Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

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, the Senator from Michigan has asked a great question: Why are we here? And why is this bill before us? We are here primarily because, as I went through the process of trying to get the Arctic national wildlife area, the coastal plain open for exploration and development as was promised in 1980, I ran across a lot of things that were involved in this process this year that I, incidentally, support.

I support LIHEAP. There is no question that there is a demand, because of the increase in the price of energy, for assistance to those people who have to pay more for their heating oil. We tried to deal with that in connection with the reconciliation act, and there was a billion dollars in that bill for that program. We face a demand from the people who believe in it, as I do, that that be increased.

The provisions of ANWR in this bill, as we go into the process of trying to assist people who need assistance, will provide for $2 billion for LIHEAP. That is $2 billion in 2006 in terms of appropriation of moneys now. These funds will be allocated based on emergency needs. That emergency will be repaid by funds generated from this amendment. Those funds we hope will be generated in 2008.

Many people oppose declaring emergency after emergency. I agree with that. I think the greatest increase in our budget now is interest on the national debt once again. We have to stop that increase because as it increases, it squeezes out programs such as LIHEAP. But we put in here a provision to go ahead and help people in 2006 but repay it when the moneys come from ANWR.

If you don't want to vote for ANWR, you are not going to get money for 2006 for LIHEAP. People say that is bad. That is the only place they could find the money. That is a program I support very much. When you look at these other areas, I will be coming back time and again to say to people: OK, you oppose ANWR, but where are you going to get the money to do some of the things we want?

We have to stop exporting our money for oil. Every time we buy a barrel of oil from offshore, we export jobs. We export money. We can't get it back unless we reduce the value of our exports in order to try to balance our payments.

I do believe we have a lot of problems. I will be discussing them today. But it is a good question: Why are we here? We are here because the Senate passed ANWR in the reconciliation process. The House passed the bill as a legislative item. The House insisted that we try to find a way to pass the ANWR provision in the Senate without putting it in the reconciliation bill. A bipartisan plea came to me from the House to put the ANWR provision on the Defense appropriations bill. I had said before: You don't want to do that. We have it in reconciliation. Why did we put it in the reconciliation bill? Because there has been a filibuster. We are not talking about a fair vote; we are talking about an assumption by opponents of this that we must have a filibuster every time we try to find some way to increase our domestic production of oil and gas.

This is an area that is known as containing the largest single structure on the North American Continent from which oil and gas can be produced. We want to find a way to bring into production the oil from that vast area. A well was drilled there, and it was what we call a tight hole. It was agreed at the time it was drilled that the information from that drilling would only be provided to the Department of Interior and to the companies that drilled it, but it must be sealed. No one has ever published the results of that well. But the area has been drilled.

I will say to the Chair that not one of the companies that participated in funding that well ever was discouraged from seeking the leasing at ANWR. So while they can't publish that it was good, their actions over 25 years demonstrate that it was good. The question is, Should we produce it? If we produce it, revenue from the bonus bids to get the leases will be used to repay what we spend in 2006 for LIHEAP. This program is to provide low-income heating assistance. This is a very legitimate way to get money for the home energy assistance program that is needed right now.

Another thing that is tied into these funds is emergency preparedness. Another thing is equipment for first responders. Again, the funds there come from spectrum sales.

Mr. President, the budget estimated $10 billion for spectrum sales. The FCC says it will be $28 billion. I conferred with the Congressional Budget Office and said: Look, you have estimated $10 billion, and the FCC says $28 billion. I am going to assume it is going to be at least $20 billion.

They said: If you make that assumption, what you are doing in terms of spending in the bill, we cannot validate that because we deal with total predictability. You deal with probability when you look at that second $10 billion.

I was the author of spectrum originally. Before that, spectrum was available through the FCC when it was released by one company. There was a lottery to see who got the right to have it. They literally drew from a hat. Whoever got that draw out of the hat got a piece of paper that entitled them to a license from the FCC worth millions and sometimes billions.

I say: Why do that? Why don't you have an auction for that? When I was in the Department of the Interior, we used to do the same thing with leases on Federal lands. I convinced them at that time to find a way to auction those off. That is why we have the auction for the leasing of ANWR. We will get revenues from auction, and the estimated revenue by OMB and CBO is $2.5 billion. We know it is going to be at least $18 billion. All we are assuming is there is an additional $2.5 billion involved. As it comes into the Treasury, it is earmarked to pay back these emergencies we have declared. I think that is legitimate and a way to be fiscally responsible--only if we lease ANWR.

Those who want to take ANWR out of the bill are taking out funding for the things that flow from it and flow from an additional assumption that the receipts from spectrum are going to be more than estimated by CBO. I am going to be back again and again.

We have been involved in this debate for a long time. Every time I come here I remember my departed friends, Senators Jackson and Tongass. As an old friend of mine says, I get ``puddled up'' a little. They were on the other side of the aisle, but we worked for the common good and we got a commitment that 1\1/2\ million acres of Alaska would remain open for oil and gas development. As they took the Carter bill through the Senate that withdrew 105 million acres of my State's land--my State has 365 million acres. This 105 million acres is roughly the size of California. All of that is not open for oil and gas development. It is not open for hardly anything. We have national parks, wildlife refuge, wilderness areas, and a whole series of classified types of programs where the public land laws don't apply.

But the one area where the Mineral Leasing Act law still applies subject to an act of Congress to proceed is the 1\1/2\ million acres on the Arctic Plain. There is unquestioned money coming in from this auction, Mr. President. It will be big. Our oil industry is now developing throughout the world. The great, dynamic, young President of ConocoPhilips is in Moscow negotiating with the Russians today to get Russian oil for the United States. In 1980, we could not have even dreamed that we would have a chief executive officer of an American oil company in Moscow negotiating to get oil from Russia. We had just come through the embargoes of the 1970s, when the imports into the United States of oil from Arab countries was barred by an embargo.

We are at the point now where we are dependent upon foreign oil for almost 60 percent of our total needs for petroleum. What we are saying is why don't we do what we know should be done? Congress passed this bill in 1995. Both Houses voted for it. It was an amendment that went to President Clinton, and he vetoed the bill.

Mr. President, I believe we have a real problem in terms of our domestic production. Let me say this. Production from Prudhoe Bay, the area that brought in the great amount of production for the United States, averaged 1.6 million barrels a day in 1988, and it was down to 381,000 barrels this year. That pipeline is designed to carry 2.1 million barrels a day, and it did for a little while. It is down to 381,000 barrels. North Slope production has dropped from 2.1 million barrels a day to 916,000 barrels a day. The production is expected to drop even further during this period ahead of us.

The way to fill that pipeline back up is to complete exploration and development of that part of the Arctic Plain left open for development by my friends, Senators Jackson and Tongass after a long period of debate. I do believe there is a lot to be said about this bill. In 2004, our trade deficit was $651.52 billion; 25 percent of that, one- quarter--really 25.5--came from the importation of oil. People talk about our trade deficit. That is $166 billion in 2004. The reason we continue to be importing more oil is because we are producing less at home. We have doubled our energy imports since 1999. We have an insatiable demand for energy.

I agree that we should develop alternative sources, but meanwhile we have to meet the demand, which is enormous. We are importing now, in September of this year, 9 million barrels a day, at an average cost of $55 per barrel. We spent $495 million a day--almost a half billion dollars a day is going out of the country to buy oil. For every barrel of oil we import, we send that $55 abroad. If that $55 was spent in the United States, changing hands several times in our economy, as the people who work and develop and produce that oil pay for goods and services, it would generate tax revenue. One of the reasons our tax revenue is not going up as predicted is we are importing more oil.

For every $1 billion we spend to develop domestic resources, we create 12,500 jobs. That means in 2003 we lost over 1.3 million jobs by importing oil rather than producing it here. The public lands of the United States have been closed to oil and gas exploration. This area left open to oil and gas exploration in Alaska has been denied access for the oil and gas industry. We have had a 75-percent increase in the price of gasoline during this period. Why? The total cost of oil is now determined by foreign producers, not by competition with domestic producers.

By developing the resources on the coastal plain, we could create between 700,000 and a million American jobs, and we would put $60 million back into the U.S. economy every day that we produce and send that oil south in the oil pipeline.

I do believe there is every reason to be here today. There is every reason to say let's vote; let's vote on the conference report. That conference report ought to be approved. It has money for Defense and for Katrina, in terms of the disaster area; it has the money for the avian flu, and particularly the liability provisions that are necessary to make that work.

Mr. President, I think we should think twice about this and people saying something is wrong here. We have repeatedly at times in the past challenged the ruling of the Chair. We did it really in terms of very controversial subjects in terms of the FedEX bill and in terms of the aviation bill in 1996. We are not trying to do something that has never been done. I have heard some Senators accuse me of breaking the rules. I am here because of the rules, Mr. President. I am here because we are using the rules to try to achieve the passage of this very vital measure for our national defense because it has been filibustered. We did pass it in connection with the Reconciliation Act this year, and I believe we ought to recognize that there is no question about our need to develop and produce in this area.

I don't want to keep going. I could go all month about ANWR. I have been dealing with it for 25 years. I don't even need any notes to keep going for a day. The point is if anybody else wants to speak, I will be glad to yield to them.

This is a very vital subject, as far as I am concerned. The necessity for it is linked to national defense, there is no question about it.

This bill contains $446.7 billion for the Department of Defense. It includes $50 billion to sustain contingency operations for Iraq and Afghanistan. It has a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel.

My colleague and I, my great friend and cochairman from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, managed this bill. There is no question we did our best within the amount of money allowed to take care of the essential needs for the Department of Defense. Without this bill, the Department of Defense has to continue to defer spending, freeze contracts, postpone repair projects, and delay hiring. It is currently operating under a continuing resolution. I opposed a continuing resolution. I said, no, let's pass this bill, in July. I said when we came back in September, let's pass this bill.

It has been delayed. Why? Because of so many demands on the Congress coming out of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. We have been immersed in trying to solve the problems that came out of those monstrous disasters.

I do believe that if the Senate votes not to take this conference report, we will need a new conference. We will have to appoint new conferees, and the process will start from the beginning. The important thing is, unless ANWR is back in there, there is not money for LIHEAP, there is not money for first responders, there is not money for interoperability, there is not the money for the various items we have been able to find ways to pay for because of the development of ANWR.

I predict we can quickly get at it if we have to, as I said, but if we vote to do it, and we can vote today--we can vote for both this and the reconciliation process today--this bill could be on the President's desk tonight. It is right there. It is on the desk. It can be voted on. We are ready to vote. The reason we sat through last night was they would not let us vote.

I do think we should understand that the failure to vote on this bill is a failure to respond to the needs of the country. My staff and I have worked many days on this. We have worked long hours, as I told my group at home. We have burned the midnight oil on this one. We examined the needs when I

went down to New Orleans with our Commerce Committee. We examined the needs in hearings of our Department of Defense Subcommittee. We examined the needs in terms of the Commerce Committee. Senator Inouye and I heard about the needs of first responders and the need for interoperability equipment for them. This bill gives it to them. It responds to their needs.

It doesn't pay all of them right away, but it says: Look, you can get the money you need to start this, but as the money starts coming in from ANWR and spectrum, you will be able to proceed with the programs you need to have funded.

This is a serious issue. Our national security depends upon a reliable supply of oil that is not subject to the whims of a foreign country or adversaries.

The fuel used by the Department of Defense is delivered today primarily through the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, and much of it is refined in our State right now. Jet fuel in our State used by the Department of Defense includes 52 million gallons per year at Elmendorf and other places, 21 million gallons per year in Eielson, 3.5 million gallons of JP5 used by the Coast Guard. A total of 76.5 million gallons a year comes from current production of oil in Alaska.

The Alaska pipeline amendment, as I said before, was not filibustered because there was complete agreement in the Senate. Not one person suggested that pipeline amendment should be delayed. It was a close vote. The Vice President broke the tie on the Trans-Alaska pipeline. No one realizes it, but at the time, it was predicted there was to be 1 billion barrels of oil produced from that area. We have produced 14 billion barrels already.

Overall the Department of Defense uses 4.62 billion gallons of oil a year. In Iraq alone, the total amount predicted to be consumed per year is 5.76 billion gallons. And yet we are almost totally dependent now on foreign sources. It is not right.

Let me quote from my good friend Senator Jackson, then chairman of the Energy Committee, when he addressed the Senate on the pipeline. Senator Jackson said:

The pipeline involves a national security issue. There is

no serious question today that it is urgently needed in the

national interest to start the North Slope oil flowing to

markets.

That is the Democratic Senator from Washington, chairman of the Energy Committee at the time.

People today challenge my statement that oil is a national security issue. He said that at the time of the debate on the oil pipeline amendment in 1973. He said, I repeat:

This involves a national security issue. There is no

serious question today that it is urgently needed in the

national interest to start North Slope oil flowing to

markets.

This area known as ANWR is the balance of the North Slope production area, and it should be available for production.

I have a lot of other issues to mention. At the very least, we ought to compare our situation. In 1973, when the oil embargo took place, we imported one-third of our oil, our petroleum. Now we import 60 percent. Without ANWR, by 2025, we will import 70 percent of our oil. We will be more than two-thirds dependent upon foreign sources for oil.

What will we do in times of need? I remember those lines in the seventies. Some of us remember them well. I remember rationing in World War II. Are we going to go to a system of rationing? Our foreign imports are not that secure, no matter what anybody says.

Senator Hutchison is on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, to introduce the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2005.

This legislation addresses one of the Nation's greatest vulnerabilities, the threat of a terrorist attack against a chemical facility.

My legislation would provide broad new authority to the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the Nation's chemical facilities are better protected from terrorism.

This legislation would direct the Department of Homeland Security to establish criteria for evaluating the vulnerability of our Nation's chemical facilities to terrorist attack and to establish risk-based tiers for those facilities deemed in need of protection.

These regulations will require designated facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and to create appropriate site security and emergency response plans. In addition, the Department would establish an office within the Infrastructure Protection Directorate responsible for implementing and enforcing the statute.

The bill also contains robust measures to ensure both compliance by chemical plants and effective implementation by the Department.

This legislation is strong medicine, and I do not prescribe it lightly. But the potential devastation that an attack on a chemical facility could cause, the sheer number of these facilities and the current widespread lack of security, as well as the clearly stated intent of terrorists to cause maximum harm to the American people and to our economy make these measures necessary.

The Homeland Security Committee has invested substantial effort in examining this threat and in deciding how best to respond to it. Our investigation included four hearings on this topic earlier this year.

From the horrifying chemical attacks of the First World War, and the tragic accident at Bhopal, India, in 1984, to the numerous and more recent accidental releases of hazardous chemicals in this country, we were reminded by expert after expert of the potential for useful productive chemicals to kill, if released accidentally or intentionally.

We also know that al-Qaida has a keen interest in the American chemical industry. Indeed, at our first hearing, Steven Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified that the chemical industry is ``at the top of the list'' of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The chemical industry, said Commander Flynn, absolutely screams at you as essentially a weapon of mass destruction.

We should not wait until there is an attack on a chemical facility and then act after the fact. So often our security measures and our emergency legislation is passed after something horrible has already occurred and after lives have already been lost. Let us get ahead of this curve. Let us act now to address what witness after witness identified as being one of the greatest threats to our homeland.

The stakes are high and the vulnerability is widespread. The Environmental Protection Agency has cataloged some 15,000 facilities in the United States that manufacture, use, or store large quantities of hazardous chemicals for productive, legitimate purposes, but in amounts that could cause extensive harm if turned against us as weapons. And we have seen al-Qaida do this before. We have seen al-Qaida use commercial aircraft as weapons of mass destruction.

The Department of Homeland Security has identified 3,400 facilities that could affect more than 1,000 people if attacked.

According to the Government Accountability Office, tens of millions of Americans live close enough to chemical facilities to be at risk in the event of a terrorist attack. Yet despite this profound threat, only a fraction of our Nation's chemical facilities are regulated for security by the Federal Government under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or subscribe to volunteer security standards.

While I applaud those companies that have taken voluntary measures, an unacceptable number have not. Moreover, given the severity of the threat, I believe it is a mistake in this case to rely on voluntary measures alone. The overwhelming majority of experts at our hearing testified that additional statutory authority is needed to effectively address the threat of terrorism against a chemical facility.

Leading security experts, chemical safety professionals, industry representatives, labor representatives, environmental groups, and the administration, all have testified that Federal legislation in this area is necessary, although obviously they differ considerably on the details.

The legislation I am introducing today provides that critical authority. While establishing the need for Federal legislation, our hearings stressed the importance of getting this right, of striking the right balance.

Chemical shipments in the United States approach $.5 trillion annually. The chemical industry represents our largest export sector, totaling $91.4 billion in 2003.

More than 900,000 people work directly in the American chemical industry with millions more in supplier and indirect jobs.

Chemicals are critical to our food and our water supply, our pharmaceuticals, our electronics, our clothes; in fact, just about everything.

A consistent theme that sounded throughout our hearing was that we cannot afford to drive the chemical sector out of this country in the name of security. And that is why we spent so much time in carefully crafting a bill that strikes the right balance.

Our hearings established a considerable consensus around two important concepts: First, that the legislation should be risk based. Our chemical industry is extremely diverse and any legislation must take into account that diversity. A small plant using chemicals in rural Maine faces very different risks than a major chemical manufacturing plant in the New York City area, and its security response should be structured appropriately. Security measures should be tailored to each particular facility, taking into account its vulnerabilities, its location, impact on the population, and other risk factors. High-risk facilities should undertake the strongest security precautions while obviously fewer precautions are necessary at very low-risk facilities.

Second, the legislation should be performance based. What do I mean by that? By that I mean our focus should be on having the Department establish the standards, the results, rather than prescribing exactly how a corporation should act to meet those standards, those results. Facilities should defend against particular threats. For example, the Secretary might specify that facilities should be able to protect against a hazardous release resulting from a truck bomb. Or the Secretary may mandate that every plant have a secure perimeter. Now, facilities could choose to meet those standards by building fences, erecting barriers, moving the most hazardous chemicals to a more secure area, or even switching to a less hazardous chemical altogether. By specifying the regulations should be performance based, facilities will have the incentives to identify the most effective and cost-efficient means of increasing protection.

The legislation I am introducing today meets those fundamental criteria. It is risk based and it is performance based. This legislation is modeled, in part, on the Maritime Transportation Security Act, consequently referred to as MTSA.

During the course of our four hearings, we heard substantial testimony from security industry experts, the administration and others, that the results-based cooperative approach of MTSA is a major success story. In fact, we heard so many positive things about the law that we brought in the Coast Guard's director of port security, Admiral Bone, to testify about their experience with the current law.

The first step in improving the security of our Nation's chemical facilities is to determine which facilities should be covered by Federal regulations and to what degree. This legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue within 1 year of enactment regulations establishing criteria for evaluating the types of facilities that should be covered, as well as regulations establishing risk-based tiers for the designated facilities.

Following the issuance of these regulations, the Department would designate covered facilities and place them into tiers. The designations would be based on risk factors including potential likelihood of death or illness, proximity to population centers, and the potential impact on national security, the economy, and critical infrastructure. The tier would have increasingly strict security requirements as the risk and consequences of a terrorist attack at a covered facility increase.

The Department would then set security performance standards for each tier. Every facility would be required to conduct a vulnerability assessment, establish and implement a site security plan, and create an emergency response plan or update an existing plan to include provisions for an intentional attack. Vulnerability assessments would address the threats and consequences of a terrorist attack, including

vulnerabilities from the use of hazardous chemicals.

The site security plan would address the identified vulnerabilities and meet the performance standards set by the Department. The site security plan would also identify how the facility is coordinating with Federal, State, and local officials for response to a terrorist attack. The facilities would be required to drill their security plans and emergency response plans. Covered facilities would have 6 months following promulgation of regulations to certify compliance and submit their assessments and plans to the Department for approval.

If a facility fails to comply, the legislation I am introducing provides the strongest remedy to the Department. The bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to shut down chemical facilities that are at high risk and which the Secretary believes have not adequately addressed the risk of a terrorist attack. For the highest risk facilities, the Secretary could order an immediate closure. For the other lower risk facilities, the Department could order closure but only after a process of written notification, consultation, and further time for compliance.

Now, I recognize this shutdown authority concentrates considerable power into the Secretary's hands, but the dire consequences of a terrorist attack justify giving the Secretary the authority to shut down a chemical facility that has failed to comply with the law. With hundreds of thousands of lives at stake, the Secretary must have the authority to ensure our chemical facilities have adopted security measures sufficient to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack. If a facility cannot, will not, or has not done so, it simply cannot be allowed to keep operating.

It was only after very careful consideration that I decided to include this power in my bill. I note that the Maritime Transportation Security Act provides similar authority to the Coast Guard. Admiral Bone testified since 2004 the Coast Guard has used this authority to shut down 32 facilities--three of which were chemical facilities. He testified it was imperative the Department of Homeland Security be given that closure authority.

Before closing, I will comment on a couple of very important and controversial issues. One is the issue of inherently safer technology which is often referred to as IST. My bill allows chemical facilities to choose whatever security measures best meet the performance standards required by the Department. IST is one of the recognized means of meeting a performance standard. In addition, my legislation requires the vulnerability assessment include an analysis of security measures, including vulnerabilities arising from the use, storage, and handling of dangerous chemicals. However, I make clear our legislation does not mandate IST. Not only would doing so be at odds with the performance-based approach we have endorsed in this bill, I also do not believe it is appropriate for a bill on security to dictate specific industrial processes. Such uses are outside the scope of the legislation, beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, and are not the only way to address security issues.

I fully expect some facilities will adopt inherently safer technologies. I certainly encourage them to do so if that is the best means for them. However, that should be their decision.

This legislation does not tell facilities how high to build their fences or what chemicals to use or how they may use them. It is the result that matters. I believe this bill will result in significantly enhanced security for the chemical sector. This is a Homeland Security bill. It is not an environmental regulation.

In summary, this legislation requires chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, create and implement security plans, establish emergency response plans, and to submit these plans to the Department of Homeland Security for approval or disapproval. It gives the Department broad authority to ensure that chemical facilities are addressing the risks of terrorist attacks and giving the Department the authority it needs. The legislation is risk based and performance based, and I am confident it will provide long overdue standards that will ensure stronger and more consistent security at our chemical facilities.

Before closing, I once again thank my lead cosponsor and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman. We have worked very hard with the members of our committee, including the Presiding Officer, all year long to explore this through a number of hearings, and we have engaged in many months of negotiations.

I also thank our cosponsors, Senator Coleman, Senator Carper, and Senator Levin, for their hard work on this bill.

I look forward to adding additional cosponsors and working with the committee to move this vital legislation forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.