Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006

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

Mr. President, I previously offered an amendment to the pending bill. My understanding is it will likely be accepted. I did not have a chance to speak at any length on the amendment. I want to do so now. I recognize we have a vote in about 10 minutes. I will be mindful of that.

The amendment which I offered says that our U.S. trade officials will be prohibited from agreeing to any future trade agreement that would preclude the Congress from blocking the takeover of a U.S. port operation by a foreign company. I offered this amendment in the shadow of this morning's announcement that our monthly trade deficit--get this--was the highest in U.S. history. It was announced this morning-- $68 billion in 1 month.

If anyone needs additional information about the failure of our trade strategy and the failure of this so-called ``free trade'' nonsense we have been hearing around here, take a look at this morning's announcement--$68 billion trade deficit in 1 month.

This is not money we owe to ourselves. That is money we owe largely to Japan, and China, and other countries and will be repaid someday with a lower standard of living in this country.

I offer this amendment dealing with trade as a backdrop to this morning's announcement of the highest trade deficit in history, a trade strategy fraught with error--and this is injuring this country.

Let me describe the need for this amendment.

You might recall that earlier this year it was announced that Dubai Ports World was going to begin to manage a number of ports in this country. Dubai Ports World, in February of this year, indicated that they were going to manage ports in America in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Miami, and some others. Dubai Ports World is a company that is operated by the United Arab Emirates.

In February of this year, the Bush administration gave the green light to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to manage these American ports. The President said that he felt it was fine for our ports to be managed by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

In fact, when a firestorm erupted over this issue, here is what the President said, brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike. President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations in six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. The President pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

Even more than that, the head of Homeland Security, Mr. Michael Chertoff, strangely enough said this: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reported yesterday that the proposed takeover of terminal operations at five U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World would give U.S. law enforcement a better handle on security at U.S. terminal operations.

Here is a member of the Cabinet in this country saying that if we turn our port management over to a foreign company, it will actually improve security.

I don't know what he might have had for breakfast that morning, but I am telling you it didn't agree with his thinking process. It is going to improve security to turn the management of American ports over to a company that is owned by the United Arab Emirates? I don't think so.

There was a firestorm of protest. The President said he would veto any legislation that we would provide that

stopped this takeover of management of these American seaports. Despite that, at some point, it was quite clear the Congress was going to say to the President--Republicans and Democrats--we are sorry. It doesn't matter what you threaten with respect to a veto, we will pass legislation that prohibits this.

We believe the security of our seaports is best maintained by not turning the management of our seaports over to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World, at some point, announced that they were going to find another way to do this and sell their interests. My understanding is that has not yet been done. But in any event, the administration backed away.

However, the trade agreements that we are negotiating now include it. Past agreements have included it. I don't intend to interrupt that with this amendment. If I could, I would. But I don't have the votes to do that.

But the trade agreements say this, including the Oman agreement, which I am told will be brought to the floor of the Senate on Thursday of this week. I intend to speak at some length on that agreement. I am opposed to it. But it includes this provision, and other trade agreements have included the same provision. U.S. port operations that we couldn't block Oman from acquiring under the FTA, under our Free Trade Agreement with Oman, we would be prohibited from blocking an agreement that included landside aspects of foreign activities, including operations and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels, directly to or from land, marine cargo handling, ship cleaning, et cetera. In point of fact, we are negotiating trade agreements that include provisions which say we are not able to block a foreign company owned by a foreign country from coming in and managing our seaports.

That is what we are doing in trade agreements. Most of our trade negotiators have been fundamentally incompetent from the start.

It was Will Rogers who said many decades ago that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He surely must have been talking about our trade negotiators. They don't wear uniforms so they do not remember whom they represent. I have often threatened to buy them jerseys so they can look down and see whom they represent--the good old U.S.A.--just like Olympic athletes represent the U.S.A.

We negotiate trade agreements that we are told will strengthen this country, and month after month and year after year we sink deeper into this abyss of red ink, with now a $68 billion trade deficit in the last month alone.

Is it surprising then that the same incompetence that has led to the largest trade deficit in history--the same incompetence that lead to that--led them to do this, to undermine the very debate we had in February of this year about the management of American ports by a United Arab Emirates-controlled company, Dubai Ports World?

Just as an aside, let me describe the incompetence. Let me describe one example. I could give a hundred. Next year, according to a report, we will be getting imports of Chinese cars into this country because the country of China is now beginning a substantial automobile export industry. They have announced they will begin exporting cars from China to the United States next year. So we will be able to see Chinese cars driving up and down the streets of America. Guess what. Our trade negotiators agreed that when Chinese cars come into our country, we will impose a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese cars that come into the United States.

We also agreed that any U.S. cars we could sell in China, they could impose a 25-percent tariff.

A country with which we had a $200 billion trade deficit, we agreed they could impose a tariff on automobiles 10 times higher than the tariff we would impose.

Is that brain dead? It is where I come from. Is that incompetence? It is incompetence in my hometown.

That doesn't represent our country's interests.

We come back to the point. I could give you a hundred examples similar to that, where soft-headed foreign policy is masquerading as trade policy.

We come back to the newest trade agreements, including Oman, which we will have on the floor of the Senate next Thursday which includes this provision. It is identical to provisions that are included in previous agreements as well.

I say we ought to block this from ever occurring in any future free trade agreement. This provision undermines the entire position that we have taken with respect to deciding that it is not in our country's security interests to have the United Arab Emirates engaged in the management of our seaports.

For that reason, I believe we ought to pass the amendment I am proposing, prohibiting this from happening in the future. I would like to go back, frankly, and undo that which was done in previous trade agreements.

There is a little thing that people outside of this congressional system don't recognize very easily. It is called fast track. Fast track sounds so innocuous--just fast track.

Fast track means Congress has decided to give up its opportunity, which exists in the Constitution, to be engaged in trade activities so that when a trade agreement comes to the Congress, this Congress has no opportunity to review it with the understanding of wanting to amend it.

Fast track means we have put ourselves in the straight jacket and no amendments.

That is why, when a trade agreement comes to the floor of the Senate such as Oman--and there will be others. We are now negotiating nine additional trade agreements with nine additional countries right now. The House of Representatives announced they will take up two additional trade agreements in November. When those agreements come to the floor of the Senate, because the Congress, in its lack of wisdom, decided to put itself in a straight jacket, no one can offer an amendment to strip out this kind of provision of a trade agreement. It surely escapes my line of reasoning why the Congress would want to decide to limit its capability to improve a trade agreement, but it has.

Some will say, notwithstanding what trade agreements say, notwithstanding all the other issues, the President can, for national security reasons, decide to back an agreement such as this. Yes, that is true.

It was this President who said: I agree that we ought to allow the United Arab Emirates and Dubai Ports World to come in and manage seaports. I agree that we should do that. We have already evaluated it. It makes sense.

He is wrong about that, of course. His Secretary of Homeland Security says not only does it make sense, but it will make America safer if we have the management of America's seaports being done by a foreign company through a foreign country.

That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Yet in this country, in this town, it passed with thoughtful debate. Again, it doesn't meet the test of thoughtful debate in my hometown cafe.

I am offering this amendment. My understanding is it will likely be accepted, for which I am very appreciative. I will speak more about the general subject when we have the opportunity to talk about the free trade agreement with the country of Oman. My understanding is it may be this Thursday.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, amendment No. 4931, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, my amendment would increase the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers by 275. This would bring the total of new U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in this bill to 1,000.

In my State of Texas, the Customs and Border Protection officers are assigned in the Houston region are responsible for the seaports along the Texas coast from Port Arthur to the Port of Corpus Christi. Some of these officers are also assigned to Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The CBP officers work at the Port of Houston in the morning and leave the port in the afternoon to go work at the Houston Intercontinental Airport. Sharing these U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers between port duties and airport duties is unacceptable.

With increased security demands being placed on our Nation's ports and the desire to increase the number of containers inspected as they enter the United States, local port officials have long expressed the need for additional personnel in order to carry out the tasks that are so critical to our Nation's economy. With an unprecedented 11 million containers entering the United States annually, cargo doesn't stop when there isn't a Customs agent there to inspect the incoming shipments. What happens, of course, is that the cargo is not inspected. So I hope we can pass my amendment.

I believe the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006 is a very good bill, and I particularly commend the leaders of the respective Senate committees for working together to bring all of the port security bills that have been introduced in Congress into one comprehensive bill so that we can address this issue.

In the last 5 years, we have significantly strengthened our national defense. I think we saw yesterday that so many things have been done to keep our country safe and secure, because yesterday, of course, was the 5-year anniversary of the attack of 9/11. We have engaged the enemy before they have reached America since 9/11 of 2001. We have improved our homeland security. We have passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement officials the tools they need and the resources necessary to protect our Nation. We must remain vigilant in pursuing terrorists who seek to harm our country. An integral aspect of our national defense and our economy is the security of our ports.

Our Nation has more than 360 federally regulated, thriving ports, any one of which could be a target for our enemies. One terrorist incident at a U.S. port could impact an entire coast, and the financial impact of closing one of these ports could be devastating.

Texas is home to 29 ports, including 4 of the 10 busiest in the Nation. The Port of Houston is one of the most important ports in the world. It ranks first in the United States in foreign waterborne tonnage, second in total tonnage, and is the sixth largest in the world. It is also home to one of the biggest petrochemical complexes in the world. It is also part of our Nation's U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the world's largest oil stockpile. Due to the volume of hazardous materials, a terrorist attack in the Port of Houston would be an enormous disaster. An attack in the Port of Houston could also disrupt our Nation's energy supply, delivering a blow to our economy at a time when we cannot afford such a disruption.

For years, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for more stringent port security. In the 107th Congress, my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Kyl, Snowe, and I introduced the Comprehensive Seaport and Container Security Act of 2002. This bill called for container seals and tracking numbers for goods being shipped to the United States. It also called for a plan to increase inspection of merchandise at foreign facilities as well as for a shipment profiling plan to track containers and shipments of merchandise imported into the United States that could be a threat to security.

In the 107th Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act. This bipartisan bill was landmark legislation that closed a large hole in our national security. I was an original cosponsor of this bill as well. However, when it passed the Senate, I made the point of saying the legislation only laid the foundation for port security and more needed to be done.

The following year, I introduced the Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act in both the 108th and 109th Congresses. This was comprehensive legislation, and I am pleased that many of the key provisions in that bill, such as the random inspection of containers, the establishment of minimum standards and procedures for securing containers in transit to the United States, and the implementation of an improved container targeting system, have been incorporated into the legislation before us today. I thank Chairman Stevens and Cochairman Inouye for working with me in the Commerce Committee on these provisions.

In addition, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have added so much to make this bill even more powerful and more helpful in our overall goal of securing the ports in our country.

This legislation calls for the Department of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan for random inspection of containers in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection. This significant provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan to conduct random searches of containers in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection of the containers as required by law. This would allow the U.S. Customs inspectors to do more at the point of embarkation with the random sampling of different cargo that has been inspected.

Another important provision in this legislation is the establishment of minimum standards for securing containers in transit to the United States. The Secretary of Homeland Security is encouraged to promote and establish those minimum standards for the security of containers moving through the entire international supply chain. This is a key element and I am hopeful the Secretary will take this action. We cannot inspect every piece of cargo, or our international commerce as we know it today would come to a grinding halt. However, if we have better technology, such as a seal which is tamper-proof, we will know when the contents of the cargo have been altered.

My amendment would add to the numbers of Customs and Border Protection officers. A thousand new officers, when you have more than 360 federally regulated ports in this country, is not asking a lot.

We must do more. We must do more at the point of embarkation, the point of origin, at the point where ships come into our U.S. waters, and at the ports themselves. We need more inspectors to be authorized in order to do that.

I am asking that my colleagues support my amendment to raise this number to 1,000. We cannot afford, as we are passing this major legislation, not to do it right, not to authorize everything we need and give the Department of Homeland Security the tools they need to do the job of securing our ports.

We have done a lot. We have passed maritime security laws since 2001, since our country was attacked. But this bill adds to the measures that we know are lacking in the system today. We are taking more steps every week, every month, and every year to secure our country.

I thank Chairman Stevens and Cochairman Inouye, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their leadership in this area. I appreciate that they have come together. It is very difficult in this Congress, when more than one committee has jurisdiction over a major part of the Government of this country. In homeland security we find that the Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee do have overlapping jurisdiction.

This bill could have been brought down with in-fighting among the committees, but it has not been brought down because of the leadership of the committees on a bipartisan basis. I appreciate what we are doing today. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, while we are waiting, I would like to respond to the Senator from Maine and thank her. She and I have had a conversation about the situation at the Port of Houston. It is particularly dire, in that it is such a busy port and one that has so many unique features. I think the fact that she is supporting the amendment will go a long way toward getting us to the point we need to be.

I think her point is very well taken that giving the Secretary of Homeland Security the capability to reallocate personnel within this mandate that we are giving is also the right thing to do, just as we should be allocating our resources for homeland security based on terror threats, based on needs, not based on politics or anything else. We need to secure our homeland, and we need to do it in a professional way. I think this bill goes a long way in a very bipartisan spirit toward giving our Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs to do the job. I am very hopeful we will be able to agree to my amendment and go forward to conference and send this bill to the President very shortly.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment No. 4931.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kyl and DeWine as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It increases the number of Customs and Border Protection officers by 275 for a total of 1,000.

In my home State of Texas, where the Port of Houston is the sixth largest port in the world, we have officers who have to leave the port at noon and go out to the airport. Because of this, we don't have enough officers to cover our ports.

This amendment will add just 275 officers for a total of 1,000 new officers.

I think this is an amendment that is very important to add for the overall security of our ports. I urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2006, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold an Executive Session to begin at 2 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2006.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m. The purpose of

this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2747, to enhance energy efficiency and conserve oil and natural gas, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Energy Security in Latin America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing on a nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting voting out the report on the Indian Lobbying Misconduct Investigation, and other pending matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available.

I. Nominations: Brett L. Tolman, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah.

II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, [Specter]; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, [De Wine, Graham]; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, [Schumer]; S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006, [Specter, Feinstein]; S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, [Lugar, Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden]; H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, [Smith-TX]; S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]; S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein, Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]; and S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, [Ensign, Kyl].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, to mark up pending VA legislation:

The markup will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

The bills to be considered are:

S. 2562 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006'';

S. 3421 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), A bill to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

Committee Print of S. 2694 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), the ``Veterans' Choice of Representation and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2006''. The Committee Print contains the following provisions:

From S. 2694, as introduced: Attorney representation in veterans benefits cases before the Department of Veterans Affairs;

From S. 2659 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Eligibility of Indian tribal organizations for grants for the establishment of veterans cemeteries on trust lands;

From S. 1759 (Chairman Larry E. Craig): Requiring the Secretary of the Army to remove the remains of Russell Wayne Wagner from Arlington National Cemetery;

From S. 3069 (Senator Christopher Dodd): Extending the provision of government grave markers;

From S. 2416 (Senator Conrad Burns): Expansion of education programs eligible for accelerated payment of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill;

From S. 3363 (Senator Mike DeWine): Accelerated payment of survivors' and dependents' educational assistance for certain programs of education;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Extend reporting requirement on the operation of the Montgomery GI Bill program;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Reducing amounts available for State Approving Agencies in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 paid from VA's readjustment benefit account;

From S. 2121 (Senator Charles Schumer): Residential cooperative housing units;

From S. 1252 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Supplemental insurance for totally disabled veterans;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Reauthorization for use of certain information from other agencies;

Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Clarification of correctional facilities covered by certain provisions of law.

From S. 1537 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Establishment of Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence.

From S. 2634 (Chairman Larry E. Craig): Sections (a)(1) and (b)(1) of it the bill pertaining to Term Limits for the Positions of Under Secretary for Health and Under Secretary for Benefits.

From S. 2762 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Requirement for VA to pay full costs for certain service-connected veterans residing in state homes, provide medications for certain service-connected conditions to veterans residing in state homes, and create a limited authority for the Secretary to designate certain beds in non-state facilities as state homes for purposes of per diem payments.

From S. 2433 (Senator Ken Salazar): A provision to create an Office of Rural Health in the Office of the Under Secretary for Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

From S. 2753 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): A provision to authorize a pilot program to provide care-giver assistance and noninstitutional care services.

From S. 3545 (Chairman Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member Akaka, Senators Burr and Obama):

Improvements to services, housing, and assistance provided to homeless veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The AT&T and BellSouth Merger: What Does it Mean for Consumers?'' in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list is attached.

Panel I: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Chairman and CEO, AT&T Inc., San Antonio, TX; F. Duane Ackerman,

Chairman and CEO, BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, GA; James F. Geiger, President and CEO, Cbeyond Communications, Atlanta, GA; and Jonathan L. Rubin, Senior Research Fellow, American Antitrust Institute, Washington, DC.

Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. the Subcommittee on Clean, Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on the regulatory processes for new and existing nuclear plants.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a field hearing regarding ``Lessons Learned? Assuring Healthy Initiatives in Health Information Technology.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 574, a bill to amend the Qunebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the Act; S. 1387, a bill to provide for an update of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, to extend the authority of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, to authorize the undertaking of a special resource study of sites and landscape features within the corridor, and to authorize additional appropriations for the corridor; S. 1721, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes; S. 2037, a bill to establish the Sangre De Cristo National Heritage Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; and S. 2645, a bill to establish the journey through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area and for other purposes.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 10 a.m. on the state of the U. S. Tourism Industry.

Mr. President, the Senate is now considering a long overdue--a long overdue--authorization bill to address the security of our ports--yes, our ports. I applaud the efforts of Senators Lieberman, Stevens, Inouye, Murray, Collins, and many others for their steadfast commitment to address this vulnerability.

The administration has let the issue of port security languish for far too long--far too long. Oh, yes, the President has made a series of speeches in recent days about the threat to the homeland and the great desire and capabilities that al-Qaida possesses to attack us--yes, to attack us, the United States. Yet when one reviews the President's homeland security budget, gaping holes can be found in funding to address known vulnerabilities. After 9/11, we learned that our first responders could not communicate with one another. How about that. We learned that our first responders could not communicate with one another. How awful that was. The cost was lives, human lives.

It now appears that we have a similar problem in the White House, where the administration's speech writers and its budget writers don't communicate. They operate in alternate worlds--worlds far apart.

In his speech last Friday at Georgetown University, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff urged Congress to pass this port security legislation. He said that passing the bill:

Would be not only a fitting tribute to the fifth

anniversary of 9/11, but would also be an important set of

tools that we can use in achieving the goal that we have set

for ourselves over the next couple of years.

Now, this is the very same rhetoric and, if I may say, it is the very same hot air that we have been listening to and we have been hearing for 5 years--5 years. Yes, we have been listening to it for 5 years, the same rhetoric, the same hot air that is used for lifting balloons, lifting balloons into the heavens.

The administration, time and time again, uses tough talk when it comes to homeland security, but, sadly, that tough talk rarely is followed up with real money, cash on the barrelhead.

This month the majority leadership is once again playing a clever rhetorical game with homeland security. The port security bill that is before the Senate authorizes $400 million for port security grants. These grants would provide essential resources to our most vulnerable ports for building fences, deploying cameras and sensors, training security personnel, and for verifying the identity of the thousands of port workers who access our ports every day.

The House-passed bill which authorized the same $400 million level was adopted by a vote of 421 to 2. But, I ask my colleagues, where, oh where is the $400 million? Where is it? Right now, the Senate and House are conferencing the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. The Senate-passed version of the bill includes an amendment that I offered with the support of my illustrious, inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg, which provides an additional $648 million for port security. The amendment would appropriate the full $400 million authorization for port security grants along with critical funds for cargo container inspection equipment, for Coast Guard ships and planes, and for increased cargo inspections at foreign and domestic ports. That is real port security, but--oh, there is that conjunction here--but, regrettably, the House majority has refused to make the $648 million available to the conference. What a sad state of affairs.

Our citizens watching the Senate today are being led to believe that this bill will secure our ports. Here it is:

H.R. 4954, an Act to Improve Maritime and Cargo Security

Through Enhanced Layered Defenses, and for other purposes.

They believe this bill will secure our ports. Here is the bill. It doesn't weigh very much, but it means security for our ports. However, it will be a charade if the port security funds are not appropriated. How about that? Money. What does the Bible say about money? The love of money, what does it say about it?

Did the White House step to the plate? How about it? ``Hey, Mr. President--hello there, down at the White House.'' Did the White House step up to the plate to address security risks at our ports? No. No. One of the hardest words in the English language to say: No.

If the administration were really serious about port security, it would have voiced support for the $400 million in the Senate bill for security grants. Yet there was not one mention of port security in the administration's letter--not one mention. It has been more than 3\1/2\ years since the Coast Guard estimated that the security cost at our ports would be $5.4 billion.

Senator Collins, bless your heart, to date not a cent of that amount has been funded despite the fact that U.S. seaports handled over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security was able to fund only 24 percent of the critical projects requested by the port authorities. These funds are critical, absolutely critical for ports to improve communications, access control systems, and provide waterside security. Where, oh where has the administration been? ``Where, oh where has my little dog gone?'' Where has the administration been?

Of the $816 million the Congress appropriated since 9/11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. Did you get that? Let me say it again. Of the $816 million the Congress appropriated since 9/11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. There is an odd disconnect at the White House when it comes to port security funding.

While I applaud the efforts of my colleagues today for moving this authorization legislation forward, and hopefully to the President's desk, authorizations of funding are not worth a hill of beans unless we provide real money, real dollars to fund them. That funding is in jeopardy. Why? That funding is in jeopardy due to an irresponsible indifference from the White House and objections from the House majority.

I challenge the White House--yes, come on now--I challenge the White House and the majority, not only to talk the talk on port security but also to walk the walk by supporting the funding that will actually make us safer. Our ports are seriously vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Potentially, thousands of American lives are at stake. Think about it. If we are truly determined to tighten security at our ports, we should send the Homeland Security appropriations bill to the President with the $648 million to fund port security.

My amendment includes the funding to address many of the provisions in this bill that are being debated today. In addition to port security grant funding, my amendment includes $40 million to hire 354 additional Customs and Border Protection officers to conduct cargo container inspections at our seaports and $211 million to purchase additional nonintrusive inspecting equipment for U.S. seaport and rail border crossings.

There you have it. Currently, only 5 percent of the 11 million containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening--take a look at it by opening the containers. Only 5 percent of the 11 million containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening the containers.

The Coast Guard has only 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with the United States, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 59.

I have to say that again. I have a duty to say that again. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with the United States, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 59--59 out of 144. At the current rate of inspections, U.S. inspectors will visit countries that trade with the United States only once every 4 years. Does that make you feel safer? Think about that tonight when you are laying your head on the pillow. Think about that.

My amendment includes $23 million to double the presence of inspectors at foreign ports and increase security compliance checks at domestic ports.

Finally, my amendment includes $184 million for Coast Guard deepwater assets that are critical to securing our ports and surrounding waterways. These funds will allow the Coast Guard to address an immediate shortfall in boats and planes needed to patrol our ports and adjacent waterways. The President and Members of Congress may applaud each other and congratulate themselves for protecting lives with this port security authorization bill, but the truth of the matter is that this bill will do little to secure our ports if the President and those same Members of Congress do not provide the money--there you go again-- the money to actually scan for dirty bombs, inspect containers, and implement the security systems that are so desperately needed. What on Earth is wrong?

Can we please stop playing these dangerous political games with homeland security and actually come together to protect the precious lives of people?

Unless we provide the funding authorized in this bill, we will be playing fast and loose with the security of our people.

Hear me. Hear me now. I say it again.

Unless we provide the funding authorized in this bill, we will be playing fast and loose with the security of our people.

I yield the floor.

Shame.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment.

Mr. President, this would lift the TSA's current screener cap of 45,000 persons. The cap is at 45,000, but currently the resources available to TSA allow for only 43,000 screeners, and currently there are only 41,000. The reason is there is such an enormous turnover in screeners. They work for a small period of time and then move on to other jobs.

We have enhanced screening technology and improved staffing models that have helped maximize the workforce currently available. We have a strong security system with minimal passenger line waits. They have been reduced considerably.

I do believe the Lautenberg amendment is not necessary. The current cap of 45,000 screeners helps us maintain the pressure on the TSA to employ new screening technology. I personally met in a classified briefing with the head of the TSA to discuss this problem last week. It was classified because of some of the technology that is involved and new models being pursued. One of the comments that was made to me was that the cap really helps us maintain the pressure to secure the new screening technology and reduce the redundancy in the workforce. The workforce is only relevant to the extent the technology does not do the job. We believe we should have more and quicker screening, and that is going to be brought about by new technology. That is where we have put our money this year.

Unless my friend wants to make any further comments, I intend to move to table this amendment. I still have the floor. Does my friend wish to have some time on the amendment?

I say to the Senator, in answer to the question, I personally talked with the head of TSA. He told us they have never been able to reach the cap yet because of unavailability of people to take these jobs under the circumstances that they must be screened and checked themselves before they are employed. The delay in getting the clearances for screeners is one of those things that hold people up. It is not the limited resources or the cap that is the problem; the problem is getting people who will take these jobs who can fit through the screening process they face before they become a screener.

As I said, the current cap is 45,000. There are 41,000 right now with full-time employment and people trying to find more screeners. The answer isn't to raise the cap; the answer is to keep the pressure on the system so we use more technology, not more screeners. More screeners is more delay. The technology processes these inspections faster than individual screeners can.

Mr. President, I say to my friend again that the workforce right now is approximately 41,000 in number. The turnover rate is enormous because they don't want to stay in these jobs. They are not exactly the kind of full-time jobs some people want to pursue. It is not a career.

The real problem is we already are capped at 45,000. There is room for 4,000 more right now. They are looking for

them. But as we speak, there are more people leaving than we can add to the force. The reason is the problems associated with this type of activity. It is the screening, as we all know, as we go through these lines and through the detection systems at the airports. The people who have the jobs just don't like to stay on that kind of a job. We have discussed how we get around it. I don't know, but increasing the number will not solve the problem. Increasing the cap is what the Senator wants to do. The concept of lifting that cap is not a solution. The solution is to try to find some way to make the job more attractive, maybe pay them more, whatever it takes.

The two limitations involved right now are the 45,000 cap and the budget resources that are available now. We tried to increase that, but we have not been able to get additional moneys yet for this purpose in terms of the screeners.

The TSA budget resources currently, as I said, allow for only 43,000. But still that is 2,000 more than are actually on duty right now, and the cap is still 4,000 above that. They can go to a 10-percent increase under the existing circumstance. Lifting the cap is not the answer is what I tell my friend.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Jersey. He is really trying hard, and I am trying hard, to work on this problem. Let me tell the Senator this: 37.5 percent of the screeners at Dulles turned over last year; 37.5 percent left. The reason is they are handling bags; they don't like the hours, as you mentioned; they work hours in accordance with the shifts based on the number of flights, not in terms of--it is not a steady workload is what I am saying. So they might be there 10 hours, but they are working 6 of that 10 hours and very hard in those 6 hours. The turnover rate is enormous.

I do think the difficulty is not in the cap; the difficulty is in the money. We have to impress on our people in the appropriations process to provide more money. We are trying to see if we can find some way to justify higher salaries. In some places, the salaries are enormous for small airports. In others where you deal with the numbers of passengers at Dulles or New York airports or Los Angeles, those airports are totally overworked, and the turnover in those big airports is enormous, almost 40 percent a year. You have to consider the fact that these replacements have to be cleared under the clearance process with regard to security. They have to be cleared people; they cannot be people who just walk in off the street. It takes months to clear one of them. You can lift the cap all you want, but you are not going to get any more than 45,000 in the next year.

Mr. President, let me tell my colleague this: We will just accept the amendment because it won't make any difference in terms of the number of screeners who are available. That is what my staff just told me. Why am I arguing? Because no matter what the ceiling is, we won't have any more screeners.

Have a vote on it?

I will give you a vote and move to table. I will tell my friend, this isn't a solution to the problem. The solution is in more money and finding a way that we can get people who are cleared to take the job and keep it. You can't put just anybody in there handling those bags. If you get a terrorist in there, they could add something rather than see whether there is something in the bags. So they all have to be cleared. This ceiling is not an issue.

Will the Senator just let us take it to conference and see what we can work out? I don't see that the number makes any difference. The problem is the process and who is hired and what are the restrictions and how much money is available, not the numbers. You could put the number at 90,000 and we will still have 41,000 people next year.

Mr. President, there is a series of meetings going on in the Capitol right now pertaining to national defense issues, and I would like to see----

I want to work this out with my friend to have the time for a vote that he wishes to have. Could we have this vote at 5 o'clock? Is that all right? We will ask for the yeas and nays with the understanding that we will vote at 5 o'clock.

I join him in requesting the yeas and nays and ask unanimous consent that the vote take place at 5 o'clock.

Mr. President, while we are awaiting representation on the other side of the aisle in order to get the yeas and the nays, let me respond to the Senator from Texas about her amendment.

First, let me acknowledge the work of the Senator from Texas on port security issues over the past few years. Her amendment would increase the minimum hiring of Customs and Border Protection officers in the resource allocation model of the legislation before us from 725 to 1,000. As the Presiding Officer is aware, our bill requires the Department to do a resource allocation model, really take a hard look at how many CBP officers are needed at which port.

One reason we believed that was necessary was the experience of Houston's ports and airports. The Senator from Texas has told me of the problems that Houston has experienced, where CBP agents actually are being transferred from the port to the airport to deal with incoming flights and then are sent back to the port. Clearly that is a situation that cries out for more agents so they do not have to be constantly shifting back and forth from a busy port to a busy airport.

I think the Senator is correct that she has a real problem with understaffing in the Houston seaport and airport and that we do need to have more agents allocated. But I also want to point out to my colleagues that we do specifically require the Department to do this resource allocation plan. There may be some seaports or airports that actually have more staff than they need. Those could be allocated to busier seaports and airports. But clearly the situation in Houston cries out for more agents so we do not have this constant choice of where they should be.

I do support the amendment of the Senator. I will assist her in gaining the yeas and nays when we have representation from the Democratic side. I hope that will be shortly.

I also suggest that we stack the vote on the amendment of the Senator at 5 o'clock, after the vote on the Lautenberg amendment, in order to make it more convenient for our colleagues.

Once we get the yeas and nays, I will be making a unanimous consent request that the vote occur immediately after the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, with 4 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. But I am withholding that unanimous consent request until we have representation from the minority on the floor.

Mr. President, I think we are now ready to order the yeas and nays.

We are still not ready for the timing on that, but we have ordered the yeas and nays, and I hope we will be able to stack the vote to occur immediately after the conclusion of the vote on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote in relation to the Hutchison amendment No. 4931 occur following the vote on the Lautenberg amendment, No. 4940, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the votes, and 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the managers or their designees before each vote, and that this occur at 5 o'clock.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Murray's amendment. I commend her for offering it. Each year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects more than $24 billion in Customs duties and fees.

The amendment would extend the merchandise processing fee and passenger conveyance fee for an additional year, and our hope is that that money will then be targeted to pay for this bill. This makes sense. In many ways, it is a user fee. It makes a great deal of sense. It will help ensure that there is a dedicated funding source for the security measures.

I point out again that the amendment has been cleared with the Finance Committee. Senator Murray has worked hard with Senators Grassley and Baucus to find the source of funding. I commend her for her efforts. I fully support the amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan is a restriction on the U.S. Special Trade Representative's authority in negotiations. As such, it is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. However, it is my understanding that the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee have no objection to acceptance of the amendment.

I urge acceptance of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, based on the debate that occurred earlier, I believe the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee has decided to accept this amendment and was willing to do it without a rollcall vote. However, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey wants a rollcall vote, so we are going to have a rollcall vote.

I do not know whether the Senator from New Jersey is on his way. I see that he is in the Chamber, so I yield the floor to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes action on the bill on Wednesday, the time until 12:15 be equally divided in the usual form and that at 12:15 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 4936, with no second degrees in order prior to the vote.

Before the Chair rules, we anticipate a budget point of order against this amendment, and therefore this vote is likely to be on the motion to waive.

Therefore, Mr. President, although we are going to consider two more amendments tonight, there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.

Amendment No. 4935

Mr. President, I am unclear whether the Salazar amendment No. 4935 is actually pending.

I do support the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado, and the managers on this side are also pleased to recommend its acceptance.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Salazar amendment.

I commend the Senators for their initiative. The horrific terrorist attacks in London and Madrid demonstrate that terrorists are willing and able to attack transit systems. Our systems in the United States remain vulnerable.

Just today, the Homeland Security Committee held a hearing looking at the next 5 years and what challenges face us. The witness, the deputy commissioner for counterterrorism from New York City, specifically pointed out the vulnerabilities of our transit systems and also the inequities in funding. I believe the statistics he gave us were that there was a ratio of 9:1 in the amount of money that had been spent on aviation security versus other forms of transportation security. So I think there is an imbalance. I believe this is a vulnerability and that this amendment would allow for the authorization of significant transportation security improvements. I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee to meet on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session, to receive a classified briefing on overhead imagery systems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 4 p.m., to receive a briefing on the loss of personal information about Department of Defense personnel as a result of the theft of a computer from a Department of Veterans Affairs analyst.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 5:20 p.m., to receive a classified briefing on the death of Al-Zarqawi.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Ms. Sheila C. Bair, of Kansas, to be a member and chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Mr. James B. Lockhart III, of Connecticut, to be the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; Mr. Donald L. Kohn, of Virginia, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Ms. Kathleen L. Casey, of Virginia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of: Philip D. Moeller, of Washington, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2010, Vice Patrick Henry Wood III, resigned and Jon Wellinghoff, of Nevada, to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2008, Vice William Lloyd Massey, term expired.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 11 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider original bills entitled, the ``Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2006'', and the ``Improving Outcomes for Children Affected by Meth Act of 2006''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Development of Democracy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security Affairs Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 10 a.m., for a hearing titled, ``National Emergency Management: Where Does FEMA Belong?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 8,2006, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available.

I. Nominations: Andrew J. Guilford, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Frank D. Whitney, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina; Kenneth L. Wainstein, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Charles P. Rosenberg, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, DeWine, Graham; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer; S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006, Specter, Feinstein; S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, Lugar, Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden.

III. Matters: S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration resolution, Hatch, Feinstein, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Specter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, for a committee hearing re pending benefits related legislation. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 8, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Findings and Recommendations of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons'' on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness list.

The Honorable John J. Gibbons, Commission Co-Chairman, Former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Newark, NJ.

Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, Commission Co-Chairman, Former U.S. Attorney General, Princeton, NJ.

Gary D. Maynard, Commissioner, Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections and President-Elect of the American Correctional Association, Des Moines, IA.

Mark H. Morial, Commissioner, President and CEO of the National Urban League, former Mayor of New Orleans and Louisiana State Senator, New York, NY.

Pat Nolan, Commissioner, President of Prison Fellowship's Justice Fellowship and a member of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, Lansedowne, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Asian Adoptions in the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on National Ocean Policy Study be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Offshore Aquaculture: Challenges of Fish Farming in Federal Waters.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 4935.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss my amendment to create a rural policing institute within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I thank Senator Chambliss, Senator Isakson, and Senator Pryor for cosponsoring this very important legislation. Law enforcement matters should be nonpartisan, so I am particularly pleased to see my friends from both Arkansas and Georgia on this amendment.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the 800,000 State and local law enforcement officials and first responders throughout our Nation. They are at the forefront today of our efforts to make sure our homeland is more secure. In Colorado alone, there are 14,000 of these law enforcement officers. Too often, these heroes are on their own when it comes to help from the Federal Government. This is especially true when it comes to rural America. This is wrong because our law enforcement officials and first responders are at the forefront of the effort to not only protect our communities but to ensure our homeland is secure.

Mr. President, along with some of my colleagues on the Senate floor, I have often referred to these rural communities as ``the forgotten America.'' Indeed, rural America is the backbone of our country, but it is too often neglected by Washington and political figures who have lost touch with the people in the heartland. Nowhere is this neglect felt more acutely than in the small-town law enforcement agencies of my State and of every State in the country. These are small communities that have been confronted with decreased funding, with increased

homeland security responsibilities, and with the great toll of the meth epidemic that is devastating rural America.

Many people don't realize that most American law enforcement agencies serve rural communities or small towns in very large proportions. Indeed, of the nearly 17,000 police agencies in the United States, 90 percent of them serve a population of under 25,000 people. And of those, most of them operate with fewer than 50 sworn officers and, in many cases, with 3, 4, or 5 officers.

I am well aware of the difficulties these small-town law enforcement agencies face day to day. As attorney general in Colorado, I had the honor of working with 14,000 of some of America's finest law enforcement officers. Many of them are from rural Colorado--sheriffs such as Jerry Martin, from Dolores County, and the other sheriffs in my State. These people are always asked to do a lot more with a lot less. Their pressure is great. The growing demands on rural law enforcement and shrinking budgets have hit training programs particularly hard. Many rural law enforcement agencies simply don't have the budget to provide officers with adequate training. Furthermore, even those agencies that can come up with the money cannot afford to take police officers off the street to get additional training.

As attorney general and chairman of the Colorado Peace Officers Standards and Training Board a few years ago, one of my proudest accomplishment was working on a bipartisan basis to help establish a $1 million annual training fund for Colorado's 14,000 peace officers, with the focus on the smaller law enforcement agencies in Colorado.

That is where our amendment on the floor today comes in. FLETC does a fantastic job in training Federal, State, and local law enforcement in our Nation. But FLETC doesn't have enough resources dedicated specifically toward training rural law enforcement officers. The rural policing institute would do the following:

First, evaluate the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout our Nation, so that we know exactly what the challenges are that we are facing in those rural communities.

Secondly, it would develop training programs designed to address the needs of rural law enforcement agencies, with a focus on combating meth, domestic violence, and school violence.

Third, it would export those training programs to rural and tribal law enforcement agencies.

Fourth, it would conduct outreach to ensure that the training programs reach rural law enforcement agencies.

As attorney general, I learned that a small investment in law enforcement can pay great dividends.

Mr. President, when we look at 9/11 today and the fact that we are all united in this effort to try to make America safer, and we look at who it is within our country who ultimately will be out there to stop the next attack on America, I would submit there is a very good chance it is going to be the deputy sheriff in a small county somewhere in America or a member of the police force in some small community making sure that a water tank is not contaminated with some kind of biological contamination or it is going to be somebody else who understands that some kind of a network has come together to try to take the fertilizer that our farmers use in rural America and make a bomb out of it. It is going to be rural law enforcement that is going to make sure they are going to help us prevent those kinds of attacks on America. When we think about the 800,000 men and women in law enforcement across America, they are on the frontlines, in terms of making sure we have a more secure homeland.

I cannot think of a more important amendment than to establish a rural police training institute under the auspices of FLETC, to ensure that these 800,000 men and women have the right kind of training so that through their eyes they can help us in our march and our efforts to make America more secure. We have a long way to go. I hope our colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment to establish a rural police training institute.

I yield the floor.