billion. It is a massive expansion. It will basically be going into an account at Homeland Security and won't be spent because they cannot spend the money they already have. It is a proposal that is simply not going to have the policy impact the Senator hopes for.

I know the Senator has alluded a couple of times to how much we are spending in Iraq, which is an immense amount of money. But we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq. We have equipment that has to be replaced there. We are fighting a war in Iraq. So I am sure the Senator isn't suggesting that we take the money from Iraq and move it over to the Homeland Security Department. I am just using that as an example. But the war in Iraq is being fought within the context of the budget. In this instance, this would be way outside of the budget.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, at this time what we are going to do--and I will make a unanimous consent request to this effect--is we are going to recognize the Senator from Maryland to make two points on germaneness: one relative to Senator Santorum's amendment and one relative to Senator Kyl's amendment. At the conclusion, we are going to recognize the Senator from Texas for up to 10 minutes. Then we are going to recognize the Senator from Maine for up to 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that what I have stated be the order.

At the same time, I further ask unanimous consent that while this action is pending, I not lose the right of priority relative to making a second-degree amendment on the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I would amend the request to have the Senator from Pennsylvania speak in response to the motion of the Senator from Maryland for up to 3 minutes.

And the Senator from Maryland, in making his motion, will have 3 minutes to debate them, or respond.

Mr. President, I think that is probably a good idea, to do the Kyl amendment first.

Amendment No. 4643

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak. I presume the Senator from New Jersey has 20 minutes reserved under the previous order. I believe the debate should go forward, but I wish it would go forward with the unanimous consent that I continue to reserve the right to protect my second-degree position.

Mr. President, if there is no further debate on this amendment--maybe the Senator from New Jersey wishes to respond, but upon completion of his response, I would suggest that all debate on this amendment be deemed to have been completed and that at 12:45 we turn to an amendment from Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton; that we have 30 minutes on that amendment, with 20 minutes for Senators Schumer and Clinton and 10 minutes in opposition, controlled by myself; and that at the conclusion of that, Senator Sessions be recognized to offer two amendments.

Yes. And I believe Senator Collins has a little bit of time.

I cannot represent which ones. But he has five filed.

Mr. President, I would like to clear a series of amendments. All these amendments have been on file. Some have been modified. The amendments are at the desk. They are No. 4633, Senator Allard; 4640, Senator Murray; 4648, Senator Landrieu; 4639, Senator Murray; 4617, Senator Levin; 4594, Senator Voinovich, as modified; 4570, as modified, Senator Lautenberg; 4556, Senator Feinstein.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

I have no objection.

Amendment No. 4582

I am sorry, I did not hear the request.

I have no objection.

Amendment No. 4600

Mr. President, speaking to the Schumer-Clinton amendment, I wish to simply make the point that obviously all of us in the Northeast have experienced these very severe weather conditions which have led to floods. In New Hampshire, we are a little bit ahead of New York, regrettably. We had a huge storm earlier that led to major flooding throughout the State.

I have to congratulate FEMA for their response. They have been very prompt. They have been on top of it. People who have made requests for reimbursement pursuant to the disaster declarations have received those funds, and we are getting a very effective and efficient response throughout New England, which all of New England was impacted, especially Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

I know New York has gone through this experience, and, of course, the city of Washington has. I understand the Senators from New York wanting to make a point relative to the importance of having the resources to make sure when this type of disaster occurs there is money available to address the concerns of the communities that have been hit and the individuals who have been hit.

This amendment, as it is presently structured, is not going to have any impact on the New York problem that exists today. That will be addressed by money that is already in the pipeline, that is in the disaster relief fund. The disaster relief fund has a very robust amount of money in it. It has $9.3 billion in it right now. This bill addresses 2007 disaster activity. This bill has a number of $1.6 billion which will be added to whatever is left at the end of the 2006 year of the $9.3 billion as the resource available to FEMA.

So as a practical matter, the amendment which the Senators from New York have offered will have no impact on the very compelling anecdotal stories that have been put forward relative to the damage to the New York communities. Those communities and the individuals affected by this event will be looking to FEMA, which has resources which are already in the pipeline which will be available for them to assist the people who have been impacted. The money will be there. The New York citizens will get the money they need out of the $9.3 billion which is in the disaster relief fund.

What this amendment does is declare an emergency and add another $300 million to this bill, which is essentially outside of the budget. So I really don't think it is necessary at this time--in fact, I know it is not necessary at this time, and I know it is not going to impact the immediate New York situation. It just is not. It raises the bigger issue of what should be the number

that we put into the disaster relief fund in one of these bills.

It almost is a Ouija board exercise on this committee to figure out what number we put into this account because some years disasters will be significant and some years they won't. The last year and a half, we have dealt with the Katrina event, which was more than significant--it was horrific last year, and that was an aberration, we all sincerely hope--certainly the Presiding Officer hopes that--but that has caused us to have to spend over $100 billion on disaster relief.

Whatever we put in this account is really just a guess, and until we see the actual events that are brought upon the Nation relative to natural disasters, how much money this account is going to need will not really be known.

What we have shown as a Congress--and I think we have shown it rather aggressively time and again--is that when a disaster does occur which does qualify for FEMA funds and the disaster relief fund needs dollars, we act in a very prompt and aggressive manner. In fact, one can argue that in the Katrina situation, we put so much money in the pipeline so fast that a lot of it was not effectively used. That has been our history. I think that is actually the way to approach it.

I have often thought about whether we should just put a lot of money in there and let it sit and wait for the disaster. We could do that, but as a practical matter, that is not a good use of taxpayers' dollars. It makes much more sense, if we have a terrible disaster, if we have floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes that create a declaration of disaster, that we make sure we have enough money in the disaster relief fund to meet the immediate needs, and if it needs more, we can come back and do it under emergency declaration.

There is no question there is enough money in the relief fund to take care of all the disasters we know about, with potentially the exception of Katrina, which is being handled outside the relief fund for the reconstruction of the gulf coast. There is no need to put any more money in this account. Certainly, if we put more money in it at this time, it will have no impact on an event that occurred a month ago or an event that occurs tomorrow or occurs up until the end of September because this money will not be available until October 1.

So this amendment is a statement, I understand that, of concern by the Senators from New York, and as representatives of the State of New York, I can understand their desire to get on record with such a statement. But at the appropriate time, I will make a point of order against it because it is an expense which we should not incur at this time for the reasons which I have outlined.

For the edification of our Members, my hope is--and I have talked with the Senator from Washington about this--my hope is that after Senator Sessions offers his amendments--and my understanding is that he will be here shortly to do that--we will be able to vote on four amendments. That would be an amendment by Senator Menendez, an amendment by Senators Schumer and Clinton, and the two Senator Sessions amendments. I hope those votes will get started soon after Senator Sessions has completed his presentation and when anybody who wishes to respond to him has done so.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that have been cleared on both sides that I will call up en bloc. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4657, Senator Stabenow; amendment No. 4573, Senator Obama, as modified; amendment No. 4626, Senator Dodd, as modified; amendment No. 4636, Senator Cantwell; and amendment No. 4653, Senator Lautenberg, be called up, deemed read, and agreed to by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I greatly respect the Senator from Alabama and his tireless efforts in addressing the issue of illegal immigration and his amendment on building a wall in those parts of the urban areas of the border where a wall would be effective. It is an appropriate amendment, and I strongly support it. It was in the authorization. Had the administration supported our efforts relative to capital improvements in the supplemental, we might have been able to make a fairly significant commitment toward that wall. But the wall would be built over 2 years.

This amendment accelerates that construction into a 1-year time period. Within the bill, we have approximately $400 million in supplemental capital improvements that could be used for wall construction. I don't think all of it would be used. Some of it would be obviously.

We should build these walls. There is no question about it. The real issue is that the offset being used creates a Hobson's choice for almost everyone here, I suspect, because the practical effect of a 5.7 percent cut would be that we would have to reduce Border Patrol agents by about 750. We would have to reduce detention beds by about 1,100.

We have attempted very hard to increase Border Patrol agents in this bill and increase detention beds. Yet we haven't funded the wall specifically as a result of our efforts to do these increases.

The effect on the Coast Guard, the Senator from Washington alluded to, would probably be that the number of fast boats which we intended to buy would be reduced significantly, and our capacity to arm helicopters would be reduced from what we hoped to arm--60 helicopters. We have, at the most, armed probably 50, maybe 55.

There is a real implication to this amendment. It has an implication in the things we are doing relative to border security which will be impacted by it.

I am totally sympathetic to the need to make this investment in this fencing activity. And I believe within the Department's funds relative to capital improvements there is also some money which could be put there but nowhere near the dollars he believes are necessary with which the Department needs to continue construction.

We are going to have to come up with a better way to do this. We are not going to be able to do this, in my humble opinion, the way this amendment is constructed--in an across-the-board cut.

I have to oppose this amendment in its present form for that reason.

Mr. President, I ask to enter into a unanimous consent agreement relative to a series of votes: At 2:30, the Senate proceed to consecutive votes in relation to the following amendments: Senator Menendez, No. 4634; Senator Schumer, No. 4600; Senator Sessions, No. 4659; Senator Sessions No. 4660.

I further ask consent that the time until then continue under the agreement which we had earlier relative to the Sessions amendment; further, that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the vote; further that prior to the first vote, Senator Leahy be recognized for 1 minute, Senator Menendez for 1 minute, and myself for 1 minute; further that between the remaining votes there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form and that after the first vote, all votes be 10 minutes.

I say to the Senator, we will be happy to entertain that amendment after we have completed voting on these and put that in the queue for consideration after we complete the votes.

We will be here for a little while.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes that should have been set for 2:30 now be set to begin at 2:45.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota. The issue he has raised here is an important one. I also appreciate the fact that it is more appropriately raised on another matter.

Amendment No. 4660

Mr. President, speaking to the second amendment that Senator Sessions has offered, this again is an issue of priorities. The first amendment juxtaposes the need to build a wall with the need to add border security agents and detention beds and make the Coast Guard a more robust player and more capable, and have the US-VISIT program and the immigration program work well.

It is ironic, actually, that this amendment, which increases investigators by 800, would, if the first amendment were to pass, end up reducing investigators by 300. I guess the net result would be if both amendments passed, you would end up with 500 investigators. But that shows the problem here that is being presented to the Senate by the way these amendments are structured with their across-the-board cuts. Because the across-the-board cuts impact the entire Department. This is not a Department that does a lot of things we do not need to do.

Certainly, we need our Border Patrol agents. We need our Coast Guard. We need our Secret Service. We need our detention beds to make sure we can put these people away when we have them. So when you do an across- the-board cut, you impact all these other services.

And, yes, ICE could use more investigators. That is why in this bill we added 75, so that we have 6,000 investigators in the ICE program. He would add 800 more to that. But, as I said, should his first amendment pass, he would reduce that number, logically--because there would be a 5-percent reduction--by 300. It would be almost a 6-percent reduction, actually.

So, again, I have to oppose the amendment. Although the policy may make sense, the way it is paid for does not. It would actually do significant harm to our capacity, in my opinion, to have a robust Department of Homeland Security.

So I will oppose the second amendment offered also by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, the points I previously made relative to the impact of this amendment remain accurate. I continue my opposition to both amendments because of the across-the-board cut nature and the impact it would have on all elements of the Homeland Security Department. Even though the policy may be something we would agree with if we had the resources, we don't have the resources.

I call for the regular order.

Mr. President, I believe in a risk-based approach. I support the amendment.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the disaster relief fund has $9.3 billion in it. That is more than enough money to get us through the balance of this year and will give us a surplus going into next year. We have $1.6 billion in this bill to add to the $9.3 billion for next year. If a disaster occurs and it is of significant proportions, we will obviously come back and do an emergency appropriations.

No money that would occur as a result of the amendment of the Senator from New York could be used this year for any disasters that have occurred this year in the Northeast because, of course, this money won't be available until next year. There is adequate money, however, to take care of the Northeast issues. So at this time I ask Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to the deeming language in Public Law 109- 234, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation of the pending amendment.

And this is a 10-minute vote?

I will raise a point of order against the amendment which was ruled not an emergency. The pending amendment would cause the bill to violate section 302 of the Budget Act.

Now I understand we are on to the first amendment of the Senator from Alabama.

I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Washington.

Although I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the policy behind this amendment, the simple fact is that this sort of across-the-board cut would wreak havoc on this department and potentially mean significant reductions in a number of critical areas. This department does not have a lot of activity that is not critical to our homeland security, and a 5.5 percent cut across the board would have a devastating impact. So I have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, again, the policy is very laudable, but the problem is, the dollars are being taken out of other accounts. We are attempting to ramp up the personnel in a lot of Border Patrol activities, to ramp up the number of beds, and to ramp up our efforts in the Coast Guard.

This $85 million is not going to come out of thin air and will have to come from one of these accounts or a series of accounts.

We have a balanced bill. As much as I appreciate the Senator's proposal, this .3 of a percent across-the-board cut will have a fairly significant impact on Homeland Security.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider.

I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to an amendment by Senator Reed, followed by an amendment by Senator Dayton. After those two amendments are disposed of, we will have an hour of debate relative to the Vitter amendment, with Senator Durbin controlling 45 minutes and Senator Vitter controlling 15 minutes. And then we will proceed to a vote on the Vitter amendment.

I amend my request by saying that at the end of the hour of debate on Vitter, we will go to a vote in relation to the Vitter amendment without any second degrees.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005. I am honored to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator DeWine with whom I have enjoyed working on similar measures in previous Congresses. I am further pleased that Senators Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Feinstein, Akaka, Cantwell, Harkin, Lautenberg, Pryor, and Kerry have also agreed to join me as original cosponsors of this legislation. Our bill is designed to encourage the best and the brightest law school graduates to enter public service as criminal prosecutors and public defenders by making a student loan repayment program available to them.

I am pleased that this legislation enjoys bipartisan support. I am anxious to work closely with Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy to advance it through the Judiciary Committee and secure its enactment by the full Senate.

Our proposed loan repayment program is supported by the American Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

We can--and should--do more to help prosecutor and public defender offices compete with the higher salaries available in the private sector. In many instances, despite high aspirations and strong motivation to work in the public sector, many graduates find it economically impossible to pursue that career path due to the overwhelming burden of debt. The availability of student loan repayment can be a powerful incentive for attracting some of our most talented new lawyers to public service employment.

Many of today's law graduates are finishing law school owing staggering amounts of student loan debt. According to the American Bar Association, the median total cumulative educational debt for law school graduates in the class of 2004 was $97,763 for private schools and $66,810 for public schools. Educational loan debts represent a serious financial obligation which must be repaid. A default on any loan triggers serious consequences. Moreover, the looming obligation can impact career choices for many new graduates.

Many budding prosecutors and public defenders face a disheartening dilemma. On the one hand, they have a deep commitment to pursuing a career in public service. On the other hand, they need a level of income to meet the demands of exorbitant educational loan liabilities. This wrenching choice has not only personal impact but adverse implications for the legal profession and its commitment to ensuring access to justice for all citizens. And from an employer's perspective, comparatively low salaries and high debt make it extremely difficult to recruit and retain attorneys in prosecutor and public defender offices.

The results of a special study, ``Lifting the Burden: Law Student Debt as a Barrier to Public Service,'' published in August 2003 by the American Bar Association, reflects eight key findings, which I will describe in more specificity in my remarks.

First, law school tuition levels have skyrocketed. Second, the vast majority of law students borrow funds to finance their legal education. Third, law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education. Fourth, public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or private sector salaries. Fifth, high student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. Sixth, many law graduates who take public service legal jobs must leave after they gain 2 to 3 years of experience. Seventh, public service employers report serious difficulty recruiting and retaining lawyers. And eighth, the legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burden.

On the matter of skyrocketing tuition levels, since the early 1970s, there have been steep and persistent hikes in the costs of legal education and in the tuition rates law schools charge. Researchers found that tuition increased about 340 percent from 1985 to 2002 for private law school students and out-of-state students at public law schools. In state students at public law schools saw their tuition jump about 500 percent. During the period 1992-2002, the cost of living in the United States rose 28 percent while the cost of tuition for public law schools rose 134 percent for residents and 100 percent for nonresidents, and private law school tuition increased 76 percent.

In 1975, when private law school tuition averaged $2,525 and public law school tuition for in state residents was $700, the need to borrow to finance a legal education was not as prevalent or necessary. In 1990, when tuition was $11,680 for private institutions and $3,012 for public law schools, it was at least manageable. In 2002, the median law school annual tuitions were $24,920 for private law schools, $18,131 for nonresident students at public law schools, and $9,252 for resident students at public law schools.

A computation of the tuition rates of the 186 ABA-accredited law schools for 2004 reflects that charges for State residents at public law schools average $10,820 per year. For nonresidents attending public law schools, the average tuition amounts to $20,176 per year. Students attending private law schools pay an average of $25,603 per year.

Additional amounts for food, lodging, books, fees and personal expenses increase the costs for 3 years to more than $60,000 in almost all cases and well over $100,000 in many instances.

The vast majority of law students must borrow funds to finance their legal education. In 2002, almost 87 percent of law students borrowed to finance their legal education. That level remained consistent in 2004. Many of these students also carried unpaid debt from their undergraduate studies.

Law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education. As tuition and other expenses of attending law school rose, more and more students found they needed to borrow to pay for law school. During the 1990s, the average amount students borrowed more than doubled. Today, the amount borrowed by many students exceeds $80,000.

Public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or private sector salaries. Entry-level salaries for government or other public service position, have always been significantly lower than those in private practice.

Over the years since the mid-1970s, the median starting salaries in private practice have risen at a much faster pace than entry-level public service salaries. Between 1985 and 2002, the median starting salaries at private law firms rose by about 280 percent. Government lawyers, such as prosecutors and public defenders, saw their salaries increase by just 70 percent.

According to the 2004 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report, published in August 2004 by the National Association for Law Placement, Inc., the median entry-level salary for public defenders is $39,000; with 11 to 15 years of experience, the median is $65,000. The salary progression for State and local prosecuting attorneys is similar, starting at about $40,000 and progressing to $68,000-69,000 for those with 11 to 15 years of experience.

In August 2004, NALP also released the results of its tenth annual comprehensive survey of associate compensation in private sector law firms. According to the 2004 Associate Salary Survey Report, based on salary information as of April 1, 2004 provided by 599 offices, the median salary for first-year associates ranged from $65,000 in firms of 2 to 25 attorneys to $120,000 in firms of 500 attorneys or more, with a first-year median for all participating firms of $95,000. These figures evidence the stark reality of compensation differentials for those graduates electing to devote their skills to public service jobs as prosecutors and defenders.

High student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. As law school tuition and student debt have sharply escalated, fewer and fewer law school graduates can afford to take the comparatively low-paying public service positions that are available in government agencies or with prosecutor, public defender, or legal services offices.

A national study of law school debt conducted by Equal Justice Works, the Partnership for Public Service, and the National Association for Law Placement found that law student debt prevented two-thirds of law student respondents from considering a public service career.

The report was based on a spring 2002 survey of graduating law students. Survey respondents included 1,622 students from 117 law schools representing 40 States, the District of Columbia, and Canada. Among the findings reported were the following: Overall, 66 percent of respondents stated that law school debt kept them from considering a public interest or government job. The percentage is higher among those who ultimately accepted jobs in small or large private firms, with 83 percent and 78 percent, respectively, stating that debt prevented them from seeking work with public interest organizations or the Federal Government.

Seventy-three percent of students who had not yet accepted a job when surveyed also indicated that they were disinclined to seek a public interest or government position due to heavy debt load. Providing $6,000 a year in available loan repayment assistance would

result in increased interest in a post graduate Federal Government job for 83 percent of student respondents.

Despite their high debt burden, some law graduates initially accept public service jobs. However, the magnitude of debt precipitates high turnover because many of these cannot repay loan obligations on a median starting salary of $36,000 and pay all their other remaining living expenses with the remaining $1,100 per month. Some who begin careers in public service, and who would like to remain, leave after a few years when they find their debts are too severely constraining on their hopes for making ends meet, much less raising children or saving for retirement.

Many public service employers report having a difficult time attracting the best qualified law graduates. Public service employers, such as prosecutor or public defender offices, have vacancies they cannot fill because new law graduates cannot afford to work for them. Alternatively, those who do hire law graduates find that, because of educational debt payments, those whom they do hire leave just at the point when they have acquired the experience to provide the most valuable services.

The legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burden. Lawyers with dreams of serving their communities as prosecutors or public defenders are unable to use their skills to do so. And when governments cannot hire new lawyers or keep experienced ones, the ability to protect the public safety is challenged. The inability of poor and moderate-income persons to obtain legal assistance can result in dire consequences to those individuals and the communities in which they live.

Our bill, the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act, is designed to help remedy some of these problems. Enacting this measure will help make legal careers in public service as prosecutors and public defenders in the criminal justice system more financially viable and attractive to law school graduates who have incurred significant financial obligations in acquiring their education.

Our proposal would establish, within the Department of Justice, a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years as public attorneys who are either State or local criminal prosecutors or State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases. It would allow eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000.

Repayment benefits for such public attorneys would be made available on a first-come, first-served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. Priority would be given to borrowers who received repayment benefits for the preceding fiscal year and have completed less than 3 years of the first required service period. Borrowers could enter into an additional agreement, after the required 3-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than 3 years. It would cover student loans made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including consolidation loans. Furthermore, it would extend to Federal public defenders the existing Perkins loan forgiveness program available for Federal prosecutors.

Our bill is modeled on the program for Federal executive branch employees which has been enjoying growing success. Federal law permits Federal executive branch agencies to repay their employees' student loans, up to $10,000 in a year, and up to a lifetime maximum of $60,000. In exchange, the employee must agree to remain with the agency for at least 3 years.

During fiscal year 2004, 28 executive branch agencies provided 2,945 Federal employees with more than $16.4 million in student loan repayments, as reported by the Office of Personnel Management in April 2005. This marked a 42-percent increase in the number of beneficiaries and a 79-percent increase in benefits over fiscal year 2003.

It is noteworthy that across the Federal Government in 2004, agencies used the loan repayment program most often to recruit and retain attorneys. In fiscal year 2004, 473 Federal lawyers received loan repayments, representing 16.1 percent of all employees who received the benefit.

The Securities and Exchange Commission provided the benefit to 239 lawyers, and the Justice Department distributed program benefits to 118 of its attorneys. According to the Office of Personnel Management's report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that the program has been of tremendous benefit in recruiting and retaining attorneys in its Honors Law Graduate Program. NRC commented that law school debt is continuing to rise--to more than $100,000 in some cases--and a gap exists between Federal and private law firm salaries. As a result, some quality candidates may rule out a career as an attorney in the Federal Government. NRC believes the Federal student loan repayment program helps the Commission overcome these obstacles.

I recently received a compelling letter from Jennifer Walsh, the assistant appellate defender for the State of Illinois. Her experiences portray in testamentary terms the real dilemmas encountered by perhaps thousands of attorneys desiring public service careers despite exorbitant student loan obligations.

To simply paraphrase Ms. Walsh's sentiments would diminish their impact, so I would like to quote some excerpts from her letter: ``I love being a public servant. . . . Helping those who cannot afford to help themselves isn't charity and it isn't socially progressive. It is justice and it has made me a better person. . . . However, the one problem that I have consistently had since becoming a public defender is getting my student loans paid. I have a debt burden over $110,000. . . . My student loan payments will soon exceed $950 a month. This represents about one-third of my monthly take-home pay. I cannot help pay the mortgage on my house. I cannot save for my two children's futures. During a financial crisis, my husband knows that he cannot look to me to help the family finances. . . . I am now faced with a Hobson's choice--do I fulfill the needs of my indigent clients or my struggling family? I absolutely, positively don't want to leave. But my responsibilities to my family and my student loan creditors make staying in the public sector feel selfish and irresponsible. Imagine that--working for the public good seems selfish and irresponsible because I cannot do what I love and, at the same time, repay what I owe.''

I appreciate Ms. Walsh's willingness to share her perspectives with me. By enacting and funding this legislation, we can take a meaningful step toward alleviating some of the financial burden for attorneys such as Ms. Walsh who choose careers as criminal prosecutors and public defenders.

I know there are many other law graduates who, like Jennifer Walsh, want to apply their legal training and develop their skills in the public sector, but are deterred by the weight of student loan obligations. Passage of our legislation will help them make their careers dreams a reality. I urge its swift adoption.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered last evening by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. To me, this feels like Groundhog Day. Last year on this very bill the Senate debated exactly the same issues regarding the funding for the Homeland Security Grant Programs. The proposal last year, with the exact same minimum as the Menendez amendment, was soundly defeated. Senator Lieberman and I offered an alternative that was agreed to by a vote of 71 to 26.

The chart I am going to display explains it to our colleagues. The Menendez amendment would slash homeland security dollars for 36 States and the District of Columbia. It would take funding from 36 States and hand it over to 14 States--14 States that already receive more than 70 percent of the funding.

I am particularly surprised that this amendment is being offered after the widespread criticism and outrage over the funding allocation decisions by the Department of Homeland Security just a few weeks ago. I have told Secretary Chertoff that I believe he achieved what I would have thought was impossible: he made both New York and the State of Maine equally unhappy with his allocation decisions.

Many of the advocates for this amendment criticized the way in which the Department used its discretion to distribute funds. I share in their criticism. Their concerns are understandable, but their proposed solution is absolutely baffling because it would give even more discretion to the Department of Homeland Security to decide, with virtually no guidance, how to allocate these funds.

The Department has clearly demonstrated that it has a long way to go in perfecting a risk allocation methodology. Indeed, if you look at the recent inspector general's report from the Department on critical infrastructure, which was used in part to help determine these funding allocations, you will see that the Department has a very long way to go in coming up with a worthwhile risk-based system.

On that list of critical infrastructure was a petting zoo, for example, an ice cream shop, a doughnut shop. This is part of our critical infrastructure, absolutely essential assets? Yet the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey provides virtually no guidance on how a risk-based formula would work. By contrast, the legislation approved by the committee I chair puts forth risk factors that the Department should weigh.

The Menendez amendment simply hands the reins over to the same Department that was so widely criticized in its funding decisions. The result of the approach of Senator Menendez will be that more funding will be given out under a flawed and inexact methodology. That is exactly why we still

need to maintain a healthy State minimum, to assure that flawed distribution methods do not lead to gaps in our security system.

The minimum in the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, .25 percent, is simply too low. It slashes by two-thirds the Homeland Security grants that every State is now guaranteed. Under his amendment, each State would be assured of only a little more than $2 million, for both the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the law enforcement program for this year. Compare that with a minimum allocation of slightly more than $7 million for fiscal year 2006 and $9 million the year before.

Again, let me emphasize this. Under the Menendez amendment, each State would be assured of only a little more than $2 million for homeland security, prevention, and response needs. That is a 72-percent cut in guaranteed funding to each State. I encourage my colleagues to talk to the emergency managers in your State, to talk to your first responders, your police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, to find out what gaps in homeland security would be left unfilled if they faced such a sharp and massive reduction.

If we are going to become better prepared as a nation, each State must receive a predictable and reasonable base allocation of homeland security funding. States need a predictable base level of funding each year in order to support multiyear projects such as creating interoperable communications networks or first responder training regimes on a natural basis.

Risk-based funding, if distributed properly, certainly is important, and I support it and have proposed it. But it doesn't take away the need for this steady funding stream so that every State can bring its security up to a base level.

Let me give you perhaps the best example of the need for multiyear, steady, predictable funding, and that is the interoperability of first responder communications.

I am sure you recall, Mr. President, that the 9/11 Commission pointed to the lack of compatibility in communications equipment as contributing to the loss of life on 9/11.

The investigation that the Senate Homeland Security Committee did into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated beyond any doubt that there is still a major problem. We saw different parishes in Louisiana using incompatible communications equipment that slowed and hampered the response to victims.

The National Governors Association reported last year that 73 percent of States have not developed Statewide communications interoperability networks. That is a complicated, expensive and multiyear process.

That is exactly the kind of goal--the interoperable communications network--that the steady, predictable funding from the Homeland Security Grant Program is designed for.

The National Governors Association during last year's debate wrote to me saying:

To effectively protect our States from potential terrorist

events, all sectors of government must be part of an

integrated plan to prevent, deter, respond and recover from a

terrorist act. For that plan to work, it is essential that it

be funded through predictable, sustainable mechanisms, both

during its development and its implementation.

It is important to know that current law requires States to develop a 3-year homeland security plan. Multiyear planning is critical to developing a successful prevention and response strategy. Yet, if we are going to ask States to plan 3 years out, we have to be prepared to guarantee them a predictable base level of funding.

When we talk about the significance of preventing the next terrorist attack, it is important to note that terrorists often stage their operations training and hideaway from their most obvious targets.

This hits home to those of us in Maine because two of the terrorists that flew the plane into the World Trade Center on 9/11 started their journey of death and destruction from Portland, ME, a city of approximately 65,000 people. That is where they started.

Just think if they could have been apprehended in Portland and maybe the number of lives that could have been saved.

As the publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police notes, several of the terrorists involved in the attack had routine encounters with State and local law enforcement officials in the weeks and months prior to the attack.

If the State, tribal and local law enforcement officers are adequately equipped and trained, they can be invaluable assets in efforts to identify and apprehend suspected terrorists before they strike. We must provide State and local law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our country secure.

I note that it isn't only the two terrorists who started from Portland, ME that are good examples of terrorists hiding or training or transiting through rural areas. The 9/11 Commission told us that two of the terrorists, for example, were in Norman, OK, and others were in Norcross, GA.

All of these examples illustrate the vulnerability of towns and cities across America while highlighting the need for effective cooperation among all levels of government.

The Menendez amendment takes rational evaluations of need or effectiveness out of the distribution methodology. I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the exact language of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey. I think they will be very concerned by that language if they do so.

This language factors out of the funding equation consideration of whether an area actually needs funding or whether it has a plan to spend the funding effectively.

That is an invitation to waste, fraud, and abuse if ever I have heard one.

The amendment would inevitably lead to more wasteful spending. It assures that we will hear about more cases of first responders' dollars being wasted.

For example, New Jersey spent a small fortune worth of dollars that were supposed to go for homeland security purposes on air-conditioned garbage trucks.

That is the kind of waste that we want to avoid. But when you take out any consideration of need, of effectiveness, of planning from the formula, that is exactly the kind of wasteful spending you are going to get.

The RAND Corporation recently cautioned us that homeland security experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller communities and rural areas.

The report recognized that much of the Nation's critical infrastructure--water plants, for example, or chemical plants and other potential high-value targets--is located in rural areas.

We all know of the threat of a terrorist attack on our food supply. That is another example.

There are so many rural hospitals which have shown that they are unprepared. I could give you example after example.

But, surely, it makes no sense to give the Department of Homeland Security, which has already proven that it does not have the systems in place to handle an allocation that is based on the Department's interpretation of risk--surely, it doesn't make sense to give discretion to the Department. But that is exactly what the Menendez amendment would do. It would give more discretion. It strikes any consideration of whether an area needs the funding, whether it has a good plan for the funding, and whether the funding will be used effectively.

The Menendez amendment will hurt our national efforts to protect our country from terrorist threats. It will leave most States worse off. It leaves the District of Columbia worse off than under current law.

Under his amendment, each State would be assured of only a little more than $2 million for both State Homeland Security Grant Programs and the law enforcement programs this year.

Again, I compare that to a minimum allocation of approximately $7 million last year and $9 million the year before.

Thirty-six States and the District of Columbia would be clear losers.

The Department would be given more discretion--discretion it has already shown it cannot handle. And this amendment, because it does not consider need and effectiveness and does

not set out criteria for the Department to use, would result in additional wasteful spending.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I had reserved the final 4 minutes of my time in opposition to the Menendez amendment. I am going to claim that time now.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. Let me briefly summarize three issues that make the amendment so problematic.

First, it slashes the minimum allocation for homeland security grant moneys for States. It would impose a two-thirds cut in the guaranteed allocation which would undermine the efforts of States that have entered into multiyear projects such as improving the interoperability of their communications equipment which is an expensive multiyear proposition.

Second, the amendment makes absolutely no sense. If my colleagues are unhappy, as I am, with the Department of Homeland Security's allocation of funding for the Homeland Security Grant Program, why would they want to give unfettered discretion to the Department on how to allocate the funds?

The amendment has absolutely no criteria included in it to define risk. By contrast, the proposal that was approved by the Homeland Security Committee sets out criteria--such as whether there had been a terrorist attack previously, the population density, whether it is a border State, whether it is on the coastline--and gives guidance to the Department since it has clearly shown that it does not have a well- developed system for allocating based on risk. We have seen the results of that.

Third, the Senator from New Jersey strikes the requirement in current law to have the Department look at the need for the funding. All of us are concerned about reports that homeland security grant money in some localities has been wasted, whether it is on leather jackets or air- conditioned garbage trucks, actual cases, one in the District and one in New Jersey, or for other questionable purposes. We need to make sure that the Department is allocating the funds not only based on risk, threat, and vulnerability but also on need and effectiveness. There are no requirements for this funding to be developed and allocated based on the need for it nor the effectiveness of the State's plan.

For those three reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Menendez amendment. Thirty-six States and the District of Columbia would lose funding under his proposal. The funding instead would be reallocated to 14 States which already receive more than 70 percent of all the funding for homeland security.

This is a misguided amendment. It will lead to wasteful spending. It will undermine the efforts to bring all States up to a base level of preparedness and response. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I see the Senator from Delaware is on the floor. He has been very active in

this area. If I do have any time remaining, I would be happy to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware.