Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I have no objection. Amendment No. 4582

Mr. GREGG. I am sorry, I did not hear the request.

Mr. GREGG. I have no objection. Amendment No. 4600

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, speaking to the Schumer-Clinton amendment, I wish to simply make the point that obviously all of us in the Northeast have experienced these very severe weather conditions which have led to floods. In New Hampshire, we are a little bit ahead of New York, regrettably. We had a huge storm earlier that led to major flooding throughout the State. I have to congratulate FEMA for their response. They have been very prompt. They have been on top of it. People who have made requests for reimbursement pursuant to the disaster declarations have received those funds, and we are getting a very effective and efficient response throughout New England, which all of New England was impacted, especially Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I know New York has gone through this experience, and, of course, the city of Washington has. I understand the Senators from New York wanting to make a point relative to the importance of having the resources to make sure when this type of disaster occurs there is money available to address the concerns of the communities that have been hit and the individuals who have been hit. This amendment, as it is presently structured, is not going to have any impact on the New York problem that exists today. That will be addressed by money that is already in the pipeline, that is in the disaster relief fund. The disaster relief fund has a very robust amount of money in it. It has $9.3 billion in it right now. This bill addresses 2007 disaster activity. This bill has a number of $1.6 billion which will be added to whatever is left at the end of the 2006 year of the $9.3 billion as the resource available to FEMA. So as a practical matter, the amendment which the Senators from New York have offered will have no impact on the very compelling anecdotal stories that have been put forward relative to the damage to the New York communities. Those communities and the individuals affected by this event will be looking to FEMA, which has resources which are already in the pipeline which will be available for them to assist the people who have been impacted. The money will be there. The New York citizens will get the money they need out of the $9.3 billion which is in the disaster relief fund. What this amendment does is declare an emergency and add another $300 million to this bill, which is essentially outside of the budget. So I really don't think it is necessary at this time--in fact, I know it is not necessary at this time, and I know it is not going to impact the immediate New York situation. It just is not. It raises the bigger issue of what should be the number that we put into the disaster relief fund in one of these bills. It almost is a Ouija board exercise on this committee to figure out what number we put into this account because some years disasters will be significant and some years they won't. The last year and a half, we have dealt with the Katrina event, which was more than significant--it was horrific last year, and that was an aberration, we all sincerely hope--certainly the Presiding Officer hopes that--but that has caused us to have to spend over $100 billion on disaster relief. Whatever we put in this account is really just a guess, and until we see the actual events that are brought upon the Nation relative to natural disasters, how much money this account is going to need will not really be known. What we have shown as a Congress--and I think we have shown it rather aggressively time and again--is that when a disaster does occur which does qualify for FEMA funds and the disaster relief fund needs dollars, we act in a very prompt and aggressive manner. In fact, one can argue that in the Katrina situation, we put so much money in the pipeline so fast that a lot of it was not effectively used. That has been our history. I think that is actually the way to approach it. I have often thought about whether we should just put a lot of money in there and let it sit and wait for the disaster. We could do that, but as a practical matter, that is not a good use of taxpayers' dollars. It makes much more sense, if we have a terrible disaster, if we have floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes that create a declaration of disaster, that we make sure we have enough money in the disaster relief fund to meet the immediate needs, and if it needs more, we can come back and do it under emergency declaration. There is no question there is enough money in the relief fund to take care of all the disasters we know about, with potentially the exception of Katrina, which is being handled outside the relief fund for the reconstruction of the gulf coast. There is no need to put any more money in this account. Certainly, if we put more money in it at this time, it will have no impact on an event that occurred a month ago or an event that occurs tomorrow or occurs up until the end of September because this money will not be available until October 1. So this amendment is a statement, I understand that, of concern by the Senators from New York, and as representatives of the State of New York, I can understand their desire to get on record with such a statement. But at the appropriate time, I will make a point of order against it because it is an expense which we should not incur at this time for the reasons which I have outlined. For the edification of our Members, my hope is--and I have talked with the Senator from Washington about this--my hope is that after Senator Sessions offers his amendments--and my understanding is that he will be here shortly to do that--we will be able to vote on four amendments. That would be an amendment by Senator Menendez, an amendment by Senators Schumer and Clinton, and the two Senator Sessions amendments. I hope those votes will get started soon after Senator Sessions has completed his presentation and when anybody who wishes to respond to him has done so. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I greatly respect the Senator from Alabama and his tireless efforts in addressing the issue of illegal immigration and his amendment on building a wall in those parts of the urban areas of the border where a wall would be effective. It is an appropriate amendment, and I strongly support it. It was in the authorization. Had the administration supported our efforts relative to capital improvements in the supplemental, we might have been able to make a fairly significant commitment toward that wall. But the wall would be built over 2 years. This amendment accelerates that construction into a 1-year time period. Within the bill, we have approximately $400 million in supplemental capital improvements that could be used for wall construction. I don't think all of it would be used. Some of it would be obviously. We should build these walls. There is no question about it. The real issue is that the offset being used creates a Hobson's choice for almost everyone here, I suspect, because the practical effect of a 5.7 percent cut would be that we would have to reduce Border Patrol agents by about 750. We would have to reduce detention beds by about 1,100. We have attempted very hard to increase Border Patrol agents in this bill and increase detention beds. Yet we haven't funded the wall specifically as a result of our efforts to do these increases. The effect on the Coast Guard, the Senator from Washington alluded to, would probably be that the number of fast boats which we intended to buy would be reduced significantly, and our capacity to arm helicopters would be reduced from what we hoped to arm--60 helicopters. We have, at the most, armed probably 50, maybe 55. There is a real implication to this amendment. It has an implication in the things we are doing relative to border security which will be impacted by it. I am totally sympathetic to the need to make this investment in this fencing activity. And I believe within the Department's funds relative to capital improvements there is also some money which could be put there but nowhere near the dollars he believes are necessary with which the Department needs to continue construction. We are going to have to come up with a better way to do this. We are not going to be able to do this, in my humble opinion, the way this amendment is constructed--in an across-the-board cut. I have to oppose this amendment in its present form for that reason.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask to enter into a unanimous consent agreement relative to a series of votes: At 2:30, the Senate proceed to consecutive votes in relation to the following amendments: Senator Menendez, No. 4634; Senator Schumer, No. 4600; Senator Sessions, No. 4659; Senator Sessions No. 4660. I further ask consent that the time until then continue under the agreement which we had earlier relative to the Sessions amendment; further, that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the vote; further that prior to the first vote, Senator Leahy be recognized for 1 minute, Senator Menendez for 1 minute, and myself for 1 minute; further that between the remaining votes there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form and that after the first vote, all votes be 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I say to the Senator, we will be happy to entertain that amendment after we have completed voting on these and put that in the queue for consideration after we complete the votes.

Mr. GREGG. We will be here for a little while.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota. The issue he has raised here is an important one. I also appreciate the fact that it is more appropriately raised on another matter. Amendment No. 4660 Mr. President, speaking to the second amendment that Senator Sessions has offered, this again is an issue of priorities. The first amendment juxtaposes the need to build a wall with the need to add border security agents and detention beds and make the Coast Guard a more robust player and more capable, and have the US-VISIT program and the immigration program work well. It is ironic, actually, that this amendment, which increases investigators by 800, would, if the first amendment were to pass, end up reducing investigators by 300. I guess the net result would be if both amendments passed, you would end up with 500 investigators. But that shows the problem here that is being presented to the Senate by the way these amendments are structured with their across-the-board cuts. Because the across-the-board cuts impact the entire Department. This is not a Department that does a lot of things we do not need to do. Certainly, we need our Border Patrol agents. We need our Coast Guard. We need our Secret Service. We need our detention beds to make sure we can put these people away when we have them. So when you do an across- the-board cut, you impact all these other services. And, yes, ICE could use more investigators. That is why in this bill we added 75, so that we have 6,000 investigators in the ICE program. He would add 800 more to that. But, as I said, should his first amendment pass, he would reduce that number, logically--because there would be a 5-percent reduction--by 300. It would be almost a 6-percent reduction, actually. So, again, I have to oppose the amendment. Although the policy may make sense, the way it is paid for does not. It would actually do significant harm to our capacity, in my opinion, to have a robust Department of Homeland Security. So I will oppose the second amendment offered also by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the points I previously made relative to the impact of this amendment remain accurate. I continue my opposition to both amendments because of the across-the-board cut nature and the impact it would have on all elements of the Homeland Security Department. Even though the policy may be something we would agree with if we had the resources, we don't have the resources. I call for the regular order.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe in a risk-based approach. I support the amendment. I yield back my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the disaster relief fund has $9.3 billion in it. That is more than enough money to get us through the balance of this year and will give us a surplus going into next year. We have $1.6 billion in this bill to add to the $9.3 billion for next year. If a disaster occurs and it is of significant proportions, we will obviously come back and do an emergency appropriations. No money that would occur as a result of the amendment of the Senator from New York could be used this year for any disasters that have occurred this year in the Northeast because, of course, this money won't be available until next year. There is adequate money, however, to take care of the Northeast issues. So at this time I ask Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, pursuant to the deeming language in Public Law 109- 234, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation of the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. And this is a 10-minute vote?

Mr. GREGG. I will raise a point of order against the amendment which was ruled not an emergency. The pending amendment would cause the bill to violate section 302 of the Budget Act.

Mr. GREGG. Now I understand we are on to the first amendment of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GREGG. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GREGG. Although I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the policy behind this amendment, the simple fact is that this sort of across-the-board cut would wreak havoc on this department and potentially mean significant reductions in a number of critical areas. This department does not have a lot of activity that is not critical to our homeland security, and a 5.5 percent cut across the board would have a devastating impact. So I have to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, again, the policy is very laudable, but the problem is, the dollars are being taken out of other accounts. We are attempting to ramp up the personnel in a lot of Border Patrol activities, to ramp up the number of beds, and to ramp up our efforts in the Coast Guard. This $85 million is not going to come out of thin air and will have to come from one of these accounts or a series of accounts. We have a balanced bill. As much as I appreciate the Senator's proposal, this .3 of a percent across-the-board cut will have a fairly significant impact on Homeland Security. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to an amendment by Senator Reed, followed by an amendment by Senator Dayton. After those two amendments are disposed of, we will have an hour of debate relative to the Vitter amendment, with Senator Durbin controlling 45 minutes and Senator Vitter controlling 15 minutes. And then we will proceed to a vote on the Vitter amendment.