Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the frustration expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma. Our committee, last year, had extensive hearings looking at waste, fraud, and abuse in the spending of funds in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We documented over a billion dollars of waste or fraudulent spending. So the Senator has put his finger on a very important problem.

I am very concerned about the practical impact of the Senator's amendment. The Senator, at one point, had a second-degree amendment, which he has decided not to offer, which addressed part of my concern. The Senator has said this morning that the Department would have 18 months to comply with the provisions of the Improper Payments Act. But, in fact, the

plain language of his amendment says the Secretary shall not award any grants or distribute any grant funds under any grant program under this act until the certification, risk assessment, and estimates that his amendment calls for have been completed. The result of that, because our legislation includes some grant money for interoperability under the Commerce Committee provisions in the bill, for this year, is that it halts those funding programs, those grant programs. The result is to penalize first responders, State and local governments, for the faults that are largely from the Department of Homeland Security. I don't think that is fair. That is why the National Governors Association and the National Emergency Managers Association strongly oppose this amendment.

In addition, the Department has expressed great concern about this amendment. In fact, the Department's Office of General Counsel has written to me that they ``strongly oppose the amendment prohibiting the Secretary from awarding any grant, or distributing any grant funds, until the Secretary has submitted the certifications and other analyses in response to Senator Coburn's amendment.'' So it is not just the Governors and the emergency managers. It is also the Department of Homeland Security that strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Delaware is actually more under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee than the Homeland Security Committee. Nevertheless, in the absence of a member of the Commerce Committee on the Senate floor, I want to express my concern about the amendment.

As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to require that hazardous materials on rail cars be routed around high-threat areas, with some exceptions.

The problem is that the Commerce Committee title on rail security already has a section that addresses hazardous materials by requiring a mitigation plan that can include rerouting but only when the homeland security advisory system is at a high or severe level of threat or when specific intelligence indicates that there is a specific or imminent threat.

I think this amendment, while well-intentioned, creates all sorts of practical problems. The Chamber of Commerce, which is rating this as a key vote, lists some of those that I want to read from a letter that we received from the Chamber today. The letter reads:

The Biden amendment, which would require mandatory

rerouting of shipments of hazardous materials around high

threat corridors, would not reduce risk to homeland security.

It would only reallocate risk among population centers. In

fact, the amendment would actually increase risk by either

eliminating routes that provide optimal overall safety and

security, or by adding hundreds of miles and additional

days to the journeys of shipments of hazardous materials

via less direct routes.

In other words, if we are causing this hazardous material to be on its journey far longer because it is not going by

the more direct route, that could in fact increase the problems or the chances of the hazardous material being attacked. The letter goes on to point out that the railroads have been working with the Federal Government, with chemical manufacturers, and with consumers to explore the use of coordinated routing arrangements to reduce mileage and time in the transit of highly hazardous materials.

This amendment seems to be going in the opposite direction. Another one of my colleagues has raised the issue of chlorine shipments to wastewater treatment plants. Those shipments need to be made. It raises a lot of practical questions about how to move this material. Another colleague raised the issue to me of whether this would result in more trucks on our highways carrying hazardous materials.

So I think that while I agree with the overall intent of the amendment, I am much more comfortable with the approach taken by the Commerce Committee--a committee which, unfortunately, I don't serve on, so I don't have the level of expertise that its members have in talking about this issue. I do expect some members of the Commerce Committee to come to the floor and debate this issue.

I do want my colleagues to know that the distinguished Senator's amendment is controversial, that it may have unintended consequences. Based on my knowledge of the issue, I hope it will be defeated.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I do expect additional Members on my side of the aisle to come and debate this issue.

I wish to clarify that the language, as I read it, in the Senator's amendment, is not discretionary, it is mandatory. It does allow for some certain significant exceptions for the Department to make findings on, but it clearly says:

The regulations issued under this section shall--

(1) except as provided in--

The subsections part--

provide that any rail shipment containing high hazard

materials be rerouted around any high threat corridor.

So I don't see it as giving the Department great discretion if that determination is made because of the word ``shall,'' which is not permissive, it is mandatory. There are some exceptions later which the Senator has referred to, such as the origination point or point of destination being within the high-threat corridor. But as I read the amendment, it pretty clearly calls for rerouting.

I wanted to clarify that issue. Maybe I misunderstood the Senator from Delaware, but I thought he was saying it did not require rerouting.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, these amendments have been cleared on this side of the aisle, and I do not object.

Reserving the right to object, I may have missed the complete unanimous-consent request because I did not have that final page of the agreement. Will the Senator inform me whether there is a vote ordered on the Biden amendment.

I have no objection.

Madam President, I move to table the Biden amendment.

Madam President, I move to table the Biden amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I first want to thank our colleagues for their cooperation in moving forward this very important piece of legislation. When the 9/11 Commission completed its report and made its findings to Congress, the Homeland Security Committee, which I chaired at the time, worked very hard to produce a major overhaul of our intelligence community--in fact, the most sweeping changes in more than 50 years.

That legislation, for example, created the Director of National Intelligence and also established the National Counterterrorism Center, which brings together analysts from the 15 agencies involved in intelligence gathering and analysis. We took a major step forward.

Now we are on the verge of finishing the job. I salute the chairman of the committee, Senator Lieberman, for making this legislation the top priority of our committee under his chairmanship. The legislation is going to help implement the unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. As I said, most of the recommendations were included in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. But there were some significant ones that were not completed. Thus, this legislation improves intelligence and information sharing, and it authorizes the Homeland Security Grant Program, which has been so important in improving the capabilities of our communities and States which are, after all, our partners in improving homeland security.

We worked very hard, the chairman and I and the rest of the committee members, to devise a formula that would be fair to all States, that would allocate the majority of the funding based on an analysis of risk, vulnerability, and consequences but also ensure that each and every State receive a predictable, steady level of funding so that each State can be improved and have a basic preparedness level.

I think we struck the right balance in that area. This bill would authorize a bit over $3 billion for each of the next 3 years for this new Homeland Security Grant Program. Included in that program is an emphasis on prevention. We

all are very focused on recovery and response in the event of a terrorist attack, but we believe it is very important to also focus on preventing attacks from happening in the first place. Our legislation would do that by providing that at least 25 percent of the overall funding for the urban areas and State Homeland Security Grant Programs must be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.

Another important section of this bill creates a program to deal with communications equipment interoperability. We know that lives were lost on 9/11 because the various first responders could not communicate with one another. As a result, firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel lost their lives and suffered injuries. Much to our dismay, we also found as part of our investigation into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina that exactly those same interoperability problems were occurring in Louisiana, in particular. We simply must tackle this problem. It is too big a problem and too expensive a problem for States and communities to do on their own. That is why we have a partnership, a grant program that would be administered by FEMA and dedicated to improving the survivability and the interoperability of communications equipment used by our courageous first responders and emergency managers.

Again, that program would authorize $3.3 billion over the next 5 years.

The bill also makes a number of important improvements to prevent terrorists from traveling to our country; to strengthen the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; to improve private sector preparedness, since we know that 85 percent of critical infrastructure is in the private sector; and to improve transportation security planning and overall security of our transportation system.

It has been a great pleasure to work with the chairman and the members of our committee, as well as the Commerce Committee and other Members who have been interested, to bring this bill to the floor, and I believe it will help make our Nation safer.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of the homeland security staffers on the Republican side who worked so hard on this bill be printed in the Record at this point.

I also wish to add my voice in thanks to the families of the victims of 9/11. They have truly been the committee's inspiration as we worked on these issues for the last 4 years.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I think this is a fair agreement that will allow us to finish the bill on Tuesday, and I have no objection.

Mr. President, this is a very important bill. Many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission were enacted as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and I have worked so hard to author. But there is some unfinished business, and this bill will help make our country safer and it will strengthen our protections against terrorist attacks.

As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with the Senator from Connecticut, whose leadership I so admire. I am optimistic we have now finally put this important bill on a path to completion, and I look forward to working to accomplish that goal on Tuesday.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Louisiana will yield so I may respond to her question.

The Senator from Louisiana has been tireless in her advocacy for both of these amendments. The junior Senator from Louisiana has also talked to me about these amendments, as has the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez. I have been working hard with the chairman to try to address the concerns of the Senators from Louisiana.

As the chairman has indicated, there is good news on one of the Senator's amendments. The amendment that proposes the loan forgiveness authority for the President is on the list of amendments we are optimistic about clearing on Tuesday. The other amendment, with the 10- percent match eliminated, is more problematic because there are some outstanding objections to it.

I know the Senator from Louisiana has indicated a willingness to amend her amendment and put a 2-year sunset on that provision. That helps a great deal with one of the objections we have on our side of the aisle. I don't know whether we are going to be able to clear the other objections, but I certainly pledge to keep working with the Senator from Louisiana and the committee's chairman to accomplish that goal.

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

Madam President, although it appears nothing has been happening today, in fact, there have been extensive negotiations going on behind the scenes with a list of amendments from our side and from the Senator's side. I know for a fact the Senator's amendment is on that list and is part of the discussions that are underway.

But the system of trying to clear these amendments is a very time- consuming one. There are Senators on the Democratic side who have objected to clearing the list and there are Senators on my side of the aisle who have objected to clearing the list.

But I can tell the Senator I personally did ask for the Senator's amendment, as did the manager of the bill, to be added to the list for those where we would try to either clear them through unanimous consent or we would try to get a rollcall vote. I personally have no objection to having a rollcall vote on the Senator's amendment or accepting the Senator's amendment, but we have not yet completed the clearance process. The reason I have remained on the floor is in the hope that clearance will occur. But I will tell the Senator there are problems clearing the joint list on both sides of the aisle.

Madam President, I will point out we do have professional objectors on both sides. We have people who are eager to object to amendments going forward. But the Senator from Connecticut and I are working hard to try to clear a list that could be accepted by unanimous consent without rollcall votes, and then I have just confirmed with my staff what I said a few moments ago, that there is a second list we are trying to clear for rollcall votes. I am not saying the Senator's amendment has cleared the UC list, but I am telling the Senator his amendment remains on a list we are trying to develop to have rollcall votes.

Now, this is a difficult procedure because of the power of any Senator to throw a monkey wrench into the works, and we have a lot of monkey wrenches and other tools that are being thrown by Senators on both sides of the aisle. But I do want to assure the Senator his amendment is on a list the Senator from Connecticut and I are trying to clear for votes.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, too, want to commend the Senator from Mississippi for putting forth a commonsense solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves. The Senator from Connecticut and I have been on the floor all day long. We have worked with our colleagues. We have come up with a group of amendments which we believe could be cleared by unanimous consent because they are not controversial. Yet can we clear that package? No. We cannot because even though there is no objection to the specific amendments in that package, they are being held up by Senators who want other amendments or are trying to ensure or block votes on other proposals.

We also came up with a set of amendments tonight--two Democratic amendments, two Republican amendments--that warrant rollcall votes. Two on each side, what could be fairer? Yet we cannot get rollcall votes.

If Members are opposed to amendments, come to the floor, debate them, and vote no, but do not prevent us from moving forward on a very important bill.

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on the amendment I have offered with a number of my colleagues--Senator Stevens, Senator Warner, Senator Coleman, Senator Sununu, and Senator Voinovich--that would provide certain employment rights for the Transportation Security Administration's employees.

Throughout our committee's work on homeland security, it has become clear the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, to impending crises is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to an effective response is flexibility--putting assets and, more importantly, personnel where they are needed when they are needed with a minimum of bureaucracy.

My questions about giving TSA employees the right to collectively bargain center around whether this right would hamper flexibility at a critical time. I have long been a supporter of Federal employees throughout my time in the Senate. I have worked in the public sector virtually my entire life, and I know how hard individuals at all levels of Government work to provide services to protect us and to serve us.

It is my hope we can forge a compromise that preserves the flexibility--we have learned in classified briefings from Kip Hawley, the head of TSA--that is needed while at the same time recognizing that TSA employees deserve more employment rights. These employees are working hard every day to protect us. We should protect them.

The TSA is charged with a great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation Security Act provided the TSA Administrator with workforce flexibilities. These flexibilities allow the TSA Administrator to shift resources and to implement new procedures daily, in some cases hourly, in response to emergencies, canceled flights, and changing circumstances. This authority enables TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce.

This is not just theoretical. We have already seen the benefits of this authority and this flexibility. In both the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in Great Britain last year, TSA moved quickly to change the nature of its employees' work-- and even the location of that work--in response.

Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area and many local TSOs were unable to get to the airport, TSA acted quickly, flying in volunteer TSOs from Las Vegas to cover the shifts, and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers who were transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without this ability to deploy needed personnel where they were needed, on a moment's notice, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential.

An even better example was the work that was done in the aftermath of the thwarted airline bombing plot last summer, where TSA, overnight, had to retrain its employees, had to deploy them differently, and was able to do so because of the flexibility that is in the current law.

The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Many of the recommendations were enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act Senator Lieberman and I authored and worked so hard on. But the language concerning TSA employees' bargaining rights is an issue that was not addressed in this report. You can read this report, as I have, from cover to cover--I think it is 567 pages--and you will not find a discussion of collective bargaining rights for TSA employees. So this is not a recommendation that was included in the 9/11 Commission's report.

Before we so drastically change the TSA personnel system, we must ensure we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission. I want to make clear that we should, however, make some changes in the system now. We have had enough experience with TSA over the past few years that there are a number of things that are obvious.

First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower Protections Act which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. There is no reason to deny TSA employees that protection. My amendment would provide for that coverage.

Second, we should make very clear that TSA members do have the right to join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. Indeed, many TSA employees have chosen to join the union because then they have the right to representation by the union if there is a disciplinary action. So we should make that clear.

Third, we should give TSA employees the right to an independent appeal of disciplinary actions, of adverse employment actions such as demotions or firings, and have that appeal heard by an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. It is this board that sits in judgment of appeals filed by other Federal employees, and I see no reason why the TSA employees should not have those same rights.

Fourth, the amendment includes a provision codifying the pay-for- performance system that TSA has used very successfully to retain and recruit good employees.

Finally, the amendment we are offering provides for TSA, in a year's time, to come back to us with a report on whether other changes are needed in the personnel system. We have also tasked GAO with performing that duty. Now, that is important because we are still learning about TSA. As I said, I think we can make these significant changes now, but we need more time and study and consideration before going further, and that is why I have recommended that we have this report back.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's subcommittee which has jurisdiction over civil service issues just this week held its first hearing to look at this issue. So there is a lot of work that still needs to be done, but I think we can proceed now to provide these important protections.

As we strive to protect our Nation and our people without diminishing civil liberties, we must do all we can to build a strong homeland security structure that upholds the rights of homeland security personnel. I believe we can provide TSA employees with important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees, such as the right to appeal adverse employment actions to

the Merit Systems Protection Board and the statutory right to whistleblower protections, without disrupting TSA's established and proven personnel system. That personnel system was described in great detail to us in a classified briefing session as well as an open hearing as being necessary to accomplish the goals of the agency. So my amendment would give these rights to TSA employees.

I have been working to try to achieve a middle ground between those who believe there should be no employment rights for TSA employees and those who believe we should allow them to engage in full collective bargaining. That is what my amendment attempts to do, is to chart that middle ground, to provide significant additional protections and rights to TSA employees without burdening a system that is working effectively.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment when we vote on it later today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just want to be clear that the Senator from Pennsylvania will not be changing the agreement the Senator from Connecticut just announced that will allow the 15 minutes of debate prior to the 1:45 votes.

Mr. President, it is very clear to me that we can take significant steps today to give TSA employees more protections, and that is what the amendment I and several others have proposed would do. It would bring TSA employees under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, and it would allow them to appeal any adverse employment action such as a firing or demotion to an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. These are rights I believe TSA employees should have. They are rights that are similar to those enjoyed by other Federal employees. But what we are trying to do is strike a balance between giving the employees all of the standard collective bargaining rights and the security needs of the TSA.

The TSA security needs are not hypothetical. TSA has shared with us, in a highly classified briefing, details of when they have had to change the employee work conditions or assignments or duties. This isn't just a hypothetical need. It is one we saw last summer be put in place in the wake of a bombing plot that, fortunately, was thwarted. These are needs that came into play in the response to Hurricane Katrina. What I have suggested in my amendment is that we take major steps to afford more employee rights and protections to the TSA personnel, but we do so in a way that maintains the flexibility TSA has told us, both in classified session and in public hearings, they need to help safeguard our country.

The amendment I have proposed also includes other protections for the employees. It makes very clear that they can join a union. There are several TSOs who have joined a union in order for representation, if there is an adverse employment action.

Another provision of the bill recognizes this is not the final word on the issue but asks for TSA and the GAO to take a look at the personnel system for TSA and report back to us in a year's time about whether there should be other changes made to improve the system.

The amendment also provides for a pay-for-performance system which has been successfully implemented at TSA. We want to codify that.

I don't think this is an all-or-nothing debate. We can take some significant steps today. Secretary Chertoff has sent a letter on behalf of the administration that comments on the alternative proposal put forth by my friend from Missouri, Senator McCaskill. I do have a lot of admiration for my friend and colleague, but I think my other colleagues should be aware that the Department says that ``this amendment regrettably does not provide a workable solution. Indeed, in some respects it would make it even more difficult for the . . . (TSA) to manage its workforce than would section 803 [in the underlying bill.]''

I want to make sure my colleagues are aware that the Department of Homeland Security believes the underlying bill, the language authored by the Senator from Connecticut, is preferable to the language offered by the Senator from Missouri.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter from Secretary Chertoff be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is an attempt to find middle ground on a very difficult issue. The amendment that I and my colleagues offer the Senate would provide TSA employees with the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board any adverse action taken against them. Those rights would be identical to the rights that other Federal employees have. It would give them the protections of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. It recognizes that TSA employees have the right to join a union, and it calls for us to revisit this issue in a year by having a report from TSA and the GAO.

I think this helps give more rights and employment protections to TSA employees without impeding the necessary flexibility that TSA needs to have for our security.

I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I do object at this time because we have not seen this agreement. It has not been discussed with the manager or the staff on this side. I do object, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, I am just going to make a brief statement before the Senator from Connecticut propounds the unanimous consent request. Now that I have seen the unanimous consent request, I am not going to object to it, but I do want to comment briefly on the two votes that we have just taken on the issue of the TSA employees.

I think those votes were extremely unfortunate because everyone in this Chamber knows that the President is going to veto this important bill if the provisions remain in the bill as the Senate just voted.

If that happens, it means the TSA employees will not receive the additional protections and rights that I advocated for in the amendment that I presented to the Senate. They will be back to a situation where they cannot appeal adverse employment actions to an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. They will be back in the situation where they cannot be protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

It is unfortunate that the votes we have just taken will actually set back the cause of providing employee protections that the TSA screeners should have.

I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of what the practical implications and what the results will be of the votes just taken because there are clearly sufficient votes in this Chamber to sustain the President's veto, and I think it is very unfortunate that we are not going to be able to proceed to give these employees rights they deserve, rights they should have, and rights that would not impair our security.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the Republican leader about trying to move forward with some votes. I do wish he had discussed his approach with the managers of this bill since he

has taken us completely by surprise on the Senate floor, but I think he has raised an important issue, that our Members deserve to have votes on the important issues that are before us. If we are going to complete action on this bill by the end of the week, we need to start voting. We need to start disposing of these amendments, whether they are adopted or rejected or withdrawn. So I am sympathetic to the frustration of the Republican leader over this matter. We do need to move forward and have votes.

I do wish he had discussed his intentions with the managers of the bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have no objection to the modification.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coleman and Senator Coburn be added as cosponsors to the Collins amendment No. 342.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois to reduce the minimum guarantee to States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program.

My colleague and friend from Connecticut has done an excellent job explaining the problems with this amendment. Let me reinforce a few of the points he has made. As my colleagues can see from the chart behind me, under Senator Obama's amendment, 32 States and the District of Columbia would have a decrease in the guaranteed funding. Under the Obama amendment, two previous targets of attack, both the District of Columbia and Oklahoma, would receive less guaranteed funding than 18 other States. Indeed, Senator Obama's own projections show that the District of Columbia, presumably one of the highest risk areas in the country, would lose almost 45 percent of its total funding under his proposal

I think we need to keep in mind that assessing risk is not an exact science. Who would have guessed that Portland, ME, would have been the departure point for two of the hijackers on 9/11? Who would have guessed that four of the hijackers would train and live in Norman, OK? Who would have guessed that two of the hijackers would have spent considerable time in Stone Mountain, GA? My point is the evidence is clear that terrorists train, hide, and transit through more rural areas, which is one reason that the chairman and I have put such emphasis on preventing terrorist attacks and have allocated a percentage of funds to be used specifically for that purpose.

Now I wish to specifically address the chart that is being circulated by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. The breakdown of the winners and losers under his amendment on his chart relies upon the Department of Homeland Security allocating future risk-based funding in the same manner as it did in 2006. We know that is not going to happen. The process by which the Department allocated funding based on its risk analysis was denounced all around. I could quote the Senators from New York and California, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, Minnesota, and myself. All of us believed that whether we represented big States, small States or medium-sized States, the methodology was flawed.

Indeed, the Department has moved away from that methodology. So it is a false assumption to assume the exact same risk analysis is going to be used in future years, when, in fact, we know it would not be. I wish to point out, in fiscal year 2006, 60 percent of the Homeland Security Grant funds were allocated based on risk. We are requiring that an estimated 95 percent be allocated based on risk, but we want that risk formula reported to Congress. We want to take a look at it. We are working with the Department on it. If we

are going to become better prepared as a nation, all States must have a predictable, steady stream of homeland security funding. We need to bring all States up to reach minimum levels of preparedness, because otherwise the terrorists will exploit the weak links.

We also know many of the parts of our critical infrastructure are located in more rural areas. Nuclear powerplants are a prime example. Military bases are yet another example. So the problem is one cannot assume the only targets are in large urban areas. That is not true.

There was another point the Senator from Connecticut made that is a very important point, and that is this is an all-hazards approach to funding. As the Presiding Officer well knows, because he participated so actively in the investigation held by the Homeland Security Committee into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, there is virtually no area of our country that is immune from natural disasters. The same kinds of communications equipment that come into play when there is a terrorist attack are also needed when a hurricane or an ice storm or an earthquake strikes. So I think we have struck the right balance in our proposal.

Now, I would note the Senator's proposal does not hit my home State. It does not hurt Maine, because he has additional funding for border States, so I am not arguing out of a parochial interest. I am arguing for the formula in our bill because it takes an all-hazards approach. It understands all States have vulnerabilities. It recognizes we need to improve every link in the chain, that we need to bring all States up to minimal levels of preparedness, and they are simply not there now. It recognizes we need predictable funding streams so that States, regions, and communities can enter into multiyear projects, because a lot of these projects, such as with interoperable communications, require more than 1 year to get to the goal.

The potential of terrorist attacks against rural or at least nonurban targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. Our committee held hearings on the threat of agri-terrorism--an attack on our food supply. That would be devastating for our Nation. A study conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health shows rural areas face profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and water supplies, as well as virtually our entire food supply, are located outside of urban areas.

The RAND Corporation has repeatedly warned:

Homeland security experts and first responders have

cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the

preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller

communities or rural areas.

Again, that report recognized much of the Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural areas.

I hope our colleagues will join us in voting against the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. I truly believe it would not advance the goal we all share of strengthening our homeland security.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Illinois so that I may respond to his questions.

The only thing we can count on is what the minimum is going to produce. CRS, the same as the Senator from Illinois, used last year's DHS risk assessment--a risk assessment we already know DHS has abandoned; a risk assessment that resulted in significant cuts in funding to New York City; a risk assessment that was roundly criticized by virtually every member of our Homeland Security Committee. What we are trying to do is to share with our colleagues what we know for sure, and what we know for sure is what the impact of the minimum funding percentage is under our proposal versus under the proposal of the Senator from Illinois.

What we did is we looked at what the guaranteed funding--that is why it says guaranteed funding--would be under Senator Obama's amendment, and as you see 32 States and the District of Columbia would lose under the amendment. I say to my friend from Illinois that I am surprised he would want to cut funding for the District of Columbia when that is a high-risk area that did not do well under the Department's formulation of applying risk

and thus does not do well under the formula of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.

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

Madam President, earlier today, the Senate tabled an amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, that would have struck all of the provisions in the bill related to the employment rights of the employees of the Transportation Security Administration,

TSA. Last night, I filed an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Voinovich, Senator Warner, Senator Sununu, Senator Coleman, and Senator Stevens that seeks to strike a middle ground in this area.

Through our committee's work on homeland security, it has become clear that the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, and to crisis situations is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to this response is flexibility, putting assets and, more importantly, personnel where they are needed, when they are needed.

My question about giving TSA employees the right to collectively bargain is whether this additional right would hamper flexibility at this critical time.

I have been a strong supporter of Federal employees throughout my time in the Senate. I very much appreciate the work they do not only in the Department of Homeland Security but throughout the Federal Government. It is my hope that we will be able to work cooperatively to forge a compromise that preserves the needed flexibility that has been described to us in both classified sessions and open hearings while protecting the rights of TSA employees. These are employees who are working hard every day to protect us.

The TSA is charged with great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation Security Act provided TSA with the authority to shift resources and to implement new procedures daily--in some instances hourly--in response to emergencies and changing conditions. This authority enables TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce.

We have already seen the benefit of this flexibility. In both the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in Great Britain last year, TSA was able to change the nature of its employees' work and even the location of their work in response to these emergencies. Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area and many local TSA officers were unable to get to the airport, the agency acted quickly, flying in voluntary TSOs from Las Vegas to cover the shifts and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without the ability to rapidly ask for volunteers and deploy them to Denver, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential.

The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Most of those recommendations were enacted in 2004, but when we look at this report we don't see recommendations about changing the employees' conditions at TSA. Before we so dramatically change the TSA personnel system, we must ensure that we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission.

That doesn't mean the status quo is adequate. I believe we know enough now that we should proceed with providing TSA employees important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees. Let me mention two such important protections with which we should proceed. The first is to bring them under the Whistleblower Protections Act. There is simply no reason TSA employees should not enjoy the formal protections and procedures set forth in that act.

Second, these TSA employees should have the same kinds of rights as other Federal employees to appeal adverse employment actions-- disciplinary actions, for example, demotions, even firings--to the Merit System Protection Board. That would give them an independent agency to review their complaints, and that is an important protection as well.

In addition to these two very important provisions, the amendment makes clear that TSOs have the right to join labor unions. My amendment also requires TSA to establish a pay-for-performance system. That already exists in the agency, but we want to codify that.

Finally, the amendment would require TSA and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to report to Congress in 1 year to assess employment matters at TSA, indicating what further changes, if any, should be made in the TSA personnel system.

I believe this takes the right approach. This is not an all-or- nothing debate, and yet that is what we seem to have boiled it down to. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the amendment. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of several Senators, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote on it, if not today, tomorrow.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be charged equally between both parties.

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

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

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

Madam President, was the time running under the quorum call being charged equally or just to one side?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any further quorum calls between now and the beginning of the votes at 5:30 be counted equally against both sides.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be charged equally.

Madam President, on behalf of another Senator--not myself--I do object.

Madam President, in order for the Senator from Missouri to speak, would the Senator from Maine or one of the sponsors have to yield time to him?

How much time does the Senator from Maine have remaining?

Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Criminal Justice Association, in support of the formulas in the underlying bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to make sure my colleagues recognize that under the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague and friend from California, that States would have absolutely no guarantee at all of minimum funding under the Law Enforcement Terrorist and Prevention Program. This is a very important program. It has provided needed support to public safety agencies across the country for terrorism prevention, training, and information sharing. As the direct result of the LETPP funding over the past several years, State and local law enforcement agencies have become strong partners with homeland security.

I wish to point out one of the most important uses of funds under this program has been to establish with State and local first responders all-source intelligence fusion centers that have been funded primarily through the LETPP program. Clearly, it has been a very successful program, and one of my concerns about the amendment offered by my friend from California is she eliminates the minimum under this program. That means that potentially a State could receive no funding at all under this program.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this amendment is virtually identical to a proposal we voted on last July during the Homeland Security appropriations bill. In fact, we have repeatedly voted on this formula issue. We need to bring all States up to a certain baseline level of preparedness. That does not mean we do not figure in the risk; we do. Indeed, under our bill 95 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program funds and 100 percent of the Urban Area Security Initiative funding will be allocated based on risk.

The Senator's analysis does not look at the impact she would have on all four of the programs included in our bill, yet her amendment does affect all four, and that is the reason our analysis is different.

We cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal building in Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist bombing, and yet we know the tragic attack that occurred in that city.

Rural flight schools were not obvious training grounds for terrorists, and yet we know that terrorists trained in Norman, OK.

Portland, ME, was not an obvious departure point for the terrorist pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on September 11, and that is exactly what occurred.

My point is that terrorists can and do shelter, train, recruit, plan, prepare, and attack in unlikely places. That is one reason our bill puts so much emphasis on prevention, an emphasis that would be lost in the Senator's amendment.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 333

Mr. President, I wish to honor Ms. Rita A. Almon, who has served as program director for the U.S. Senate Youth Program for 29 years. She will retire after this year's 45th anniversary program, which is currently being held March 3 to 10, 2007, in Washington, DC.

During her tenure Ms. Almon has overseen the education and safety of thousands of high school student delegates who come annually to the Nation's Capital for this unique educational program about government, leadership and public service. She has worked closely with Senators and their staffs as well as with senior officials from each branch of Government to secure an opportunity for these young men and women to see their Government up close and to meet the individuals who make it work.

The mission of the U.S. Senate Youth Program, as set out in S. Res. 324 in 1962, states that ``the continued vitality of our Republic depends, in part, on the intelligent understanding of our political processes and the functions of our National Government by the citizens of the United States; and the durability of a constitutional democracy is dependent upon alert, talented, vigorous competition for political leadership.''

Rita A. Almon has achieved the mission of the U.S. Senate Youth Program by adhering to the highest standards of ethics and integrity, setting a shining example for the young men and women who participate. I join my colleagues in commending her and wish her well in her future endeavors.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from California and my friend from Texas.

Let me first start by telling my colleagues that this is virtually identical to the same proposal the Senate voted on last July during consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. In fact, the Senate has repeatedly voted on this formula issue throughout the past few years. The Senate has also repeatedly rejected the approach put forth by my colleagues from California and Texas. The last time this amendment was voted on, it was defeated by a vote of 36 to 64.

This map says it all. The amendment offered by the Senator from California would cut homeland security grant dollars for 34 States and the District of Columbia. I emphasize that because I think by any reasonable analysis, the District of Columbia is a high-risk area. I am not stressing the District of Columbia just because the Presiding Officer is from Virginia but, rather, because it is an area that has been the subject of a terrorist attack.

What the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment would do is reallocate the funding to turn it over to 16 States that already receive 60 percent of the funding. I think we have a basic philosophical disagreement in discussing how the homeland security money should be allocated. I certainly agree that risk should be a factor, but I also believe--and the testimony before our Homeland Security Committee confirms--that all States need to receive a predictable, reasonable base allocation of homeland security funding. States need that predictable multiyear funding in order to fund complex multiyear projects, such as creating interoperable communications networks or first responder training programs. Risk-based funding, even if it is distributed properly, is important, but it is likely to fluctuate dramatically from year to year.

Furthermore, the minimums in this amendment are simply too low. Under this amendment, each State would only be assured of $2.28 million under the authorized levels for the Homeland Security Grant Program. That is just about half of the proposed Homeland Security Grant Program minimum in S. 4. I encourage Senators to talk to the first responders in their States--the police officers, the firefighters, the emergency managers-- to find out what gaps in homeland security would be left unfilled if they faced such a reduction.

As one can see from this chart, there would be a substantial reduction under all of the homeland security programs. Let's take the interoperability program. We know States have not made nearly the progress that needs to be made in having compatible communications equipment. That was certainly one of the lessons from 9/11, where so many first responders lost their lives because they simply could not talk to one another. When the Homeland Security Committee did its in- depth investigation into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, we found exactly the same kinds of interoperability problems. In fact, we found there were parishes within Louisiana where, within the same parish or county, the firefighters could not talk to the police officers, who in turn could not talk to the emergency medical personnel.

The only way to ensure a base level of security and preparedness in each and every State is to require that there be a reasonable minimum amount of homeland security grant funding awarded to each State.

The National Governors Association has said it well. The NGA has written to me that:

To effectively protect our States and territories from

potential terrorist events, all sectors of government must be

part of an integrated plan to prevent, detect, and respond to

and recover from a terrorist act. For the plan to work, it is

essential that it be funded through a predictable and

sustainable mechanism both during its development and in its

implementation.

It is important to note that the law requires States to develop 3- year homeland security plans, and we are requiring any homeland security funding be used to accomplish those plans and to meet minimum levels of preparedness.

I am surprised that many who are offering this amendment, which would give the Department even more latitude than it has now, are the same people who are expressing outrage at the way the Department used its authority last year to allocate the funding. I note that I joined in that outrage. As I told Secretary Chertoff at a hearing before our Homeland Security Committee, I would not have guessed he could have made both the State of Maine and New York City equally unhappy in how he allocated homeland security funds, but he managed to do just that.

The Department is moving away from the methodology it used last year to allocate funding based on risk. New York Senators were very eloquent in describing the risk analysis DHS had used. For example, my colleague, Senator Schumer, said:

The way that the Department of Homeland Security has given

out high-threat funding defies logic, and it is dangerous.

That was typical of the comments that were made.

I agree with my colleagues, and that is why we were so careful to come up with a different approach and one that includes strong accountability measures to address concerns, that requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide Congress with its risk allocation methodology in advance, and that also provides a predictable, stable level of funding which will allow States to meet their diverse needs.

One of the important parts of the funding formula the Senator from Connecticut and I have labored so hard to put forth is providing assistance to law enforcement to try to detect and prevent attacks from happening in the first place.

I must remind my colleagues that the leader of the attacks on our country on 9/11 started his journey of death

and destruction not from a large urban area but from Portland, ME. Just think if we could have detected that plot and arrested Mohamed Atta in Portland, ME, before he launched his attack.

Risk is not an easy calculation. We saw that last year when the Department brought forth its very flawed methodology that made so many of us unhappy. But, unfortunately, we are seeing that approach used again by the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment because that flawed methodology which the sponsors of this amendment have embraced results in cuts to the District of Columbia--clearly a high-risk jurisdiction--and yet it would reduce funding for the District of Columbia. I think it jeopardizes the funding for 34 States--34 States, many of them border States that have obvious vulnerabilities, many of them coastal States that have obvious vulnerabilities. Then there is Kansas, with the threat of agraterrorism, about which I know the distinguished Senator from Kansas has been very concerned. Think of an attack on our food supply. That is much more likely to occur in a rural area. Think of an attack on a nuclear powerplant in a rural area.

The point is, we have a lot of critical infrastructure in this country that is located outside our large urban centers. So we have to avoid embracing a flawed methodology, and we have to recognize that every State has risks and vulnerabilities and every State needs to achieve minimal levels of preparedness, and we clearly are not there yet.

I hope we will, once again, turn down the well-intentioned but misguided amendment offered by the Senators from California and Texas. I believe it would really cause problems for our country as we try to strengthen our homeland security.

I end this segment of my comments by noting a report by the RAND Corporation that was prepared for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism in Oklahoma City, another place where there was a terrorist attack that would not generally be considered a high- risk area. It says:

Homeland security experts and first responders have

cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the

preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of small

communities or rural areas, and it recognizes that much of

the Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets

are located in rural areas.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Madam President, because I know the Senator from South Carolina is waiting to speak, I will not go into any detail about this amendment, but I did want to file it so that my colleagues have a chance to look it over, overnight.

This amendment is an attempt to reach a middle ground on the issue of rights for TSA employees. It provides that TSA employees may join a union; may have a pay-for-performance system; will have the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board any adverse employment actions, such as demotions or firings, so they would have the same rights in that regard as other Federal employees; and it would give them explicit protections under the Whistleblowers Protection Act. It also calls for a review in 1 year's time of the personnel system to see if further changes are needed, and it asks GAG to evaluate the system.

This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Stevens, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Warner at this point.

Again, this is an attempt to find a middle ground on the TSA issue. The TSA employees do a terrific job working very hard to protect us. I believe the current law does not afford them the kind of workplace protections they deserve. Yet we want to preserve the flexibility of the TSA to be able to move people, to deploy them, to respond to imminent threats, new intelligence, or any sort of emergency situation. I believe this amendment would achieve that goal.

I will be talking about the amendment in more depth tomorrow.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I ask that the Senator from South Carolina be recognized.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time apply equally.

OK.

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

Mr. President, let me begin my comments this morning by commending the Senator from New Hampshire for his hard work and vigorous advocacy on this issue. He has been a very early voice, pointing out the unfairness of this unfunded mandate on the States, unfunded mandates that the National Governors Association estimates may cost $11 billion over the next 5 years. He has also raised very important concerns about the privacy implications of some of the provisions of the REAL ID Act.

He was a strong supporter of the approach that we took in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform Act when we set up a negotiated rulemaking process which would bring all of the stakeholders to the table--State governments, Federal agencies, privacy advocates, technological experts--and clearly that would have been a far better way to proceed. The Senator from New Hampshire is one of the Senate's foremost advocates for privacy. He has brought that issue up, and his concerns about privacy and civil liberties, on other legislation such as the PATRIOT Act that has been before the Senate. I thank him for his leadership on this important issue.

I do have some good news to report to my colleagues about the pending regulations for the REAL ID Act. As many of my colleagues are aware, one of the problems that the States have had is the Department of Homeland Security had yet to issue the regulations giving States the detailed guidance on how to comply with the REAL ID Act. This is a major problem for the States because of the looming deadline of May of next year by which time they are supposed to be in full compliance with the law, despite the fact that the regulations had not been issued. It was that concern, the long delay by the Department, the cost and the complexity of the task, and the privacy and civil liberty implications that led several of us to come together and offer an amendment that would have a 2-year delay in compliance with the REAL ID Act.

I am pleased to inform my colleagues that as the result of some rather spirited negotiations with the Department of Homeland Security that the Department will announce later today regulations that would give any State that asks an automatic, virtually, 2 years--it could be more than 2 years in some cases--but a 2-year delay in the requirement to comply with the REAL ID Act. This is significant progress. The Department has finally recognized that it simply was unfair to impose this burden on the States, to set such an unrealistic compliance date when the Department had failed to issue the regulations. So the Department will be announcing today that any State that seeks an additional 2 years to comply with the regulations will be granted that extension. This is major progress.

In addition, the Department will announce that it will reconvene the members of the negotiated rulemaking committee that was established by the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act and subsequently repealed by the REAL ID Act to come together and to comment on the Department's regulations. Again, this reflects a major principle in the Collins amendment: that we should have a 2-year delay to allow for additional compliance time but that we should also reconvene the negotiated rulemaking committee, the committee that is comprised of State officials--in fact, Maine's own secretary of state was one of the officials on the committee--and privacy experts, technological experts, all the stakeholders would be reconvened to formally review the proposed regulations and provide the Department with the benefit of this committee's insight.

That is what should have happened in the first place but, certainly, given where we are now, this is another very positive step that the Department is taking. It reflects the principles in the amendment that I and others offered yesterday. It is obvious that the pending amendment provided a great deal of impetus for the Department to undertake these revisions in the proposed regulations.

These two major concessions by the Department--the extension for compliance and the reconvening of the negotiated rulemaking committee-- are major steps forward, but they do not solve all of the issues and all of the problems with the REAL ID Act, the biggest of which is the huge cost of compliance. Along with Senator Alexander and others-- Senator Sununu, Senator Carper, Senator Akaka, and others who had been active on this issue--I am pledging today to continue to work very closely with our State leaders and with the Department of Homeland Security to calculate what the actual costs of compliance are going to be--that is going to be easier to do now that the regulations are finally being issued--and to work to try to find some funding to assist States with the cost of compliance.

To date, Congress has only appropriated about $40 million to help the States comply with the REAL ID Act, and the Department, I am told, has only allocated about $6 million of that $40 million. So there is some additional money in the pipeline, but if in fact the cost is as high as the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures estimate, that $40 million is a drop in the bucket. The 5- year cost estimated by the NGA is $11 billion. Clearly, if the costs do prove to be in that neighborhood, if they are that high, we have an obligation to come forward and assist the States in the cost of compliance. It can be a shared responsibility, but surely, since we imposed the mandate, we should be providing some of the funding that is needed.

I am very happy the amendment that I and several of our colleagues have offered has prompted the Department to take a second look at its regulations, to realize that it was simply unreasonable to expect the States to comply by May of next year when the Department has been so tardy in issuing the regulations. And I am pleased that the Department has changed its mind. I thank Secretary Chertoff for working closely with me and for listening to all of us who were raising these concerns--that it was simply unreasonable to expect States to be in full compliance by May of next year when they did not have the detailed guidance from the Department.

I am also very pleased the Department is going to reconvene the negotiated rulemaking committee members. That will give the Department further input and insights and improve the quality of the final regulations.

There is still much work to be done, particularly in the funding area, but this is certainly great progress, a welcome development, and a major step forward by the Department. I again thank Secretary Chertoff for working so closely with me.

Mr. President, I want to let the Senator from New Hampshire know we are reviewing his two amendments. Based on what he told me, I, too, am inclined to agree to them, and I will be working with the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Connecticut to try to get the two amendments cleared.

I certainly appreciate, coming from a border State, the concerns the Senator from New Hampshire has about U.S.-Canadian issues that might affect interoperability of communications equipment. That has been an issue for us in Maine as well.

I look forward to working with him.

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

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

Mr. President, shortly, I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the Collins amendment No. 277, which is cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Cantwell, Carper, Chambliss, Mikulski, Murkowski, and Snowe. It also has received support from Senator Sununu this morning, who was very eloquent in his comments about the implementation of the REAL ID Act.

I ask to withdraw my amendment in light of the tremendous progress we have been able to make with the Department of Homeland Security over the last 24 hours in convincing the Department to modify the regulations which it is releasing today to allow about 2 years of additional time for compliance with the REAL ID mandates and also to reconvene the negotiated rulemaking committee to take a look at those regulations and provide their insights and input to the Department so the Department can take them into account in issuing the final regulations.

Now, I consider this to be tremendous progress. It is a very welcomed development. The Department's actions reflect the two primary objectives I outlined yesterday for my amendment: first, to give the Federal Government and States the time and flexibility needed to come up with an effective system to provide secure driver's licenses without unduly burdening the States and, second, to involve experts from the States, from the technology industry, as well as privacy and civil liberty advocates--to bring them back to the table and give them a chance to work on these regulations and to improve them.

I am very pleased to say over the course of the past week our amendment has received a great deal of support from a number of sources. The National Governors Association praised our amendment for providing States:

a more workable time frame to comply with federal standards,

ensure necessary systems are operational and enhance the

input states and other stakeholders have in the

implementation process.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a letter to all Senators that was sent on February 27, said:

We strongly urge you to support an amendment offered by

Senator Collins that would delay implementation of

requirements under the REAL ID Act. . . .

The letter goes on to outline the organization's concerns about the costs to States, the capacity for States to meet the REAL ID requirements, and privacy issues and concludes:

The Collins amendment provides the opportunity to address

these matters.

Similarly, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the NCSL, with which we have worked very closely, in a statement on February 20, said this legislation would help ``address state concerns over the Real ID Act. . . .''

To this support has been added the voices of Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Sununu, and cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. One of the very first cosponsors is a former Governor who understands very well the implications for States of complying with the REAL ID Act. That individual is Senator Carper of Delaware.

So we have been able to build a broad bipartisan coalition, and that gave us the strength to prompt the Department of Homeland Security to make the changes as a result of recent, extended discussions with the Department. As a result, we can now say the primary concerns we have addressed with our amendment have been addressed in the Department's proposed regulations.

In the regulations being announced this morning, the Secretary of Homeland Security will commit to granting a waiver to any State that asks for it through December 31 of 2009. States will not be required to make a complicated case for the waiver. The Secretary has recognized the delay in the Department's promulgation of the draft regulations is reason enough to give States an additional 2 years before they need to begin producing REAL ID-

compliant driver's licenses. I am pleased the Department has taken this step.

In addition, the Department has agreed, as I have mentioned, to invite the members of the negotiated rulemaking committee--which was created by the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act, and subsequently repealed by the REAL ID Act, just when they were making great progress--to come to the Department and discuss, in person, their specific concerns about the regulations. The provisions announced today are in line with the need for more time and the inclusion of all interested parties that were the two primary goals of our amendment. These provisions, of course, are part of a much larger regulation that will take us time to review, to consult with the States on, and to comment on. I am going to follow closely the whole notice and comment period. I am sure I will be suggesting changes to the regulations, and I will be working closely with the negotiated rulemaking committee to make sure the regulations are modified further down the line.

I am under no illusions that there are not further issues which need to be addressed about the REAL ID Act. We must look closely at the concerns that privacy advocates have raised about potentially having interlocking databases among the States so that information is shared. There are a lot of questions, such as who would have access to that information, how secure it would be, and how correct it would be. There is a lot of work to be done.

Most of all, we need to get an accurate estimate of how much this program is going to cost the States and how we can help them bear those costs. This does remain a huge unfunded Federal mandate on our States. The NGA, as I have said several times, has estimated the cost at $11 billion over the next 5 years. That is an enormous burden for States to bear.

We also have to determine if the technological demands that will be imposed on States by these regulations are, in fact, feasible. But I am very pleased to note that our efforts with the Department have achieved the goals that we set out in offering our amendment. There is further work to be done on the REAL ID Act, but we certainly have made tremendous progress over the past 24 hours.

I thank all of the cosponsors of the bill: Senators Alexander, Carper, Cantwell, Chambliss, Snowe, Mikulski, and Murkowski for their strong, bipartisan support, and I thank all of the outside organizations, including the Governors and the State legislatures, who have worked so closely with us. I hope we will continue our partnership as we make real progress in improving the REAL ID Act.

Amendment No. 277 Withdrawn

Mr. President, at this time, recognizing the tremendous progress we have made, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 277 be withdrawn.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the Senator amend his unanimous consent request so we can go back and forth on his amendment. I suggest that after he speaks, I be recognized, then Senator Menendez, then Senator Coleman, and that we go back and forth on the amendment.

Madam President, if we could withhold the request for a quorum, I thank the Senator from New York for his cooperation in this matter. I know the Senator from Connecticut is on his way.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Minnesota for his excellent statement. He has spent a great deal of time on this issue as the former chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He examined our ports very closely. He helped draft the port security bill we passed last year. I hope my colleagues will listen to his advice on this issue.

Mr. President, 100 percent screening, that sounds like a great slogan. After all, who could be against scanning 11 million containers?

Let's look at what that would involve. The fact is we need to concentrate our resources on containers that pose a real threat, on containers and cargo that are at highest risk. It doesn't make sense to try to inspect everything, and it has extraordinarily negative consequences for our system of international trade.

I rise to oppose Senator Schumer's amendment that would require scanning of all cargo containers entering the United States from large foreign ports within 3 years, and containers from all 700 foreign ports in 5 years. This approach patently ignores the technological limitations on integrated scanning systems that are necessary to scan 100-percent of containers. It irrationally assumes that integrated scanning systems will be practical and cost-effective and work well in only 3 years. I hope they will be, and I will talk about the pilot programs we have underway to see or to test the feasibility.

But the costs of being wrong on this assumption are too high for our economy, as so much of our international trade relies on cargo container traffic. Think of how many companies rely on just-in-time inventory. Think of how many businesses all across this country receive cargo. We need a system that makes sense.

The fact is there are substantial technological challenges to scanning 100 percent of cargo containers at foreign ports. I traveled to Seattle, Long Beach, and Los Angeles to look at the ports and see their operations. I think anyone who does that quickly reaches the conclusion Senator Murray and I have reached, which is this cannot work. If you look at how at-risk cargo is scanned, it takes time to unload the container, separate it from the rest of the cargo; it takes a few minutes to scan each container as this giant x-ray-like machine goes around the container. Then the analysis of the images can take several more minutes.

Think about this. We have 11 million containers headed to the United States; that is in a year's time. That is going up each year. When I first started working on port security legislation, it was only 8 million. Now it is 11 million containers. Well, think of the delays that would be caused by scanning each and every container. It would create a massive backlog of cargo at our ports and it would not make us safer.

There are other problems as well. Current radiation scanning technology produces alarm rates of about 1 percent--almost entirely from naturally occurring substances in containers. Actually, when I was in Seattle with Senator Murray, we were told that, for some reason, marble and kitty litter seemed to trigger false alarms. So obtaining enough foreign government and DHS personnel to conduct inspections of all those false alarms would be expensive. It is far better to concentrate on containers that, because of the cargo or because of other indicators through the sophisticated system used to identify at- risk cargo, warrant that kind of inspection. There would also be a requirement for extensive negotiations with foreign governments to agree on the deployment of scanning technologies, the protocol for inspecting containers that set off alarms, and stationing customs and border protection inspectors in their ports. Foreign governments would probably turn around and say: If you are going to scan all of the containers coming into America, we are going to scan all of your containers coming into our country. That would multiply the costs and the impact.

Requiring all containers to be scanned and the images reviewed without adequate technology in place would make our country less safe, not more safe. The approach in this amendment would unwisely waste scarce resources on inspecting completely safe cargo instead of targeting personnel and equipment on the cargo that presents a threat to our country and the greatest risk.

The Homeland Security Committee spent a great deal of time last year on port security legislation, and we drafted a bill, brought it unanimously to the Senate floor, had extensive debates in September, and we debated this very issue at that time. Why we are revisiting it just a few months later is beyond me, but here we are.

This amendment wholly ignores the pilot projects that were established by the SAFE Port Act which we passed last year. These pilot projects are intended to test the technology to see if there is a way to increase scanning. The technology is changing. It is getting better. This may be feasible at some point, but it is not today.

The SAFE Port Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to test scanning in three foreign ports, and the Department is proceeding very rapidly to follow the instructions. It is going to be implemented in ports in Pakistan, Honduras, and the United Kingdom. These pilot projects will involve radiation scanning and x-ray or a nonintrusive imaging scanning that will then be reviewed by American employees, American officials. If these pilots are successful, then we will begin to expand the equipment and the personnel. But the fact is that extensive research and development remains to be done on 100-percent scanning technologies and on infrastructure deployment at seaports.

Given the significant impact this requirement would have on our economy, it simply is not responsible to move to this requirement before we have the technology in place to make it feasible and before we have the results of these pilot projects. This isn't just my opinion. If one talks to port directors around the world and on both coasts of the United States, one will find that they believe we cannot do this in a practical way and that it would cause massive backlogs and delay the delivery of vital commodities. It would cause terrible problems for companies that rely on just-in-time inventory. That is why many shippers and importers oppose this amendment, as well as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So what do we do now? I think it is important for people to understand that we do have a good and improving system in place to secure our cargo. DHS has adopted a layered approach to cargo security that balances security interests against the need for efficient movement of millions of cargo containers each year.

One layer is the screening of all cargo manifests at least 24 hours before they are loaded onto ships. This screening is done through DHS's automated targeting system which identifies high-risk cargo and containers. This is a very important point. The SAFE Port Act, which is now in effect, requires 100 percent of all high-risk containers to be scanned or searched by Customs and Border Protection--100 percent. We found in our investigations that was not always the case, that high- risk containers that had been identified were, in some cases, loaded onto ships and reaching our shores. But the SAFE Port Act changes that. It ensures that 100 percent of high-risk containers will be scanned.

The scanning and inspection of certain high-risk containers is one of the first layers of this multilayered approach the Department uses to prevent

weapons of mass destruction or other dangerous cargo from entering the United States.

A second layer is the Container Security Initiative. This program stations Customs and Border Patrol officers--American Customs and Border Protection officers--at foreign ports. The concept here is to push back our shores. The more we can do these reviews overseas rather than waiting for dangerous cargo to come to our shores, the better the system. CSI will be operational in 58 foreign ports by the end of this year, covering approximately 85 percent of containerized cargo headed for the United States by sea. DHS is continuing to expand this program by working with foreign governments, but this is an excellent program because it ensures that our trained American personnel are stationed in foreign ports.

There is yet another layer, a third layer, and that is the Customs- Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program. It is called C-TPAT. This is another layer that is designed to bolster security along the entire supply chain under a voluntary regime. The concept here is that a company can sign up to be part of C-TPAT by guaranteeing that its entire supply chain is secure from the factory floor to the showroom floor, and that is the best kind of security we can have. So when goods leave the factory floor, the supply chain, every step of the way--the transporting of the cargo in a truck to the truck going to the port--at every stage, the company has ensured that the supply chain is secure.

These layers--the automated targeting system, the work the Coast Guard does, which I haven't even touched on--also add to the security. The Container Security Initiative and the C-TPAT Program represent a risk-based approach to enhancing our homeland security. At the same time, they allow the maritime cargo industry in the United States, which moves more than 11 million containers each year, to continue to function efficiently.

The SAFE Port Act also requires that at the end of this year, the largest 22 U.S. ports must have radiation scanners, which will ensure that 98 percent of containers are scanned for radiation. That is practical with the current technology. Again, I have seen that in operation in Seattle, where the trucks roll through these radiation portal monitors and an alarm can sound if radiation is found. Sometimes, unfortunately, there are false alarms as well.

We are also working to install those kinds of radiation monitors overseas because, obviously, it is far better if we can do that scanning for radiation overseas in foreign ports on cargo before it reaches our shores. The Department of Energy, under the Megaports Initiative, is currently installing scanning equipment in foreign ports and scanning containers for radiological material. So we are making good progress.

Some who are advocating 100 percent screening are pointing to a project in Hong Kong, the Integrated Container Inspection System. This is a promising concept, but, as my colleague from Minnesota noted, the project in Hong Kong actually covers only 2 lanes of traffic of more than 40 at the port. In addition, what is happening is images are being taken, but no one is reading and analyzing the images. So this is not truly a project that tells us whether a true, 100-percent integrated scanning system is feasible. But we do have those projects underway, and we should wait until they are ready and finished before moving ahead.

Again, I hope my colleagues will once again reject this amendment. I think it is a big mistake. It would interrupt our system of container traffic, and it could have truly disastrous consequences for our economy. All of us want to make sure cargo coming into this country is safe. There were definitely vulnerabilities and holes in our system for cargo security, but the SAFE Port Act, which we passed at the end of last year, took major steps to plugging those gaps, closing those holes.

We should proceed with vigorous implementation of that bill, including the requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk cargo be scanned, and we should also continue our efforts to build the strongest possible layered system to secure the entire supply chain.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me.

You can read the entire 567 pages of the ``9/11 Commission Report'' as I have and you will not find a recommendation to undertake 100- percent scanning of cargo containers. This bill's purpose--the bill before us--is to finish the business of implementing the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations. Senator Schumer's and Senator Menendez's amendment is not one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Further, I want to address what has been said about our system for improving the security of our seaports by focusing on cargo container security.

The fact is a great deal has been done since the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. We have a layered approach to cargo security. It balances security interests against the need for efficient movement of millions of containers through our seaports each year--11 million, in fact, last year alone.

One layer is the screening of all cargo manifests at least 24 hours before the cargo is loaded onto ships bound for our shores. That screening, along with work done by the Coast Guard, is used in DHS's automated targeting system which identifies high-risk containers.

As a result of the cargo security bill that we passed last fall, we have a requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk cargo be subjected to scanning and that is appropriate. We want to focus our resources on the cargo that is of highest risk. But that is only one layer in the process.

Another layer is the Container Security Initiative. This program stations Customs and Border Protection officers at foreign ports. CSI will be operational in 58 foreign ports by the end of this year, covering approximately 85 percent of all containerized cargo headed to the United States by sea. That is another layer of security.

There is yet another one. It is the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, known as C-TPAT. This program is a cooperative effort between the Government and the private sector to secure the entire supply chain. It is a result of the legislation Senator Murray, Senator Coleman, Senator Lieberman, and I authored last year.

Firms that participate in C-TPAT and secure their supply chain are given certain advantages when it comes to scanning cargo because DHS will have certified that they have met certain standards. That is an important layer of security.

There is another important safeguard that is a result of the SAFE Port Act, and that is the law requires by the end of this year that the 22 largest American ports must have radiation scanners which will ensure that 98 percent--98 percent--of inbound containers are scanned for radiation. That is because we do have the technology to do scanning for radiation. We have these radiation portal monitors that trucks can drive through with the containers loaded on them and be scanned for radiation. There is a problem with some false positives. I was describing earlier that for some reason, marble and kitty litter tend to cause false positives. But at least we identify these containers that are giving off alarms, and then they are subject to further inspection and search, and that makes sense.

I should mention we are also installing these overseas as part of the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative.

The idea that nothing has been done to secure our seaports since 9/11 is demonstrably false. We took a giant step forward last year with the passage of the SAFE Port Act.

There is more that is being done, however, and that is, as Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman have explained, the new law authorizes pilot programs to test 100-percent integrated scanning programs.

We keep hearing Hong Kong brought up, but the fact is, in Hong Kong, there is scanning being done on only 2 of 40 lines, and the images are not being read. What good is it to take the picture, the X-ray, essentially, but then not have anyone analyzing the images? How does that increase security?

We still will learn something from the Hong Kong project, but I think we are going to learn even more from the three projects the Department has started already as a result of the SAFE Port Act.

There have been allegations that somehow the Department is sitting on its hands. That is not true. In fact, three ports--one in the United Kingdom, one in Honduras, and one in Pakistan--have been selected already and the projects are going forward to test these pilot programs. I think that is important to know.

So we have made a great deal of progress. We are going to make more as a result of these pilot projects. But the whole point is until we have the technology in place to do this effectively and efficiently, it will cause a massive backup in our ports if we are trying to scan 11 million containers--low-risk containers, containers that pose absolutely no threat to the security of this country--and that approach does not make sense.

Finally, let me read something from the Chamber of Commerce which has sent around an alert on this issue because I think this summarizes the issue:

The Chamber points out that more than 11 million containers

arrive at our Nation's seaports each year and 95 percent of

our Nation's trade flows through our seaports.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 45 additional seconds.

I continuing quoting the Chamber of Commerce:

If adopted, the Schumer amendment would significantly

disrupt the flow of trade and impose costly mandates on

American businesses without providing additional security.

That is the bottom line. I urge the rejection of the Schumer amendment, and when the time has expired, I will move to table the amendment.

Madam President, has all time expired?

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

Madam President, I move to table the Schumer amendment, and I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, this is a very difficult issue that is now before the Senate. The Aviation Transportation Security Act provided TSA with flexibility with respect to the critical national security mission of TSA security officers. These management authorities allow TSA to shift resources and implement new procedures daily, in some cases hourly, to respond to critical intelligence and to meet an ever-changing airline schedule. This was made very clear to us in a classified briefing that I attended yesterday. Sometimes these situations can be classified as emergencies. Other times the day-to-day situations, such as a flight gets canceled, still require extensive modifications that may not constitute emergencies.

I think, however, that there is a middle ground in this debate. I think we can find a solution, and I am working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to try to see if there is a middle ground. It seems to me that TSA does need some flexibility to allow it to adjust the workforce in order to provide additional security. That happened in response to the United Kingdom air bombing plot last summer. In that case, TSA changed the nature of employees' work and even the location of their work to respond to that emergency.

But I see no reason TSA employees cannot have the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act, for example. There is no reason they should not have the same protections as other Federal employees and be brought under that law.

Similarly, I think there should be some way for TSA employees to have the right to appeal adverse actions, such as a removal, a suspension action, a reduction in grade level or pay that has been taken away from them. I am still exploring this issue, but it seems to me that they should have the right to appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit System Protection Board.

I know there is another one of my colleagues waiting to speak, so I am not going to go into great detail tonight. But let me say that I do not think this is an all-or-nothing situation as, unfortunately, much of the debate suggested tonight. I do not think

that we have to deny TSA employees whistleblower protections and the right to appeal adverse employment actions in the name of security. I think we can still achieve our vital security goals while affording TSA employees employment rights when an adverse action is taken, appellate rights. I also believe there is absolutely no reason they can't be brought under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this issue. I think it is unfortunate that the debate has been so polarized on this issue and that it is being portrayed as whether you appreciate the work done by the TSO's or whether you don't appreciate it or whether you are pro- union or anti-union. That does not do justice to the debate before us. I believe we can come up with a middle ground that gives TSA the flexibility it truly needs to be able to change working conditions, working hours, unexpectedly to respond to critical intelligence and new threats, or canceled flights for that matter, without depriving TSA employees of other rights that Federal employees enjoy and that they should enjoy, too.

Part of the problem is--and then I am going to yield to my colleague who I see is waiting--we have not had the kind of thorough review of this issue that is needed. I hope Senator Akaka and Senator Voinovich, who are the leaders on civil service issues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, might hold hearings to take a close look at this and to bring in the experts and hear from the employees, hear from the employees' representatives, the unions, TSA; to have the kind of information that Kip Holly, the head of TSA, has provided us in the past few days.

I think that while it is premature to do what the committee did on the spur of the moment, I also am not enamored of the idea of just striking all of that.

I think there is a middle ground and with goodwill and a sincere effort we can find it. I hope we would avoid what I saw tonight--where the tree was filled up instantly to block alternatives, to block an attempt, a good-faith attempt to find that middle ground.

I am going to keep working on that along with interested colleagues, and I hope that, in fact, maybe we can find a compromise that achieves our goals.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, I know the distinguished assistant leader is going to be making comments shortly about the schedule tomorrow, but it appears there may be two rollcall votes. It is still being negotiated as to exactly what they are going to be on. It looks as if they may be on amendments offered by Senators Salazar and Sununu.

I want, for the record, to state those amendments are acceptable on this side of the aisle. I was prepared to accept them without the need for a rollcall vote, but at this point it is my understanding that rollcalls are likely for tomorrow. I am sure we will hear shortly from the leaders on that.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for allowing me to precede him.

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water systems, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as Variable Leaf Milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over Southern New England's tidal pools and have advanced well into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

I rise today to join Senator Levin in introducing legislation to address this problem. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European Green Crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the East Coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Senator Levin and I first introduced a version of this legislation in late 2002. Unfortunately, in the subsequent years in which Congress has failed to act on our legislation, a number of new invasive species have taken hold in Maine. North America's most aggressive invasive species-- hydrilla--was found shortly after we first introduced our legislation. This stubborn and fast-growing aquatic plant has taken hold in Pickerel Pond in the Town of Limerick, ME. This plant is now found throughout Pickerel Pond, where it diminishes recreational use for swimmers and boaters.

Eurasian Milfoil is another invasive which has taken hold since our legislation was first introduced. Maine was the last of the lower 48 States to be free of this stubborn and fast-growing invasive plant. Eurasian Milfoil degrades water quality by displacing native plants, fish and other aquatic species. The plant forms stems reaching up to 20 feet high that cause fouling problems for swimmers and boaters. In total, there are now 27 documented cases of aquatic invasive species infesting Maine's lakes and ponds.

When considering the impact of these invasive species, it is important to note the tremendous value of our lakes and ponds. While their contribution to our quality of life is priceless, their value to our economy is more measurable. Maine's Great Ponds generate nearly 13 million recreational user days each year, lead to more than $1.2 billion in annual income for Maine residents, and support more than 50,000 jobs.

With so much at stake, Mainers are taking action to stop the spread of invasive species into our State's waters. The State of Maine has made it illegal to sell, possess, cultivate, import or introduce 11 invasive aquatic plants. Boaters participating in the Maine Lake and River Protection Sticker program are providing needed funding to aid efforts to prevent, detect and manage aquatic invasive plants. Volunteers are participating in the Courtesy Boat Inspection program to keep aquatic invasive plants out of Maine lakes. Before launch or after removal, inspectors ask boaters for permission to inspect the boat, trailer or other equipment for plants.

While I am proud of the actions that Maine and many other States are taking to protect against invasive species, all too often their efforts have not been enough. Protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual states alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 will help my State and States throughout the Nation detect, prevent and respond to aquatic invasive species.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 would be the most comprehensive effort ever undertaken to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $150 million per year, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into US waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide additional funds for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. Our legislation would require all ships, with limited exceptions, to meet environmentally protective performance standards for ballast water discharge by 2012. In addition, it would establish a mandatory ballast water management program that includes invasive species management plans, ballast management reporting requirements, and best management practices for all ships in US waters.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 offers a strong framework to combat aquatic invasive species. I call on my colleagues to help us enact this legislation in order to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species--before even more of them take hold in our lakes and rivers and along our coastlines.

Mr. President, all along our Nation's coasts there are harbors that were once full of the hustle and bustle associated with the fishing industry. Unfortunately, there has been an erosion of the vital infrastructure, known as our working waterfronts, that is so critical to our commercial fishing industries. To better preserve these waterfront areas, I have drafted legislation that will help to protect commercial access to our waterfronts and to support the fishing industry's role in our maritime heritage.

When constituents have called asking me to help them in their efforts to stop the loss of their fishing businesses and the communities built around this industry, I realized more needed to be done to preserve and increase waterfront access for the commercial fishing industry. Currently, there is no Federal program to promote and protect the working waterfronts other than identifying some grant programs that might apply. There is an immediate need to protect our working waterfronts since we are losing more of them every week, and quite simply, once lost, these vital economic and community hubs of commercial fishing activity cannot be replaced.

I rise today to re-introduce a bill I originally proposed in the 109th Congress--the Working Waterfront Preservation Act. This legislation would create a program to support our Nation's commercial fishing families and the coastal communities that are at risk of losing their fishing businesses.

I can illustrate the need for such a program by describing the loss of commercial waterfront access occurring in Maine. Only 25 of Maine's 3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to commercial access. We are continually seeing portions of Maine's working waterfront being sold off to the highest bidder--with large vacation homes and condominiums rising in places that our fishing industry used to call home.

The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex. In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure, like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private spaces and second homes that are no longer the center of economic activity.

Maine's lack of commercial waterfront prompted the formation of a ``Working Waterfront Coalition.'' This coalition is comprised of an impressive number of industry associations, non- profit groups, and state agencies, who came together to preserve Maine's working waterfront. The coalition identified eighteen projects that would increase Maine's available working waterfront. These eighteen sites would create or preserve more than 875 jobs.

I'm pleased to note that the Working Waterfront Coalition has been successful in contributing to the creation of two programs in Maine. The first is a State tax incentive for property owners to keep their land in its current working waterfront condition. The second is a pilot program for grant funding to secure and preserve working waterfront areas. I am proud that the State of Maine has taken positive action to save its waterfront infrastructure and is a model for other States in the country facing this problem.

However, we must press on with this priority. The loss of commercial waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal States. Pick up a newspaper in one of our coastal States, and you will read about this struggle. Fishermen in Galilee, RI are being pushed away from the waterfronts as their profitability shrinks and land values soar. The Los Angeles Times ran a story on the disappearance of working waterfronts in Florida. That State has also since enacted a law to protect their working waterfronts. Washington State struggles to balance working waterfronts with increased development pressure. Another region of the country that this bill would benefit is the Gulf Coast. This legislation would assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina in rebuilding their shore-side infrastructure destroyed in the storm.

And modest federal investment could do so much to save these areas. Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic development along the coast. This bill targets this problem, as no Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida, Washington, and Louisiana.

The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and state fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of receiving federal assistance.

This legislation also has a tax component included. When properties or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the gain they receive from this sale. Taxing only half of the gain on conservation sales is a proposal that has been advanced by the President in all of his budget proposals. This is a vital aspect of my bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in this grant program. This is especially important given that the application process for federal grants does not keep pace with the coastal real estate market.

This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries, which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and promote economic development along our coast. I am committed to creating a Federal mechanism to preserve working waterfronts and will pursue this legislation during the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water systems, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as Variable Leaf Milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over Southern New England's tidal pools and have advanced well into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

I rise today to join Senator Levin in introducing legislation to address this problem. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European Green Crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the East Coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Senator Levin and I first introduced a version of this legislation in late 2002. Unfortunately, in the subsequent years in which Congress has failed to act on our legislation, a number of new invasive species have taken hold in Maine. North America's most aggressive invasive species-- hydrilla--was found shortly after we first introduced our legislation. This stubborn and fast-growing aquatic plant has taken hold in Pickerel Pond in the Town of Limerick, ME. This plant is now found throughout Pickerel Pond, where it diminishes recreational use for swimmers and boaters.

Eurasian Milfoil is another invasive which has taken hold since our legislation was first introduced. Maine was the last of the lower 48 States to be free of this stubborn and fast-growing invasive plant. Eurasian Milfoil degrades water quality by displacing native plants, fish and other aquatic species. The plant forms stems reaching up to 20 feet high that cause fouling problems for swimmers and boaters. In total, there are now 27 documented cases of aquatic invasive species infesting Maine's lakes and ponds.

When considering the impact of these invasive species, it is important to note the tremendous value of our lakes and ponds. While their contribution to our quality of life is priceless, their value to our economy is more measurable. Maine's Great Ponds generate nearly 13 million recreational user days each year, lead to more than $1.2 billion in annual income for Maine residents, and support more than 50,000 jobs.

With so much at stake, Mainers are taking action to stop the spread of invasive species into our State's waters. The State of Maine has made it illegal to sell, possess, cultivate, import or introduce 11 invasive aquatic plants. Boaters participating in the Maine Lake and River Protection Sticker program are providing needed funding to aid efforts to prevent, detect and manage aquatic invasive plants. Volunteers are participating in the Courtesy Boat Inspection program to keep aquatic invasive plants out of Maine lakes. Before launch or after removal, inspectors ask boaters for permission to inspect the boat, trailer or other equipment for plants.

While I am proud of the actions that Maine and many other States are taking to protect against invasive species, all too often their efforts have not been enough. Protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual states alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 will help my State and States throughout the Nation detect, prevent and respond to aquatic invasive species.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 would be the most comprehensive effort ever undertaken to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $150 million per year, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into US waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide additional funds for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. Our legislation would require all ships, with limited exceptions, to meet environmentally protective performance standards for ballast water discharge by 2012. In addition, it would establish a mandatory ballast water management program that includes invasive species management plans, ballast management reporting requirements, and best management practices for all ships in US waters.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 offers a strong framework to combat aquatic invasive species. I call on my colleagues to help us enact this legislation in order to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species--before even more of them take hold in our lakes and rivers and along our coastlines.