Local Government Disaster Relief Act of 2007

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding.

Mr. President, I do have an amendment I would like to call up and ask for its immediate consideration. Is there an amendment pending at this time?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 308 be called up.

Mr. President, this amendment will expand and improve the Proliferation Security Initiative in the national security interest of the United States. The Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI, is now 4 years old. It is a program whereby the United States is working with 80 allied countries to jointly interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction-related materials in a timely manner when critical intelligence is received about imminent transfers of weapons of mass destruction.

The PSI is based on voluntary cooperation by participating countries and relies on the ability to react quickly to time-sensitive intelligence on the

movement of weapons of mass destruction material. According to the Department of State, the Proliferation Security Initiative was critical in uncovering Libya's weapons of mass destruction program in the AQ Khan proliferation network in 2003. PSI halted more than two dozen weapons of mass destruction-related transfers from 2005 to 2006. PSI has improved the capabilities of our partnering countries to take coordinated action to interdict proliferation-related shipments.

The House-passed version of this legislation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill, or H.R. 1, significantly changes the Proliferation Security Initiative in two key ways: First, the House would surrender the Proliferation Security Initiative to the U.N., a multilateral bureaucracy. Second, the House wants to give countries such as Russia and China veto power on U.S. national security by subjecting the Proliferation Security Initiative to U.N. Security Council approval. This is the wrong direction to take for a key U.S. tool in fighting the war on terror.

For the Proliferation Security Initiative to be successful and intervene in time to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction, there must be a rapid-response capability and flexibility to respond to intelligence information. H.R. 1, the House-passed version of this legislation, would place the Proliferation Security Initiative in a regulatory and inflexible straitjacket overseen by an international bureaucracy.

When we receive intelligence that al-Qaida is shipping material for a nuclear bomb through the waters of one of our allies, that intelligence demands immediate action, not deliberation and redtape. By removing the Proliferation Security Initiative from the safety and discretion of unique and bilateral relationships, the House-passed bill will likely reduce the willingness of other countries to cooperate, especially countries where cooperation could produce domestic political problems.

The Proliferation Security Initiative is an effective means to help our allies use their own legal authorities to implement their commitments under existing multilateral nonproliferation regimes that include the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, and the Australia Group. In addition, the State Department believes that PSI cooperation is an effective way to implement countries' commitments to U.N. Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1718 on North Korea and Resolution 1737 on Iran. Turning the PSI into yet another multilateral regime would not only be unnecessary but would also be a hindrance to effective nonproliferation.

H.R. 1, the House-passed bill, by creating a multilateral regime for PSI, would limit our ability to share intelligence on proliferation- related shipments because it would subject sensitive U.S. intelligence sources and methods to broad international disclosure. This disclosure of sensitive and, at times, classified intelligence would expose our sources, covert agents, and methods to our enemies, including the very weapons of mass destruction traffickers we seek to shut down.

H.R. 1 would require annual GAO reports on Proliferation Security Initiative activities even though there are already several other reports currently required on nonproliferation matters that are sent to Congress, including reports that discuss PSI-related activities, such as the ``Periodic Report to Congress on the National Emergency Regarding Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' Adding another hoop for PSI to jump through would be counterproductive, and annual reports on PSI may even expose PSI's methodologies to proliferators.

The House-passed bill is also flawed because it would require the President to seek authorization from the U.N. Security Council for PSI. H.R. 1 implies that international law written by the U.N. Security Council is required to authorize U.S. measures to protect itself and the world from the proliferation of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Security Council members should not be given a veto over what a bilateral national security program can and cannot do. As it is, China has refused to endorse the Proliferation Security Initiative, probably because Chinese traffickers are likely targets for PSI. We have already seen China wielding its veto power to undermine and delay U.S. national security priorities. Because of their objections, it took months of extra deliberations for the Security Council to finally confront the leading state sponsor of terror, probably the world's greatest proliferation challenge--Iran. Granting the U.N. Security Council an intrusive role in our national security activities would compromise highly sensitive intelligence.

PSI activities already are legal. All activities are undertaken in full compliance with international law. PSI already cooperates well in its existing form with the United Nations and other international organizations. In 2005, the U.N. Secretary General applauded the efforts of the Proliferation Security Initiative to fill a gap in our defenses. PSI has also won European Union and G8 endorsement. Why would our Democratic friends in the House want to change a program so highly regarded by our European friends?

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.N. has a failing grade when it comes to effectively fighting the war on terror. The U.N. has failed to establish a comprehensive definition for terrorism. The U.N. has failed to fulfill its September 2005 commitment of the Summit of World Leaders to establish a comprehensive convention against terrorism. The U.N. Counter-Terrorism Committee has failed to identify terrorist groups and states.

Finally, the U.N. has failed to prohibit state sponsors of terror from running for seats on or chairing any U.N. body, such as the Human Rights Council or the United Nations Disarmament Commission. In fact, in April of 2006, the leading weapons proliferator and state sponsor of terror, Iran, served as vice chair of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

The U.N. has failed to prohibit giving U.N. credentials to nongovernmental organizations that condone or promote terrorism or terrorist groups.

H.R. 1, the House-passed version of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the legislation we are considering currently in the Senate, returns us to the failed policy of the previous decade where the preference was for unenforced multilateral regimes instead of effective U.S. programs. H.R. 1 would be a step backward toward policies that left the United States vulnerable to terrorist attacks on 9/11. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to maintain the integrity of the Proliferation Security Initiative and to help keep our Nation secure.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of my friend from Colorado. It is a necessary and progressive step forward. I don't believe anybody else wants to speak on this amendment. Therefore, I yield back the rest of the time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I wish to make two statements supporting the amendments of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, submitted earlier today.

One of the amendments, amendment No. 295, is actually identical to a bill Senators Landrieu, Stevens, and I introduced earlier this year called the Local Government Disaster Relief Act of 2007. That bill, S. 664, would waive the 10 percent State match requirement for the restoration of public infrastructure under FEMA's Public Assistance Program.

This amendment is identical to a bill that Senators Landrieu, Stevens, and I introduced earlier this year called the Local Government Disaster Relief Act of 2007.

That bill, S. 664, would waive the 10 percent state match requirement for the restoration of public infrastructure under FEMA's Public Assistance Program.

FEMA provides Federal assistance for restoring public infrastructure--highways, bridges, schools, utilities--that have been damaged in a disaster. The law requires a match of no more than 25 percent from the States, but for rare and particularly catastrophic disasters, the President is authorized to waive the matching requirement.

This matching requirement was waived for both Hurricane Andrew and the September 11 terrorist attacks. These were obviously two horrendous national emergencies. But the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina was equally as catastrophic, and the geographic scope of the Katrina devastation was far worse. Over 90,000 square miles were devastated by Katrina and Rita combined.

Per capita cost is the traditional measurement used when determining whether to waive the match. In New York, the per capita cost for September 11 was $390.00. In Florida, after Hurricane Andrew, the cost per capita was $139.00. Louisiana's cost per capita was approximately $6,700. This number helps illustrates the massive challenge facing the State, and underscores the continuing need for Federal support as the regions struggles to regain its footing.

Nevertheless, FEMA is requiring Gulf Coast States to pay a 10-percent match. This is an enormous burden for States still picking up the pieces and struggling to rebuild. And CBO has scored this legislation at no cost to the Federal Government.

In Louisiana, as much as $1 billion in matching funds will have to be repaid if this requirement stands.

I know from several visits to the gulf coast, that the State and local governments--and more importantly, the people--appreciate the generosity the American people have shown them in the wake of this disaster. But we must continue to demonstrate that generosity as people in the gulf States work to recapture their lives.

We have asked the President to waive the 10-percent match. He has not responded.

This amendment is the fair and right thing to do. It is a common sense, bipartisan amendment to fix a problem that never should have occurred in the first place. I urge every Senator to support this amendment to fulfill our commitment to help the gulf coast back on its feet.

Senator Landrieu talked about this matter earlier in the day, and I believe she will return to the floor to describe it in more detail.

Our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing in New Orleans during January of this year. Progress has been made in recovering from Hurricane Katrina, but there is an enormous amount yet to be done in the Gulf Coast. Particularly in New Orleans, one of America's great cities, large sections now resemble a ghost town.

There is a lot of bureaucratic red tape. The problem here is not that Congress has not responded. In fact, we have appropriated, I believe, well over $110 billion in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the Gulf Coast. The problem is that so much of that money is tied up--and in the case of this match, a lot of the programs are tied up because some of the governments down there just don't have the resources to provide the match. The match has been waived in other natural disasters.

I believe this amendment which has been offered is exactly the right thing to do to expedite the recovery of the Gulf Coast.

Amendment No. 296

The second amendment Senator Landrieu offered is amendment No. 296, which I also want to support. It would allow the forgiveness of certain loans provided in the second Katrina supplemental appropriations bill passed last Congress to Gulf Coast States devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Congress passed the supplemental appropriations bill in part to provide $750 million to help Gulf Coast localities recover from the storm, and the bill waived the respective $5 million and 25 percent caps because of the enormous and immediate need all of us saw. This law would continue that.

I supported waiving these caps to allow for the full flow of aid. At the time, I did not, however, support another provision that prohibited forgiveness of the CDL loan as a condition for allowing funds to be released. The fact is that building is underway, but the recovery will take years, perhaps even decades.

The Stafford Act provides for the forgiveness of these loans because it recognizes, in certain instances, that localities are simply unable to recover lost revenues. This, in turn, stops their efforts to rebuild and ultimately leads to longer dependence on Federal assistance. This amendment would allow the Gulf Coast localities--many of them so devastated, with their revenue bases dramatically shrunk--to continue their rebuilding free from the burden of repaying loans they simply, in fact, cannot repay.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, unless my friend from South Dakota wishes to speak.

I thank my friend from South Dakota for his statement.

I believe the Senator from Maryland has been here a while. If he is not ready to proceed, we will go to the Senator from Oklahoma, and then the Senator from Maryland will be next.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment. I think it is important for the people of America to understand, first, what is at stake here and, No. 2, the tremendous failure of the U.N. in terms of proliferation. The best example of that right now is the enrichment of uranium for purposes of weapons of mass destruction by Iran. The reason Iran continues to do that is because two world powers, China and Russia, through the U.N., failed to support adequate enforcement of sanctions for behavior that would otherwise not allow nuclear proliferation.

Senator Thune very thoroughly outlined the failures of the U.N., but let me outline them a little further. This country sends over $5.3 billion a year to the U.N. Our entire contribution to peacekeeping is wasted, according to the U.N. Inspector General's own reports. We don't get to find those reports because the U.N. won't be transparent on either how it spends its money or who gets the money it does spend or whether they are held accountable for it. Senator Thune outlined the effectiveness of this initiative by the State Department with 80 other countries. That is 80 countries that help us every day to interrupt, disrupt, and stop either the passage, transfer, or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I do not understand the motivation, why someone would want to take this to a bureaucracy that has proved, time and again, it fails to accomplish the very purposes for which it was set up--whether it be the rape of

U.N. peacekeepers in the areas in which they are serving; whether it be the U.N. Oil for Food scandal, where only one person out of several has even been indicted in the corruption racket that was ongoing with that. The fact is the U.N. has failed in multiple areas at multiple times to accomplish the very things it set out to do.

Senator Thune mentioned that the No. 2 position on the nonproliferation committee at the U.N. is chaired by none other than Iran. What we do know is, had adequate sanctions been applied to Iran, the continued enrichment of uranium would not be there. The House has gutted one of the most effective tools we have, in terms of interdicting weapons of mass destruction from across this world.

Why is it important? Let me give an analogy. Today, when somebody comes into the emergency room and they are bleeding internally, we don't stop and have a committee meeting among doctors on what to do. What we do is look at the signs and symptoms we find--i.e., the intelligence, the actual knowledge of what is going on--and then we treat the condition on an emergent basis. This whole initiative will be gutted by bringing it to the bureaucratic process of the U.N. The thing that happens now is good intelligence, in terms of cooperation with people--the other 80 countries that are working cooperatively-- institutes action. The failure to act on internal bleeding ends up with death. The same thing is going to happen if we let a bureaucracy, dominated with a veto power by China and Russia, determine whether we can intercept weapons of mass destruction.

I understand we need a world body. I understand the U.N. is that world body. But the U.N. has so many problems today in terms of being effective at what it is trying to accomplish. It is absolutely nontransparent with how it does that--nontransparent with how the money is spent and is utilized today, so that every step of the way two countries are blocking our attempts to block the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iran.

We can let the patient die, bleed to death internally, while we have a committee hearing and get the approval and then get it vetoed by China or Russia because it plays out more powerfully to their benefit, or we can continue to do what we have been doing successfully 24 times in the last year. Twenty-four times in the last year, in coordination with these eight countries, based on great intelligence, we have interrupted or disrupted the transmission of weapons of mass destruction. Why would we want to get rid of that? Why did this PSI get started in the first place? Because of problems in the U.N. If the U.N. were to work as it should, there would be no need for a PSI. It will not and it does not because it is not necessarily to everybody's advantage in the U.N. that these weapons be controlled.

I believe the House has been very shortsighted. My hope is if this is included when it comes out of conference, this bill is vetoed. It should be vetoed. It ties the hand of a President trying to do what is best for this country and instead makes the rest of the world have veto power over our ability to defend ourselves. We should never give up that right.

I am very thankful Senator Thune has put this amendment on the floor and my hope is we will have a vote on it next week. What this bill does is to violate our Constitution. We give up sovereignty to protect ourselves by giving that sovereignty to the United Nations. That is something we ought not do. It would be different if the United Nations were transparent. It would be different if a third of peacekeeping funds were not wasted every year out of the billions that are spent in the U.N. $15 to $20 billion budget. But that is not the case. That is not the real world.

Until we have cogent, realistic, proper reforms, including transparency, at the U.N, including equality at the U.N., including accountability at the U.N., we should not move any initiative affecting our own protection and that of those other 80 countries that are working with us in this regard, to give them veto power over our own security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer three amendments; that once they are reported by number, the reading be dispensed with and the amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, if I might, I will take a moment to describe each of these three amendments I offered to S. 4, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations bill. My staff is working with the committee staff and I am hoping these three amendments can be cleared. I think they strengthen the underlying bill. They deal with issues that are particularly of concern to the capital region, the States of Maryland, Virginia, and the Nation's Capital.

My first amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to study whether modifying and updating

the national capital region boundaries would improve coordination among the State and local governments within the region, enhance regional governments and the Federal Government's ability to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack within the region, and affect the distribution of funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program.

Congress created the national capital region boundaries as part of the National Capital Planning Act of 1952. We now use this definition in dealing with our homeland security. Obviously, there have been significant demographic changes since 1952.

We all know if there is a problem in the Nation's Capital, it goes well beyond the immediate counties that surround the Capitol, in Virginia and Maryland, yet the national capital region is restricted to just a few counties. The purpose of this amendment is to have a study to see whether it would make sense for us to expand that region for the purposes of being better prepared to respond to emergencies. If the Department of Homeland Security determines it is appropriate to have new boundaries, we would have a chance to look at that. Those recommendations would be submitted to Congress.

My second amendment is a commonsense technical amendment that corrects an oversight in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004. That act contains provisions for cooperation along the national capital region's jurisdictions in the event of a regional or national emergency. As the jurisdictions began working on a mutual aid agreement authorized by the statute, a concern arose that water and wastewater utilities were not included in the original language. Therefore, if there were a problem in Montgomery County dealing with a sanitation issue, someone from Fairfax County would not be allowed to come in to help. That obviously makes no sense whatsoever. We should be able to allow the local governments to proceed with that type of arrangement. The mutual aid provisions in the 2004 law allow this type of exchange of jurisdictions between firefighters, police, and various other emergency responders.

The 2004 bill also explicitly allowed for employees at WMATA and the Airports Authority to work between jurisdictions under the provisions of a mutual aid agreement. My amendment would allow water and wastewater authorities to similarly share staff resources during an emergency and under the provisions of the mutual aid agreement.

The need for this amendment was brought to my attention by the Metropolitan National Council of Governments. All the water and wastewater authorities in the Greater Washington area support this amendment.

My third amendment deals with a problem that is preventing the Maryland Department of Transportation and Amtrak from negotiating a new contract for MARC trains access to the Northeast corridor and operation by Amtrak. The problem stems from the repeal in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 of a provision which requires the laws of the District of Columbia to govern all Amtrak contracts.

The original provision was done to create uniformity. Amtrak followed longstanding industry practice of agreeing to resolve disputes by arbitration.

There is an inconsistency between that provision and the laws of Maryland, if they were to apply to dispute settlement procedures. We need to clarify that provision in order to move forward with these agreements. The repeal of the DC provision created a conflict with the dispute resolution clause in Maryland procurement law that requires the Board of Contract Appeals hear all disputes applied to all procurement contracts. Amtrak will not enter into an agreement with Maryland until the State agrees to abide by the same DC law that is still accepted in all other States. Amtrak and Maryland both requested that Congress clarify that Amtrak contracts and the laws of the District of Columbia govern these contracts and leases uniformly. It is critical that Congress act swiftly to address this problem. Maryland's current contract with Amtrak expires in 16 months and therefore we need to move quickly on this issue.

I have conferred with the staffs of the committees. To my understanding, we may still need some technical clarifications to the technical amendment, and if that is necessary I will seek the appropriate consent in order to adjust the amendment to meet the needs and concerns that are being raised by the committee.

I am hopeful the bill managers on both sides will find these amendments acceptable. I look forward to working with them. S. 4 is a good bill. My amendments, if agreed to, will make it better for Maryland, Washington, DC and Virginia. I hope we will be able to move accordingly.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be yielded 5 minutes of the time allotted to me.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be permitted to move forward for 5 minutes, with 2\1/2\ minutes taken from our side and 2\1/ 2\ minutes taken from the other side, and following Senator Landrieu, Senator Allard from Colorado be permitted to lay down his amendment for up to 5 minutes, with 2\1/2\ minutes taken from our side and 2\1/2\ minutes from their side.

Mr. President, I modify my unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be allotted 5 minutes, 2\1/2\ minutes to come off of the majority side and 2\1/2\ from the minority side; then following her, up to 5 minutes for the Senator from Colorado, with 2\1/2\ minutes coming off the majority side and 2\1/2\ minutes off the minority side.

Mr. President, we will be voting in a few minutes on amendment No. 280, which will create the Rural Policing Institute. This is the pinnacle of law enforcement training for our Federal agents throughout our country. It is very important that we allow the 800,000 men and women who are in rural law enforcement agencies to take advantage of this great training opportunity. They are the eyes and ears on the ground who ultimately will help us avoid future terrorist attacks such as the one we saw in Oklahoma City which killed 156 people.

Mr. President, I am very proud of the fact this is a bipartisan amendment. I am going to yield up to 2 or 3 minutes of my time to Senator Chambliss because FLETC is located in his State, and he has been a great champion of FLETC.

Mr. President, the importance of this amendment is underscored in the stories and the lives that are led by the 800,000 men and women who leave their homes every day to make sure they are protecting America. These are men and women who, in many areas, live in rural communities. In my State alone, we have 14,000 peace officers.

As the attorney general of Colorado, I had the great honor and privilege of being the chairman of the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board. One of the things we recognized during that timeframe in my State of Colorado was that the training of these

rural law enforcement officers was very essential for us to be able to make sure, first of all, they were able to protect themselves from getting in harm's way, and, second of all, they were able to protect the public?

Mr. President, can I ask how much time I have on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have up to 2 more minutes to speak on the subject of amendment No. 280.

Mr. President, I am proud of the fact that Senator Pryor and Senator Isakson and Senator Chambliss have joined us in moving forward with this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. When you consider the horrific attack we saw in Oklahoma, it is exactly the kind of attack that might have been prevented if we had our rural law enforcement agencies with the kind of training that would make them part of our antiterrorism efforts.

So I want us very much to move forward with this amendment, to adopt it in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, it is a very simple amendment that would create the Rural Policing Institute, which would help our rural law enforcement throughout the country. These men and women will help us in dealing with terrorism around the country.

There is broad bipartisan support from Senator Isakson, Senator Chambliss, and Senator Mark Pryor, the former attorney general from Arkansas. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.