Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to speak on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the chairman of its Subcommittee on Airland, I had the honor and pleasure again this year of working with Chairman Levin and Senator McCain on this bill. I congratulate them for working with their House counterparts, Chairman Skelton and Representative McKeon, to deliver a bill that will help keep our Nation safe and provide our troops with the support they deserve.

I also wish to thank Senator Thune, who is my ranking member on the Airland Subcommittee, and Chairman Abercrombie and Representative Bartlett of the House's Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, for the close cooperation we achieved this year on the areas that fall under our shared jurisdiction.

There are several accomplishments in this bill of which I am especially proud.

This bill will increase the authorized size, known as end strength, of our active duty Army from 532,400 to 562,400 for fiscal year 2010, and further authorized the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army by an additional 30,000 soldiers in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This growth in the Army is essential--our soldiers are under incredible strain from multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, oftentimes with little more than a year at home to rest and train for every year that they spend in theater.

I applaud the President's decision this July to add 22,000 soldiers to the Army, and call upon him to use the authority provided in this bill to do more. We must ensure that our Army is large enough for all the missions we ask of it, and also give our soldiers the time they need at home to rest, train, and be with their friends and families.

With regard to missile defense, this bill includes an amendment that Senator Sessions and I, along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, introduced to ensure that the administration's new architecture for missile defenses in Europe will be as capable as the previous plan that was set aside. I believe that this section of the final bill, paired with section 8121 of the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations Act, which protects funding for the continued development of the two- stage ground based interceptor, will help to keep our Nation safe against Iran's aggressive missile programs.

This bill also makes critical investments in our Nation's sea power. It authorizes $4.2 billion for Virginia-class submarines, which will be procured at the rate of two per year from 2011, and $495 million for the research and development of a replacement to our aging Ohio-class strategic deterrence submarines. I am very proud of the skilled workers of my home State of Connecticut who build these essential submarines.

Turning to the Army's modernization programs, the final version of this bill supports the decision by the Secretary of Defense and the Army's leadership to restructure the FCS program. This

bill will provide full funding for the ``Spin Out'' portions of that program and the continued development of the network. I look forward to working with Senator Thune in the coming year to evaluate the Army's revamped strategy for developing and procuring ground combat vehicles for our soldiers.

There is one element of this bill with which I must express my deep disappointment--the inclusion of $560 million in funds for the continued development and procurement of an alternate engine for the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter.

When the President introduced his plans for reducing spending in the budget this May, he specifically pointed out the alternate engine as the singular example of programs that ``do nothing to keep us safe--but rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe.'' He continued to say ``the pentagon does not want--and does not plan to use--the alternative version'' to the engine that it already has for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Since the President's initial comments on this unnecessary and wasteful program, the Secretary of Defense and the uniformed military leadership have explained exactly why they do not want this unnecessary, alternate engine. It is because they know the danger this earmark poses to the Joint Strike Fighter, which is planned to be the cornerstone of American air power for decades to come.

If Congress forced the Defense Department to continue paying for an alternate engine, it would cost an additional $4 to $6 billion over just the next 5 years--billions of dollars that the Department has not planned for, and that would either have to come from the Joint Strike Fighter or other critical programs to keep our country safe.

If Congress forced the Defense Department to procure the alternate engine that it does not want, it would prevent the Joint Strike Fighter program from achieving economies of scale for years to come, as it split its procurement to maintain two manufacturing lines. The costs of the program would rise, along with the risk that it will never deliver the aircraft that our Nation requires.

When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in June, Air Force LTG Mark Shackelford explained that these added costs would mean that the Air Force would be able to afford some 53 fewer of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that it needs to support our airmen.

In response to the President's strong arguments and the concerns of our military leadership, the Senate put this question to a vote in on July 23, deciding by a vote of 59-38 to end the unnecessary, alternate engine. Although the House never took similar action on this topic, the Senate receded to its position in conference.

I call upon President Obama to send a clear message to our colleagues on the Appropriations committee--that he will veto an appropriations bill that includes funds for this unnecessary program. Fifty-nine Members of this body stood by the President when he first called upon us to end this program, and I am sure that we will stand by him again.

Despite this strong reservation, I call upon my colleagues to vote for the adoption this conference report and again thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on behalf of our service men and women.

Mr. President, today I recognize the distinguished service of LTG Stephen M. Speakes as he prepares to retire after 35 years of exceptional service to this Nation as an officer of the U.S. Army. I have had the pleasure to work with General Speakes over the last several years as he served as the Army deputy chief of staff, G-8, a position in which he was responsible for matching the service's resources to the needs of our soldiers. His compassionate leadership, unwavering commitment and selfless dedication are exemplified in his enumerable contributions throughout his distinguished career.

General Speakes was commissioned as an armor officer in 1974. He began his career with troop-leading assignments in the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Bliss, TX, and the Third Brigade, Third Infantry Division in Aschaffenburg, Germany. He commanded the 2d Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment at Bad Kissingen, and the 2d ``Blackjack'' Brigade in the First Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.

General Speakes' service also includes assignments on the Joint Staff with the srategic arms reduction talks nuclear negotiations team in the Joint Staff's J5 Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy, as a war planner in the Joint Staff's J7 Directorate for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, and on the Army Staff's Force Development Directorate. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, General Speakes received a master's degree in government from Georgetown University and was a fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. At Harvard, he coauthored a study of U.N. peace enforcement, ``A Blue Helmet Combat Force.''

His senior assignments include a tour in Europe beginning in 1997 as the V Corps G3 and chief of staff. He then served as the deputy G3 at U.S. Army Forces Command before assignment as the chief of staff of the III Corps in August 2001. From August 2002 thru June 2003, General Speakes served as the assistant division commander of the 4th Infantry Division, Mechanized, and deployed in that capacity for Operation Iraqi Freedom. In June 2003, he departed Tikrit, Iraq, and reported to Kuwait as the deputy commanding general, Third U.S. Army and Coalition Forces Land Component Command. While there, he oversaw the redeployment of 250,000 soldiers and marines as the United States executed the first Iraq force rotation. Returning to the United States, General Speakes served as the director, force development on the G-8 staff from August 2004 to December 2006 before assuming his current responsibilities.

His lovely wife, Mrs. Gigi Speakes, has supported General Speakes and all the members of his commands in every assignment for the past 30 years. She has been integral to all the contributions that this Army team has been able to make to soldiers, the Army and the Nation. She is an outstanding volunteer in all aspects of her service to the Army.

The Speakes are the epitome of an Army family. Clearly, General and Mrs. Speakes' greatest achievement was the raising of two incredible sons, Grant and Brennan. Both are Army officers who have served on multiple deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their continued success in the military is the fruit of their parents' enduring love and dedication to them and other junior soldiers.

On behalf of the Senate and the United States of America, I thank General Speakes, his wife Gigi, and his entire family for the commitment, sacrifice, and contribution that they have made throughout his honorable military service. I congratulate them on completing an exceptional and successful career, and wish them the greatest

happiness as they move on to the next phase of their life together.

Mr. President, I rise to declare to my colleagues that I intend to vote against cloture to proceed on the motion to proceed to this measure regarding the sustainable growth rate.

I want to explain why. I thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership, and to say this is one of those moments where substantially I agree with just about everything she had to say about the inadequacies of the sustainable growth rate formula which was put in in the late 1970s as part of what turned out to be a very effective attempt to bring fiscal responsibility, budget balancing, even a surplus.

Believe it or not, at the end of the Clinton administration, historians may note, perhaps people will forget, we actually had a Federal Government surplus. But it turned out that this sustainable growth rate formula for the reimbursement of doctors was not workable and unfair and has resulted in the refusal of a lot of doctors to treat patients under Medicare.

So why would I not vote for cloture to proceed to take up this matter, and then vote for it? It is because there are larger questions involved. In some sense, I think this is a precautionary tale, the vote on this matter. It is a precautionary tale of what we will face in succeeding votes in the Senate and most immediately in the health care reform debate we will soon take up on the Senate floor.

We did not get into this terrible situation with our Federal deficit and debt because there were people in the House or in the White House over the last several years who had bad motives or bad values. In fact, in most of the cases, such as this, when money has been allocated, appropriated for programs, it has been done with the best of intentions. But the ultimate effect has been bad for our country and our future because it has put us into a position of national debt that is unsustainable, that threatens to cripple our economic recovery and burden our children and grandchildren and beyond so that they do not live in a country with the kind of economic dynamism and opportunity in which we were blessed to be raised.

In some sense, if I would be allowed to paraphrase, I would say the road to an unsustainable, damaging, American national debt is paved with good intentions, with votes for good programs. It just is time for us together, across party lines, to sound the alarm, blow the whistle, and make choices regarding priorities.

We cannot have, no matter how good or worthwhile, programs for which we are not prepared to pay. The numbers are stunning. I am privileged to be serving my 21st year in the Senate. The numbers of our Federal indebtedness today are so shockingly high that if you told me that 21 years ago or 10 years ago or even 5 years ago, I simply would not have believed it.

The fiscal year that ended on September 30, fiscal year 2009, we now know, learned about a week ago, America ran a deficit of $1.4-plus trillion. We know America now has an accumulated long-term debt of $12 trillion.

We know the Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the next 10 years, we will run deficits that will add $9 trillion to the long-term debt. So $12 trillion now, add $9 trillion, and that is $21 trillion of debt. It is unbelievable. We say it is unsustainable. That is a big word. What does ``unsustainable'' mean? It means that at some point this size debt is going to cripple the economic recovery that is just beginning. It is going to create hyperinflation because at some point people are going to stop buying our debt and we will have to raise interest to get more people to do so. At some point, if we don't fix this, the government is going to be left with no alternative but to print more money. That is the road to inflation, to lost jobs, and to a lower quality of life.

All these things we have done, which seemed necessary at the time, which are good, we have to pay for them or else this will not be the country we want it to be for succeeding generations. We are going to reach a point where we will not have the money to

do the first thing the Federal Government is supposed to do, which is to defend the security of the country, to provide for the common defense in what is, obviously, a dangerous world.

This is a precautionary tale, a precautionary vote. We are coming to a big debate on health care reform. I am for health care reform, but it is not the only thing I am for. In fact, at this moment in our history, it seems there are two things that matter more to our country than health care reform, although I wish we could do them all. One is to sustain the recovery from the deepest recession this country has had since the Great Depression of the 1930s. We are just beginning to crawl our way out of it. Gains in gross domestic product look as though they are coming, but it is fragile. It is not robust. Of course, almost 10 percent of the American people are out of work. In fact, it is higher than 10 percent. To me, the top priority we all should have--and I speak for myself--is to sustain the economic recovery to get people back to work, to keep our economy strong.

The second--and it is related to the first--is to begin to deal with the terrible imbalances in our Federal books that will compromise the economic recovery and cripple our economic future and the opportunity our children and grandchildren will have in the future. It means we have to make choices. In the coming health care debate, we have to make sure, as the President said, that there is not one dime added to the deficit as a result. We have to make sure that what we do within the context of health care reform not only doesn't increase the deficit and the long-term debt but doesn't add cost and increase premiums, for instance, on working people, middle-class families to pay for their health insurance and on businesses for which we need to provide every incentive to add workers, to grow, to sustain the recovery as it exists now.

Those are the standards I will apply to my own action on the health care reform proposal. I want to be for health care reform. I am for health care reform. I know the system needs to be changed. But this is a precautionary vote coming up because while the Medicare Physicians Fairness Act, which would repeal the sustainable growth rate formula, is substantively just, it is not paid for. It adds almost $250 billion to the debt for the coming years. I don't think we can do that anymore.

I am relieved to know, in terms of the immediate impact of my vote against cloture on this matter, that if cloture is not obtained, the health care reform bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee does take care of the problem with the sustainable growth rate for another year. That gives everybody--doctors and, most important, Medicare recipients--breathing room. We can't go on spending without paying for what we are spending, no matter how good or right it is, because there is a greater harm being done to our country.

The speed with which this Medicare Physician Fairness Act has come to the floor and taking it out of health care reform where it certainly belongs is also a precautionary tale.

I have said I am against the public option for health care insurance, essentially a government-owned health insurance plan, one, because we believe in a market economy and a regulatory government. We believe a market economy is the best way to create economic growth and wealth. It serves the American people very well. We also know that a market economy of itself doesn't, as somebody long ago said, have a conscience. So the government sets rules. We have oversight. We have regulatory rules. We have antitrust laws, for instance. That is the way we maintain fairness in the economy, in the marketplace. I don't remember another case where our answer to a concern about fairness in the marketplace--in this case, whether there is real competition in the health insurance business, whether the health insurance companies are being fair in their rates, et cetera, which are all reasonable questions--I don't remember another case where the answer was to create a government-owned corporation to compete with the private sector.

I spent 6 great years serving as attorney general of Connecticut. We sued a lot of businesses for unfair trade practices, for bid rigging, for price fixing. We appeared before regulatory commissions on behalf of the people of the United States, all sorts of businesses. But nobody ever had the idea that instead of us doing that, we should create a government oil company, a government car company, a government company to sell automobiles, a government company to take care of roof contracting. I could go on and on. One of the reasons is, particularly now, I don't have confidence that we can discipline ourselves from making it into another cause of the skyrocketing Federal deficit.

This bill is evidence of that. Here is a good cause, a group we all respect, the doctors, saying: We need this 10-year fix to the problem. And we just did it. This really ought to be done as part of overall Medicare reform. We have to have a commission. We have to have some system to deal with the great threats to our economic future. Medicare is going to run out of money in 2017, 8 years from now. Social Security is already dipping into the trust funds, taking more out than we are getting in. It may change in a year or two, but that is the way it is.

With respect to the sponsors of this proposal, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act, the doctors' associations that I know would like us to vote for it, I think 1 year is enough; 1 year paid for is enough. To do more than that now is wrong and irresponsible, and therefore I will vote against the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the Medicare Physician Fairness Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish pay tribute to CPT Benjamin A. Sklaver, U.S. Army, of Hamden, CT, who died of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol in Murcheh, Afghanistan, on October 2, 2009.

Captain Sklaver was assigned to Headquarters Company, 422nd Civil Affairs Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, of Greensboro, NC.

Ben Sklaver was a remarkable young man. He lived not only as a true patriot and defender of our Nation's principles of freedom and justice but as a compassionate ambassador of good will and humanitarian assistance to thousands in need.

Though he was called ``Captain'' by those soldiers around him, he was known as ``Moses Ben'' to thousands of Ugandans who now have clean water thanks to Ben's efforts. After serving in Africa and being struck by the number of deaths and illnesses resulting from dirty drinking water, he returned home and founded ClearWater Initiative. In the short time since its inception, with the aid of his parents Laura and Gary, ClearWater Initiative constructed wells for more than 6,500 people, primarily in northern Uganda.

Captain Sklaver served as a messenger of high justice and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his mother and father, Laura and Gary Sklaver, his brother Samuel, sister Anna, and fiance Beth, whom I have known since she was a baby because she is the daughter of my dear friends Jim and Barbara Segaloff.

To Ben's family and the people he touched during his life, we extend our

deepest appreciation for sharing this outstanding soldier and humanitarian with us. Ben was a true national hero, and his many contributions made significant and lasting impacts throughout the world. You may be justifiably proud of his contributions which extend above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for passage of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

First, I want to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Voinovich, as well as full Committee Chairman and Ranking Member Inouye and Cochran for all the hard work and consideration they brought to this bill.

The overall bill, which provides $42.776 billion in discretionary funding for DHS in fiscal year 2010, is $151 million less than the total provided in the Senate bill, but $159 million higher than the House funding total, and seems to me to be a fair compromise.

The resources provided in the bill are sufficient to carry out the Department's core missions of protecting the homeland against the threat of terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws, and preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

While there are many programs and activities at DHS deserving of funding above the level provided in this bill, we are in a time of serious economic challenge, and obviously tough choices had to be--and were--made in putting this legislation together.

This bill reflects the priorities of a department that has made great strides in the last 6 years but still faces many hurdles in fulfilling the mission Congress laid out for it in 2002. Senator Collins and I have worked together since DHS was created--alternating as chairman and ranking member of the primary authorizing committee for the Department--to strengthen the Department's ability to carry out its many national security assignments, to strengthen its management, facilitate its integration, and to hold its leadership accountable to an American public that has a right to be safe and secure within the borders of our own Nation.

In May, I wrote to Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Voinovich setting forth what I believed to be the most significant appropriations priorities for the Department, and I am grateful that a number of my recommendations have been incorporated into this bill. Let me briefly discuss a few sections of this bill that I believe are particularly important to our homeland security.

First, I am pleased the Appropriations Committee recognized that the Department's management and operations accounts need adequate funding if DHS is to succeed as it must. Secretary Napolitano has emphasized the need to create ``One DHS'' where the Department's many components are working closely together. To accomplish this, the offices for policy, human capital, acquisition, and information technology need additional resources, and all received significant increases in their budgets. The additional investment in acquisition oversight is particularly gratifying, as it will improve the Department's ability to oversee the $12 billion it spends each year on contracts with the private sector to better ensure our tax dollars are not wasted on bloated or ineffective programs.

Second, this bill, together with the funding provided in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental, significantly increases resources for combating violence on our southern border and includes the bulk of the $500 million increase in border security funding Senator Collins and I successfully added to the Senate budget resolution in March.

The FBI has said that the Mexican drug cartels are the number one organized crime threat in America today, replacing the Mafia. The kind of targeted and grisly violence we are seeing in Mexico is unprecedented. Thanks to this funding, DHS will be able to send almost 300 additional law enforcement officers to our ports of entry in order to conduct southbound inspections and interdict the illegal flow of cash and guns into Mexico that is fueling the cartels' ruthless attacks against the Mexican Government.

The funding will also add hundreds of ICE investigators to work on drug, currency, and firearms cases in the border region, and will expand the Border Enforcement Security Task Force fusion centers that ICE has established along the southwest border. This funding was badly needed to help Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies take down these sophisticated and dangerous drug and human smuggling networks. The Mexican drug cartels represent a clear and present threat to homeland security, and I remain fully committed to working with the administration to support our Federal law enforcement agencies in this crucial fight.

Third, this bill continues funding for the Homeland Security grant programs that our first responders need to prepare for acts of terrorism and natural disasters at the State, local, and tribal levels. Funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides basic preparedness funds to all States and is the largest of DHS's grant programs, remains steady from last year at $950 million, including $60 million for grants focused on border security, essentially the full level authorized by Congress in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Funds for Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, grants, which provide resources to the Nation's highest risk metropolitan areas, are increased by nearly $50 million over last year.

I am also pleased that funding for SAFER grants which assist local fire departments with the cost of hiring new firefighters was doubled to $420 million for fiscal year 2010. In this era of budget constraints, this funding will help ensure that communities are able to continue to staff their local firehouses.

The Appropriations Committee has also wisely restored a significant portion of the funding cut from the President's budget for assistance to firefighter grants. These grants fund essential equipment, vehicles and training for firefighters. However, the $390 million for these grants still represents a cut of nearly one-third below the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. I hope that next year the funding for this important program will be brought fully up to its previous level.

Fourth, this bill wisely supports the administration's request for a significant increase in funding for cybersecurity at DHS which has been identified

as one of our top national security priorities. The Department needs resources to protect Federal civilian networks from cyber-related threats and to work with the private sector to protect their networks and infrastructures. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is currently working to develop legislation that strengthens the government's authorities with respect to cybersecurity, so this funding decision is particularly important.

Fifth, this bill adds $25 million above last year's appropriation to support coordination, management and regulation of high-risk chemical facilities and brings DHS regulator staff to 246--an increase of 168 over the 2009 staffing level.

This bill makes other essential homeland security investments in port security, transit security, science and technology, and biosecurity, all of which are critical to the overall security of the Nation.

I believe that overall this is a strong and essential piece of legislation. I thank the leadership and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill and strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, on behalf of my cosponsor, Senator Sessions, I want to speak briefly on the amendment, and then we will withdraw our request for a rollcall. The chairman and ranking member have agreed to accept the amendment on a voice vote.

To put this as simplistically and briefly as I can, as we all know, the administration has decided to terminate the ground-based midcourse ballistic missile defense system that was to go in Poland and the Czech Republic and substitute for it the so-called SM-3 system, an alternative system, to provide defense from missiles that are of short and medium range that would be fired from Iran, to protect our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Senator Sessions and I have been concerned that in

doing so, we have put ourselves in a position where we do not have the guarantee of an adequate defense for that day and the next decade when Iran will have completed its development of a long-range missile, an intercontinental ballistic missile that it could fire at the United States.

Mr. President, you were too happy telling me that. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

I thank the Chair.

Bottom line, we have developed a ground-based intercepter that was to go in Poland. We have it. It is ready to be tested. The alternative the administration is proposing to give the United States of America, our homeland, protection from a missile fired from Iran is basically on paper. If it is fully developed, it will give us protection.

But Senator Sessions and I offer this amendment to make sure we set money aside so we continue to test the ground-based intercepter as a hedge against a failure of this alternative system, to be ready to protect the United States of America. That is why we offer this amendment, why I thank the leadership of the committee for being willing to accept it, and why I hope it will remain in conference when the bill returns to the Senate.

I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Sessions, my colleague from Alabama, for the statement he made and for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to join with him and a number of Senators--Senators Bayh, McCain, Inhofe, Vitter, Kyl, and Bennett--to introduce this amendment.

Mr. President, has the amendment actually been called up?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2616.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment is both a response to the administration's decision to cancel the ground-based midcourse missile defense system that was going to be in Poland and the Czech Republic and the subsequent decision of our friends and colleagues on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to withdraw a significant amount of money that the administration has said it still wanted to be preserved for the ground-based interceptors; that is, the interceptors that would have been launched from Poland at a missile presumably from Iran headed toward Europe, the Middle East, or particularly toward the United States.

Let me explain some background here as quickly as I can.

I was disappointed by the administrations's decision to cancel the planned deployment of this missile defense system to Poland and the Czech Republic. This system would have provided our European allies and others with a first line of defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that Iran already possesses and could fire at our allies in the region and in Europe. But the point I want to focus in on here is that the--I am going to call it the GMD--it is the ground-based midcourse missile defense system, the GMD for Poland and the Czech Republic would also have provided a layer of what the military missile experts call redundancy for the defense of the United States against an intercontinental ballistic missile fired from Iran at us. This is not just sort of pie-in-the-sky kind of hyperanxiety, imagination. We know that Iranians are developing long-range ballistic missiles and, as I will mention in a moment, experts predict they will have that capacity by the middle of the next decade, 2015.

The Polish-Czech system would have provided, in addition to a defense of Europe, a redundant defense of the United States. What does redundancy mean in this case? It means we have more than one line of defense to protect us. Those of us who are privileged to serve on the Armed Services Committee or Appropriations Committee and others know our military tries to build redundancy into equipment, for instance. I was up at the Sikorsky helicopter manufacturing facility in Stratford, CT, a little while ago. They are building a new model of helicopter. There are three or four levels of redundancy in that system, in that single helicopter. Why? So if one element breaks down, there are two or three other elements that will keep it going for the protection of our American military inside that helicopter.

In the same way, if an intercontinental ballistic missile is fired in 2015 toward the United States of America, we have one line of defense.

My friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, is here. I remember so well when he and I in the decade of the 1990s were trying to convince our colleagues to invest some money in developing a ballistic missile defense system. People said two things: No. 1, we were getting carried away with our fears and, No. 2, even if it was something to be concerned about, it was impossible to develop a ballistic missile defense system. I remember people said we are talking about trying to hit a bullet with a bullet.

Well, by God, American military, American innovation, American enterprise, American manufacturing have done it. We now have two ground-based missile defense systems, one in Alaska, one in California, to protect the American homeland from ballistic missile attack.

But we need redundancy. Just like the pilot and the crew in that Sikorsky helicopter need redundancy in that helicopter in case one of the lead systems goes, we want to know they have backup. If a missile is headed--well, probably with a nuclear weapon on it--toward the United States of America, I think we want some redundancy. We want more than one line of defense to protect our people and our country. Right now we just have that system in California and Alaska.

The ideal here, according to the people who think about this, is to have what they call a ``shoot look and shoot'' defense. A missile is fired from Iran. We gauge that it is heading toward the United States. The plan for the ground-based system in Poland and Czechoslovakia is we have our first shot at that missile heading toward us from Poland. Then we look. If we missed it, we have a second opportunity to knock it down from California or Alaska.

Unfortunately, the alternative system the administration has chosen, which has many positive aspects to it for the defense of Europe and the Middle East from Iranian short- and medium-range missiles, leaves most of the United States without that second shot at that incoming missile.

I do not have pictures with me from a report that the Congressional Budget Office did, a diagram, but the eastern part of the United States would have a redundant defense but everything pretty much west of the Mississippi would not. That is serious stuff. That is why I am disappointed by the decision that was made.

I want to explain a little more about how the administration has dealt with that concern about America's homeland and what I think we can do about it. They have proposed--there is a lot of technical language here; let's see if I can do it without confusing everybody-- that they would eventually develop--they have this SM-3 missile defense system that will be the basis of the alternative to the Polish-Czech defense, and that will be good for Europe and the Middle East. But the administration knows it leaves America without that second line of defense to a missile attack. So they are proposing to build block IIA and Block IIB interceptors as part of this so-called SM-3, advanced developments of that system which, they argue, could protect the United States of America from a long-range missile fired from Iran.

The problem is the Block IIA and IIB of this SM-3 missile do not exist. They are on paper. General Cartwright acknowledged so much in testimony to us. The ground-based interceptor that was going to go into Poland exists. It has been manufactured. It was scheduled to go into testing this year. In the proposal the administration has made, they say the SM-3 Block IIA, the first one that could possibly defend the United States, will not be available until 2018, at the earliest. The Block IIB, even more sophisticated, will be available in 2020 at the earliest.

Let me try to explain through a quote what worries me about that. Earlier this year, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, the then-commander of our European Command, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Bantz Craddock, stated this:

By 2015 Iran may also deploy an intercontinental ballistic

missile capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the

United States.

I know that is not a hard prediction, but that is the range that most people in the intelligence community, the military community, give, that sometime in the middle of the next decade, maybe a little later, the Iranians will have a long-range ballistic missile that can hit the United States of America.

Look, they can do better than that and may surprise us. We have been surprised before by the ballistic missile capabilities of our adversaries. The North Korean Taepodong test of 1998 comes to mind, of course, an unfortunate instance in which the North Korean Government tested a long-range missile 7 days after our intelligence community concluded that North Korea was another 3 years away from having that capability.

One of the reasons the administration has given for this change to the SM-3 defense is that it provides a quicker, better defense for Europe and the Middle East to short- and medium-range missiles, and the administration concludes the Iranians are making more progress more quickly on those

two, short- and medium-range missiles, than we thought they would. If they are making progress on the short- and medium-range missiles more quickly than we thought they would, they might also make progress more quickly on the long-range missile that could hit the United States of America.

Here is what I am worried about. I understand these are not exact numbers. By 2015, according to General Craddock, Iran may have a long- range ballistic missile that could hit the United States of America. At the earliest the SM-3 Block IIA missile, to give some protection, second line of defense to that missile, will not be available until 2018 at the earliest. Remember, this is now a paper missile. It has not been built, let alone tested. You have 3 years there, and probably more, where there will be a ballistic missile defense gap in which Iran could fire at us and only have to get by the ground-based missile defense systems in Alaska and California.

I think the administration, as testimony went on, understood our concern about that. In fact, when the Secretary of Defense Gates and General Cartwright rolled out the administration's new architecture for missile defense, canceling the Polish-Czech program and going to the new system, one of the points General Cartwright emphasized was that the administration would continue to develop the two-stage ground-based interceptor, the one that was supposed to go in Poland. He continued:

Those tests are funded, and will continue, so we will have

two ways to address this threat.

The following week Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and she also expressed a commitment to continue to develop this two-stage ground-based interceptor. Presumably the thought is it could be located at another site in Europe or perhaps somewhere on the east coast of the United States of America, to give that second line of defense to our entire country.

Secretary Flournoy said when they were discussing the canceling of the European missile defense program, Secretary Gates ``had to be convinced of a couple of things.'' Those are her words, namely that ``we could still''--I am quoting Secretary Flournoy--Secretary Gates wanted to know that:

we could still defend the United States homeland should an

Iranian ICBM threat develop earlier than what was predicted

[and] that we should have technical options should the

development of later Blocks . . . of SM-3 missile, either

fail or be delayed.

That is exactly what we have been talking about.

In response to these requirements, Secretary Gates told his staff-- again I quote Secretary Flournoy:

we are going to continue the development of the 2-stage

ground-based interceptor as a technological hedge--

against the failure to adequately develop these alternative long- range systems, the missile defense systems against an Iranian threat.

Here is the problem. Despite this administration's statements of support for continued development and testing of the two-stage ground- based interceptor, the Defense appropriations bill before us has reduced funding for that program by $151 million.

I gather the Department of Defense has already appealed this reduction, arguing that it would force the cancellation or postponement of a pair of two-stage GBI tests soon, and that losing this funding could render the entire ground-based mid-course defense system less effective.

Now comes the amendment Senator Sessions and I and our cosponsors have offered, which would restore the funding by allowing the Missile Defense Agency to access no less than $50 million and up to the original $151 million of funds provided in fiscal year 2009-2010 Defense Appropriations Act for a long-range missile defense system and use those funds to support the continued development and testing of the two-stage ground-based interceptor. The amendment would also fence funding for the two-stage program to protect it from being reprogrammed and require a report detailing specific options for how the two-stage GBI can be used to enhance the defense of the United States against the emerging threat of Iranian long-range missiles.

Bottom line, this acknowledges on my part the disappointment at the decision the administration has made. It doesn't try to turn it around, but says OK, under the new administration program we are going to do at least as good, maybe a little better, at protecting Europe and the Middle East, but we are going to do worse at protecting the United States of America from a long-range missile, which the Iranians particularly are working so hard to develop. So let's at least keep testing this missile we have got, the ground-based interceptor, as a hedge so we are ready in case these other alternatives don't work, to put it in the ground in Europe or perhaps in the east coast of the United States to give the American people the two lines of defense they deserve against an Iranian long-range missile, and thereby to close what will now be a ballistic missile defense gap for the United States of America that will otherwise develop in the middle of the next decade and go on, in my opinion, for at least 3 years.

Again, I thank Senator Sessions. It is always a pleasure to work with him. This is complicated stuff. But it is the heart of our national security in the next decade. I hope my colleagues will support our amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to say to my friend from Alabama that the leadership, the manager of the bill, Senator Inouye, has agreed, if we modify the amendment as we had agreed to modify it to say: Not less than $50 million, and up to the $151 million could be available for research, development, test, and evaluation of the two- stage ground-based interceptor missile, that the committee would accept our amendment by voice vote--if that is OK with my friend from Alabama.

I am glad to do that. But at the moment, I ask unanimous consent that we modify our amendment with the changes that I believe are at the desk at this time.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a poem written by Mr. Albert Carey Caswell. Mr. Caswell is a valued tour guide of the U.S. Capitol whose great enthusiasm and love of our country has inspired him to compose over 500 poems. Mr. Caswell wrote this poem in tribute to the remarkable life and work of our beloved late colleague Senator Ted Kennedy.

The information follows.

Upon This Floor

Upon this floor . . .

From our forefathers so bore . . .

A dream, for all our futures to ensure . . .

Now in history, the world's greatest of all democracies . . .

Upon this floor . . .

For as the years have played out . . .

The United States Senate, would so tout!

Some of the greatest, from Clay, Calhoun to Webster no doubt

. . .

Men of conscience and of faith, who would so debate . . .

Who but in their hands, were but put our nation's future

fate.

Upon this floor!

Who all but for the greater good, did but all they could . .

.

Giants one and all, who but heard our nation's call . . .

Her call to public service, upon this floor . . .

And now as the years have gone by . . .

A new great, a new giant has so arrived . . .

A name we now so utter with tear in eye . . .

Edward M. Kennedy, who upon this floor spoke so eloquently!

Whose word, was one to be cherished and respected!

The most effective Senator, as John McCain expressed this!

For legislation can be a blood sport . . .

For only those of great heart and courage, will like lions

roar!

And yet, in all that heat . . . it takes a leader who can

make minds meet!

As was this man, so charming and sweet!

And leave their most hallowed marks upon this floor . . .

With Teddy's passing, I rise to state . . .

Without objection, we have lost one of the truly greats!

There will be no quorum call, or voice vote expected!

Or a bill, for The President to sign . . . stating of such

perfection!

For he, was A Man For All Seasons . . .

Who knew how to debate, and more importantly how to reason!

A giant among mere men, who with his principles would so

splendidly and steadfastly defend!

Motivating women and men, with but his heart of a champion .

. .

Time and time again, upon this floor . . .

Ted, you are gone, but not forgotten . . .

For history and heaven so holds a place, for the champions of

the downtrodden!

For artists, who know how to so create . . . and legislate!

Whether, with a voice of a lion making the Senate quake!

Or like a fine surgeon, so delicately legislation you'd

manipulate . . .

Yea, Teddy . . . Daniel Webster ain't got nothing on you!

And in the Senate reception room . . .

And upon this floor my son . . . history will you so view!

One of the greatest who's who!

Now, up in Heaven . . . it's the greatest of debates between

Daniel and you!

In honor of and in memory of Senator Edward M. Kennedy--

Albert Carey Caswell.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the exceptional life and service of SGT William Cahir of Alexandria, VA, who died last month while serving with the Fourth Civil Affairs Group in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. Sergeant Cahir was a patriot, wholly committed to the values and principles of the United States. We will remember Bill Cahir for his courage, his generosity of spirit, and his commitment to the very best ideals of this country.

In the last 8 years since 9/11, our homeland has not been attacked. For this, we owe deep gratitude to brave men and women like Sergeant Bill Cahir who made the heroic commitment to defend our liberty and security. In the aftermath of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, Sgt. Cahir left his job as a journalist and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves. At 34 years old, he was certainly not the youngest reserve officer, but he ranked among the most skilled and effective. I would like to include in the record a tribute to Sergeant Cahir written by Dan Gerstein who worked with me here in the Senate for years; Dan's piece eloquently captures the tremendous service, character, and spirit of Bill Cahir.

By all accounts, Sergeant Bill Cahir was a talented and loyal member of the Marine Corps. His fellow marines remember him as a man who would have risked his life for anyone on their team and did on countless occasions. His positive attitude and commitment to the challenging job at hand inspired his colleagues, even in the most difficult of circumstances. Bill Cahir was, without question, a force for good in the country that he loved.

Sergeant Cahir served two tours in Iraq during some of the most challenging periods of the war for U.S. forces. He was one among those brave men and women who took part in the ``surge'' strategy in Anbar Province in 2007. It was the courage and skill of marines like Sergeant Cahir that helped transform the security situation in Iraq and put the U.S. mission there on the track toward success.

Each day, countless Americans offer their service so that we might enjoy freedom and security. It is our duty to remain dedicated to the causes for which men and women like Sergeant Cahir have given their last full measure of devotion--the cause of freedom, the cause of security, and the cause of victory in our necessary war against terror.

We have lost a true patriot and a great American, but his life and service will never fade from our memory. My condolences and prayers are with Sergeant Cahir's wife, Rene Browne, and the entire Cahir family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article titled ``A Real Patriot Act'' by Dan Gerstein be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the exceptional life, character, and work of Irving Kristol. Irving was an inventive entrepreneur of ideas who was boundless in his wit, creativity, and insight. Though we have lost an intellectual giant, we will continue to cherish and learn from Irving Kristol's rich legacy for years to come.

Irving understood that ideas have consequences--and his immense influence was the result of his unique ability to shape the American political landscape with the power of creative thought. He harnessed this power most impressively in his writing, editing, and publishing. Beginning in 1942 when he cofounded his first magazine--Enquiry: A Journal of Independent Radical Thought--this began a tradition of launching small magazines with immense influence. He became instrumental in opinion journals like Commentary, Encounter, the New Leader, the National Interest, and, of course, the Public Interest, which he founded with Daniel Bell. Though these publications did not enjoy large numbers of subscriptions, Irving Kristol valued the quality of his readership over the quantity and maintained that he could change the world with a circulation of a few hundred. And he did.

He lived the life of the creative mind and inspired many aspiring thinkers and writers to join him in this pursuit. One among them, the noted scholar James Q. Wilson, wrote that ``Irving Kristol not only helped changed the country, he changed lives. He certainly changed mine.'' Irving inspired in many Americans a desire for honest inquiry and a healthy dose of skepticism that humbled and better prepared us to accept the immense difficulty of making useful changes in public policy.

Though he was a force in intellectual circles around the world, Irving was also a champion for the well-being of ordinary Americans. His mission as a neoconservative, he once said, was to ``explain to the American people why they are right, and to the intellectuals why they are wrong.'' Irving was a genuine patriot who served bravely in the Second World War and eloquently and forcefully defended America's values and principles. It came as no surprise to me that President George W. Bush awarded Irving Kristol the nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in 2002.

Hadassah and I offer our condolences and prayers to Irving's wife Gertrude, his children, Bill and Elizabeth, and the entire Kristol family.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Leonid Nevzlin on his recent appointment to serve as international chair of the United Jewish Communities UJC/ Jewish Federations of North America 2009 General Assembly in Washington, DC, beginning on November 8 of this year. Leonid's leadership in the Jewish community and his commitment to so many philanthropic causes around the world make him a natural for this important role. I am pleased to commend him today on this honor.

The UJC/Jewish Federations of North America plays an extraordinary role in inspiring a spirit of philanthropy and service. It has brought notable energy to the Save Darfur movement and continues to promote effective lobbying on a broad range of social justice issues. The UJC's General Assembly, which is held annually, is an event that brings people from across North America and the world together to discuss and to plan the organization's important work.

Leonid Nevzlin has shown a steadfast commitment to human rights, social justice, and democracy in his life and philanthropic work. Born and educated in Russia, Leonid began his philanthropic efforts by establishing the Moscow Jewish Cultural Center and worked to develop a number of Jewish educational programs that serve communities throughout Russia. As president of the Russian Jewish Congress, Leonid showed his leadership on a range of noteworthy causes, including preserving Jewish culture.

Leonid continued this service when he moved to Israel and established a

charitable foundation dedicated to preserving and promoting Jewish heritage globally. Among other initiatives, Leonid founded a research center at Hebrew University in Jerusalem that adopts a multidisciplinary approach to the study of Jewish history. He has carried his commitment to education and cross-cultural exchange beyond universities and continues to have a meaningful impact on Jewish communities worldwide through the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, the Birthright Israel and Masa Israel Journey Programs, and his leadership in the redevelopment of Beit Hatfutsot, the Museum of the Jewish People, in Tel Aviv.

The Torah tells us that ``Deeds of giving are the very foundation of the world.'' Leonid Nevzlin has built a strong foundation for so many Jewish communities around the world through his deeds of giving. He inspires us with his philanthropic and entrepreneurial spirit, and I congratulate him today on a well-deserved appointment.

Mr. President, I rise--and soon will be joined by Senate colleagues, Senators McCain and Graham--to speak about the war in Afghanistan.

For the first time since 9/11, a national debate is underway about the future of our fight in Afghanistan. This is appropriate. Whenever our Nation sends our brave men and women in uniform into harm's way, it is both natural and necessary that we should have a vigorous national conversation about why we are doing so, whether it is necessary for our national security, and what the right strategy is to achieve our objectives. The truth is, we have not had such a debate since the decision was made unanimously to go into Afghanistan after 9/11 to overthrow the Taliban, which had given safe haven to al-Qaida, which planned and trained for the attacks on us in Afghanistan.

The most direct answer to the question of why we are fighting in Afghanistan and why we must succeed there is exactly that: Afghanistan is where the attacks of 9/11 originated, where al-Qaida made its sanctuary under the Taliban, and where the same Taliban is on the offensive today in Afghanistan and has seized the initiative with the clear aim of gaining control of all of Afghanistan, or major parts of it, and once again providing sanctuary for al-Qaida. It remains self- evident to be a clear and vital national interest of the United States to prevent this from happening. It is also because, although Afghanistan may seem geographically remote, we found out on September 11, 2001, in this modern technological world where great spaces are passed over quickly, that it is not remote when it comes to the safety and security of the American people, and Afghanistan is in the heart of a region in which we have critical national interests.

The fact is, Afghanistan and Pakistan are today at the epicenter of global Islamist extremism and terrorism, with which we are at war. This is the test of our age so far as our security is concerned.

I will be glad to yield.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona, I was surprised and puzzled by that statement of the President today, particularly because the President, I think, has been very strong about Afghanistan. He has called Afghanistan a war of necessity--for the reason that I said, because we cannot allow al-Qaida and the Taliban to come back into control. Forgive the analogy, but anymore than after World War II if the Nazis had somehow reassembled and attempted to retake control of part or all of Germany, we would have sat back? We simply cannot let that happen.

We also know if Afghanistan falls, if we accept defeat or for some reason retreat from Afghanistan, it will profoundly destabilize neighboring nuclear Pakistan and encourage the Islamist extremists throughout that region and the world.

My friend from Arizona is right. There is a sense of urgency that he and our colleague and friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham, who is on the floor, saw when we visited with General McChrystal and Admiral Eikberry and the Afghan national security leadership a month ago. Admiral Mullen yesterday said we have lost the initiative in Afghanistan. It is why President Obama deployed the additional 21,000 troops in March and announced this new strategy.

I will be glad to.

I think the statement by our top uniformed military officer, ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflects what General McChrystal and everybody on the ground in Afghanistan has said, this is an urgent matter. The President recognized that when he sent the 21,000 additional troops.

Most everybody in this Chamber and in the House will accept the fact that it would have a devastating effect on America's national security and the security of the world if we lost Afghanistan. But then comes the question--incidentally, President Obama himself said this in a statement he made a while ago. He said we cannot muddle through in Afghanistan. It requires a decisive commitment to achieve victory.

We learned that in Iraq. Counterinsurgency, such as we are involved in in Afghanistan, is manpower intensive.

That is the question the administration and we here in Congress have. If you agree it is in the vital national security interests of the United States to succeed in Afghanistan, then you have to decide how we can best do that. To me the answer is clear. We need more troops there, American troops, while the Afghans are being trained to take over themselves. They cannot just be trainers. As Admiral Mullen made clear yesterday, they need to be combat troops. They need to be combat troops because, without the security that the American combat troops can singularly and uniquely provide in the short term, there cannot even be training of the Afghans. There certainly cannot be governance as we know it and there cannot be a prospect for economic development.

We need to make this decision soon. Weather has an effect.

I will yield to my friend from South Carolina.

That unfortunately is true.

I am totally in agreement with my friend from South Carolina. This in fact is the lesson we should have learned and I think did learn in Iraq. When did the number of American casualties in Iraq begin to go down? It was when we sent more American troops there. Because the addition of American troops, and a new strategy--not just the numbers but a new strategy, a strategy quite similar to the new strategy we have in Afghanistan--protects the civilian population, gives them the confidence that we are not leaving. When you do that, something significant happens. It happened in Iraq and it will happen in Afghanistan. When we commit more troops, the people in the country decide we are not going to cut and run.

The Afghan people despise the Taliban. The progress the Taliban is making in controlling more land in Afghanistan is totally the result of violence and intimidation. The Afghan people, however, are watching us and wondering are we going to begin to pull back? Should they hedge their bets? Should they be careful not to join the fight against the Taliban?

If we begin to sound an uncertain trumpet--you remember that phrase from Scriptures: ``If the sound of the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow into battle?'' I will tell you one group that will not follow into battle if America begins to sound an uncertain trumpet in Afghanistan is the people of Afghanistan. We have a desire now that most everybody here shares. Let's break some of the Taliban away, the ones who are not zealots, the ones who, in a sense are foot soldiers, followers. They are the comparable group to the Sons of Iraq in Anbar Province. But when did the Sons of Iraq decide they were going to turn against al-Qaida? When we convinced them we were going to stay in Anbar and protect them.

In fact, how did we convince them? By sending more troops. It was after that the Iraqi security forces grew in capability, that the American casualties went down.

I would say to my friend, he has touched a very important point here. The only way we will reduce American casualties, which are now going up, and create an environment in which more Afghans will join the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida is for us to give them the confidence we are not going to leave. The best way we can do that and provide the security to do that is by sending more troops.

Incidentally, a final word and then I will yield to my friend from South Carolina. There are those, including my dear friend and respected chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, who are focused on sending more Americans only for training purposes, not combat troops. But here is something else we learned in Iraq. The fact is you need more than trainers to train the indigenous forces. One of the great tactical breakthroughs in Iraq that General McChrystal wants to put into effect in fact has begun in Afghanistan: There is no better way to train the Afghan forces than to partner them with American and coalition forces in Afghanistan. It is not just sending somebody to a school run by Americans to train them; it is having the Afghan units out there in the field, side by side, working with, fighting with, living with American soldiers that is the best source of training.

I couldn't agree with my friends from South Carolina and Arizona more. The situation in Afghanistan is a vital national interest. Everybody agrees with that. You can't listen to ADM Mike Mullen yesterday and decide the initiative is ours now. It is not. It is slipping away from us. The best way to regain the initiative is to send as many troops as we can. Listening to General McChrystal, a lot of them have to be combat troops, and to do so as quickly as possible.

I said ``the weather'' a moment ago. The winters are harsh in Afghanistan. That is not to say all conflict stops, but there is a fighting season in Afghanistan. This year, we did not have adequate forces there until the new wave the President, President Obama, deployed got there. They didn't get there until June. We were together in Helmut Province with GEN Larry Nickelson, an extraordinary Marine general, a patriot, great soldier, great fighter, great leader. Those Marines are turning back the tide against the Taliban there because they have the numbers.

And that is exactly what we have to do throughout the country. I thank my friend. I am glad to yield the floor to him at this time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time that expires be equally charged to both sides.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to raise some concerns that I have with the Travel Promotion Act and to suggest some modifications to it that I feel may be necessary to ensure our security at the Nation's ports of entry. While I support the majority leader's efforts to promote travel to the United States, I believe that there are some security-related issues with the Travel Promotion Act that need to be addressed. I realize that, in order to move this bill, there won't be any amendments offered on the floor of the Senate. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to have a frank discussion about the potential unintended consequences that portions of this bill might have for our Nation's security. Because it is a good step forward, I plan to support this bill today. But I will continue to pursue legislative options to ensure that some of these peripheral issues are addressed.

Allow me to provide some background. In the 110th Congress, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs created the Electronic System of Travel Authorization known as ESTA, within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, as part of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The electronic system was developed to address our main concerns about the Visa Waiver Program, VWP; namely, that the first time Customs and Border Protection, CBP, encounters many travelers from visa waiver countries is when they land at a U.S. airport--far too late to prevent a terrorist incident in flight.

The idea behind ESTA was to register travelers coming to America electronically before they leave their home countries. That way we would be able to detect potential terrorists attempting to enter the U.S. from VWP countries--like Richard Wright, ``the shoe bomber''-- before they actually board an airplane bound for the U.S.

The 9/11 Commission Act also authorizes, but does not require, the collection of a fee to pay for the administration of the system. To date, DHS has elected not to impose a fee because of concerns about the adverse reaction ESTA requirements have generated in Europe. Indeed, the lack of a fee was one of the key reasons that the European Union ruled that ESTA was not a visa, and decided not to impose a visa requirement on U.S. travelers.

The Travel Promotion Act, however, requires DHS to impose a minimum fee of $10 per travel authorization to be used for a Travel Promotion Fund. We should expect the European Union--EU--and other VWP nations to impose a similar fee on U.S. travelers in the future. Additionally, because citizens of the EU do not use credit cards online as often as Americans, it will be challenging for DHS to set up the infrastructure to collect this fee in a way that facilitates travel.

Given these realities, I am concerned that the bill gives DHS no funding to set up the infrastructure that would be needed to collect this fee. DHS, therefore, would have to divert funds away from homeland security programs to pay for setting up and collecting this travel promotion fee. Promoting travel to the United States is surely a worthy cause, but we should make sure that the Department has the resources to administer it, so that it does not come at the expense of other programs that keep Americans safe.

There is a simple way to address this problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $10 fee would generate $180 million a year. The bill caps the funding that would be used for promoting travel at $100 million. This means that the fee could generate excess funding of as much as $80 million a year. The bill does not give any of this excess funding to DHS for implementing the ESTA system and the fee mandated by the legislation. Instead, it would actually require DHS to pay out of its own pocket the costs of implementing the fee. We should make sure that any excess funding is made available to DHS in order to ensure that funding is not diverted from important security programs to implement this fee.

S. 1023 also seeks to give the Director of Travel Promotion in the Department of Commerce authority over CBP functions by requiring that he ``ensure that arriving international visitors are generally welcomed with accurate information and in an inviting manner'' and that he ``enhance the entry and departure experience for international visitors.'' The CBP port of entry is a unique security environment over which DHS, not the Department of Commerce, has and should continue to have ultimate jurisdiction.

Prior to 9/11, consular officers often faced pressure to adjudicate visa applications more quickly even though some applications may have been incomplete. CBP Officers at ports of entry should not have to face similar pressures to speed up the processing of incoming travelers at the expense of security considerations. In order to ensure that there is no confusion, we should clarify that the role of the Director of Travel Promotion at the Nation's ports of entry is strictly advisory, and that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have control over the processes through which travelers are admitted into the United States.

Lastly, S. 1023 would establish a Travel Promotion Corporation charged, in part, with disseminating information about our Nation's visa and entry requirements through a Web site and through promotional campaigns abroad.

This is a worthy endeavor, and these campaigns surely will help to educate foreign travelers about the steps they need to take before travelling to the United States. As, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I understand that our visa and entry requirements can be very confusing. And the last thing we want is for a publicly funded entity to use taxpayer dollars to disseminate inaccurate information.

I believe that the Travel Promotion Corporation should be required to submit the information it plans to disseminate for a factual review by the Departments of Homeland Security and State. The Homeland Security and State Departments would have absolutely no editorial role in the types of campaigns the Corporation develops. To avoid unnecessary delays, DHS and State should then be required to return their comments to the Corporation within 10 business days.

I believe that the bill we are currently considering is important, and that its goal of promoting travel to the U.S. is laudable, especially when travel and tourism to our country are so important to our economy. I will vote for it today. Moving forward, however, I believe that we must ensure that the bill is implemented in a way that does not adversely impact the security of our Nation, by ensuring that it does not force DHS to rob Peter to pay Paul. I understand that, in order to get this bill passed today, amendments cannot be offered on the floor. I want to reiterate, however, that I plan on pursuing these objectives in future legislation . I think we can achieve the dual goals of promoting travel to our country and enhancing security--I look forward to working with the majority leader and other supporters of this legislation going forward.

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