Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was pleased to join Senator Specter and Senator Dodd in offering an amendment to restore the Great Writ of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of American liberty since the founding of this Nation. Senator Specter and I introduced this legislation late last year and reintroduced it on the first day of this new Congress. This amendment continues our efforts to amend last year's Military Commissions Act, to right a wrong and to restore a basic protection to American law. This is an issue on which we continue to work together and urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us. As Justice Scalia wrote in the Hamdi case: ``The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' The remedy that secures that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus. It provides a check against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one's innocence. This fundamental protection was rolled back in an unprecedented and unnecessary way in the run up to last fall's election by passage of the Military Commissions Act. The Military Commissions Act eliminated that right, permanently, for any noncitizen determined to be an enemy combatant, or even ``awaiting'' such a determination. That includes the approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people who work and pay taxes in America and are lawful residents. This new law means that any of these people can be detained, forever, without any ability to challenge their detention in Federal court--or anywhere else--simply on the Government's say-so that they are awaiting determination whether they are enemy combatants. I deeply regret that Senator Specter and I were unsuccessful in our efforts to stop this injustice when the President and the Republican leadership insisted on rushing the Military Commissions Act through Congress in the weeks before the recent elections. We proposed an amendment that would have removed the habeas-stripping provision from the Military Commissions Act. We fell just three votes short in those politically charged days. It is my hope that the new Senate and new Congress will reconsider this matter, restore this fundamental protection and revitalize our tradition of checks and balances. This amendment to the 9/11 Commission bill provides the right time and the place for the Senate to make this stand. The 9/11 Commission bill seeks to make us stronger and to protect us from the threat of terrorism. Protecting our values and the safeguards that make us a strong democracy is key to that effort. Restoring our place as an example to the world of liberty and the rule of law will only increase our security and undermine those who would seek to recruit terrorists. Giving the Government such raw, unfettered power as the Military Commissions Act did should concern every American. Last fall, I spelled out a nightmare scenario about a hard-working legal permanent resident who makes an innocent donation to, among other charities, a Muslim charity that the Government secretly suspects might be a source of funding for critics of the United States Government. I suggested that, on the basis of this donation and perhaps a report of ``suspicious behavior'' from an overzealous neighbor, the permanent resident could be brought in for questioning, denied a lawyer, confined, and even tortured. Such a person would have no recourse in the courts for years, for decades, forever. Many people viewed this kind of nightmare scenario as fanciful, just the rhetoric of a politician. It was not. It is all spelled out clearly in the language of the law that this body passed. In November, the scenario I spelled out was confirmed by the Department of Justice itself in a legal brief submitted in a Federal court in Virginia. The Justice Department, in a brief to dismiss a detainee's habeas case, said that the Military Commissions Act allows the Government to detain any non-citizen designated an enemy combatant without giving that person any ability to challenge his detention in court. This is true, the Justice Department said, even for someone arrested and imprisoned in the United States. The Washington Post wrote that the brief ``raises the possibility that any of the millions of immigrants living in the United States could be subject to indefinite detention if they are accused of ties to terrorist groups.'' In fact, the situation is even more stark than The Washington Post story suggested. The Justice Department's brief says that the Government can detain any noncitizen declared to be an enemy combatant. But the law this Congress passed says the Government need not even make that declaration: They can hold people indefinitely who are awaiting determination whether or not they are enemy combatants. It gets worse. Republican leaders in the Senate followed the White House's lead and greatly expanded the definition of ``enemy combatants'' in the dark of night in the final days before the bill's passage, so that enemy combatants need not be soldiers on any battlefield. They can be people who donate small amounts of money, or people that any group of decision-makers selected by the President decides to call enemy combatants. The possibilities are chilling. We have eliminated basic legal and human rights for the 12 million lawful permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome to our shores each year. We have removed a vital check that our legal system provides against the Government arbitrarily detaining people for life without charge. We may well have also made many of our remaining limits against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment obsolete because they are unenforceable. We have removed the mechanism the Constitution provides to check Government overreaching and lawlessness. This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check on this administration's lawlessness. Certainly the last Congress did not do it. With passage of the Military Commissions Act, the Republican Congress completed the job of eviscerating its role as a check and balance on the administration. Some Senators uneasy about the Military Commissions Act's disastrous habeas provision took solace in the thought that it would be struck down by the courts. Instead, the first court to consider that provision, a Federal court in the District of Columbia, upheld the provision. The DC Circuit, in a sharply divided 2-1 decision, upheld that ruling, holding that at least the hundreds of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay cannot go to court to challenge their detention. We should not outsource our moral, legal and constitutional responsibility to the courts. We cannot count on the courts to fix our mistakes. Congress must be accountable for its actions, and we should act to right this wrong. Following the DC Circuit's decision, newspapers and experts from across the country and across the political spectrum have called on Congress to take action. Editorial boards from the Washington Post and the New York Times to the Evansville Courier & Press in Indiana, and the Columbia Tribune in Missouri have called for reversing the MCA's habeas provision. Prominent conservatives like Bob Barr and Bruce Fein, along with Aberto Mora, former Navy General Counsel in the Bush Administration, have echoed this call. I ask that a selection of these editorials be placed in the record. A group of four distinguished admirals and generals who have served as senior military lawyers argued passionately for fixing this problem in a letter they sent to me earlier this week. They wrote, ``In discarding habeas corpus, we are jettisoning one of the core principles of our Nation precisely when we should be showcasing to the world our respect for the rule of law and basic rights. These are the characteristics that make our nation great. These are the values our men and women in uniform are fighting to preserve.'' Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands. It makes a mockery of the administration's lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe. We should take steps to ensure that our enemies can be brought to justice efficiently and quickly. I introduced a bill to do that back in 2002, as did Senator Specter, when we each proposed a set of laws to establish military commissions. The Bush-Cheney administration rejected our efforts and designed a regime the U.S. Supreme Court determined to be unlawful. Establishing appropriate military commissions is not the question. We all agree to do that. What we need to revisit is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for millions of legal immigrants and others, denying their right to challenge indefinite detainment on the Government's say-so. It is from strength that America should defend our values and our Constitution. It takes commitment to those values to demand accountability from the Government. We should not be legislating from fear. In standing up for American values and security, I will keep working on this issue until we restore the checks and balances that are fundamental to preserving the liberties that define us as a nation. We can ensure our security without giving up our liberty. That is what the 9/11 Commission bill aims to do, and that is what this amendment will help to achieve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the nominee has been voted on unanimously by the Judiciary Committee and has the support of both Senators from Iowa. I support the nominee. I ask for the yeas and nays on that nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand we have a second nomination now.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, today we consider the nomination of John A. Jarvey, who has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. In his 18 years as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Iowa, Judge Jarvey has built upon his reputation as is a well-respected attorney and former federal prosecutor and earned the bipartisan support of both home State Senators. I know Senator Grassley, who has been a strong advocate for Judge Jarvey on the committee, will welcome his confirmation. A native of Minneapolis, MN, Judge Jarvey received his B.S. in accounting from the University of Akron in 1978 and his J.D. from Drake University in 1981 before clerking for Judge Donald E. O'Brien in the Northern District of Iowa. After his clerkship, Judge Jarvey began his career as a trial attorney in the criminal division of the Justice Department from 1983 to 1987, working in the narcotic and dangerous drug Section before his appointment as a magistrate judge for the Northern District of Iowa in 1987. He is now the chief magistrate judge of that district. Since 1993, Judge Jarvey has also been trial advocacy instructor at Iowa Law School since 1993. With his confirmation today, the Senate will have confirmed nine judicial nominations for lifetime appointments this year. That is more than half the total of confirmations for the entire 1996 session and we are still in February of this year. Of course, it was the Republican Senate majority that refused to proceed with qualified nominees and slowed consideration of President Clinton's nominations. Indeed, one of the casualties of their pocket filibusters was an outstanding nominee from Iowa. Bonnie Campbell had served as attorney general for the State of Iowa and as the head of the Violence Against Women Office at the Department of Justice. Despite her qualifications and without any explanation, the Republican leadership in the Senate stalled her nomination for many months and then killed it. Hers was one of the more than 60 judicial nominations of President Clinton that Republicans pocket filibustered. President Bush's nominations from Iowa have fared better in a Democratic-controlled Senate than President Clinton's did under Republican control. Judge Jarvey will be the third Iowa District Court judge confirmed while I have been chairman of the Judicial Committee. We also confirmed an 8th Circuit nominee from Iowa, Michael Melloy, when I was last Chairman. I have long urged the President to fill vacancies with consensus nominees. After Judge Jarvey's confirmation, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts there will still be some 51 judicial vacancies, 25 of which have been deemed to be judicial emergencies. The President has sent the Senate nominations for only 22 of those seats, and has yet to send us nominees for 17 of the judicial emergency vacancies. That means two-thirds of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee from this President. I congratulate Judge Jarvey, his wife, and his three children on his confirmation today.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, who is the first nominee?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to inform all Senators and their staffs of an exhibit of photographs to commemorate International Women's Day, March 8, which is sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The exhibit, entitled ``Women Transforming Development,'' highlights the critical roles women play in development and USAID's efforts to support women's equality and empowerment. For more than three decades, USAID has worked to improve women's lives in the world's poorest countries. Where women are educated, the health and economic prospects of their families improve. Where women participate politically, democracy is strengthened. In the wake of conflict, women play a central role in the survival of their children and the rebuilding of their communities. ``Women Transforming Development'' will be displayed in the Rotunda of the Russell Senate Building from March 7 through 16, 2007. The powerful images in the exhibit illustrate women's contributions to economic development, peace and security, democracy, investments in people, and humanitarian assistance in all regions of the world. They include images of USAID's work in Bangladesh, Mozambique, Ecuador, Ukraine, and Senegal. These photographs remind us of the injustice, discrimination, and hardship that women and girls of every nationality suffer daily. Young women are targeted and murdered in Juarez, Mexico, and in Guatemala. Women in countries like Peru, Chad, and Nepal are often treated like beasts of burden, spending much of their day carrying heavy loads of water and firewood. Domestic abuse is endemic in most countries, and in some, like Pakistan and Afghanistan, women who are raped are in danger of being imprisoned and beaten under laws that punish the victim. The global statistics are sobering. According to USAID, two-thirds of the 876 million illiterate adults worldwide are women. Two-thirds of the world's 125 million school-aged children who do not attend school are girls, and girls are less likely to finish school than boys. Seventy percent of the 1.3 billion people living in poverty around the world are women and children. Each year more than 500,000 women die during childbirth and pregnancy. The vast majority of those deaths could be prevented with basic reproductive health services. And more than three-quarters of the world's 27 million refugees are women and children. Yet at the same time, the photographs in this exhibit also depict women as strong leaders and participants in standing up for their rights and transforming their societies. With Congress's support, USAID is working to improve women's equality and empowerment not only because it is just, but also because it is necessary for successful development. For example, in addition to implementing programs totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in the world's poorest countries to improve maternal and reproductive health, 67 percent of USAID's basic education programs focus on girls' education. Nearly one-third of the people receiving USAID-supported business development services are women. Last year, USAID provided $27 million to support antitrafficking activities in 30 countries. USAID assisted in the development of legislation against domestic violence, sexual harassment, and trafficking in persons in several countries. These are important efforts that need to be expanded. Women and men together must embrace these goals. I encourage all Senators and their staffs to visit the exhibit and share in this powerful celebration of International Women's Day.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am willing to have a voice vote if nobody wants a rollcall vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Sara Elizabeth Lioi for a lifetime appointment to a seat on the Northern District of Ohio. Hers will be the tenth judicial nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Federal courts that the Senate has already considered this year. Judge Lioi has spent nearly 10 years on the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. I am sure Senator Voinovich, who appointed her to the bench when he was Governor of Ohio, will welcome her confirmation. I thank Senator Brown for expediting his consideration of this nomination. This process works best when the White House consults with Senators from both sides of the aisle. Judge Lioi received her B.A. from Bowling Green State University in 1983, where she graduated summa cum laude, and her J.D. from Ohio State University College of Law in 1987. She worked in private practice with Day, Ketterer, Raley, Wright & Rybolt Ltd. in Canton, OH, upon graduation from law school. Her practice included appellate and trial litigation and service as special counsel to Stark State College of Technology. She was elected a principal of her law firm in 1993 and stayed there until Governor Voinovich appointed her to the bench in 1997. Judge Lioi has been active in the judicial and legal community, serving on a statewide Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, the Supreme Court's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, and the Supreme Court of Ohio Task Force on Rules of Professional Conduct. With Judge Lioi's confirmation, we will have confirmed all the district court nominees left pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar at the end of the last Congress when Republican holds prevented us from confirming them all. We have worked hard to expedite these nominations through the committee and the Senate this year. I thank particularly the new Members for allowing us to proceed so quickly and congratulate Judge Lioi and her family on her confirmation today. We have now proceeded with 10 confirmations even though the President did not renominate Judge Janet Neff for one of the many emergency vacancies that plague the Western District of Michigan. Last year the Senators from Michigan had worked with the White House and the President had proceeded to nominate her. The Democratic members of the committee cooperated to expedite her consideration along with others. Last September 16, we held a confirmation hearing for her and other nominees on an expedited basis and the committee sent them to the Senate without a single objection on September 29. Regrettably, rather than meet to work out a process to conclude the consideration of judicial nominations last session, the Republican leadership of the Senate stalled these nominations and, in particular, the President's nomination of Judge Janet Neff. After the Senate session in October, I learned that several Republicans were objecting to Senate votes on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. According to press accounts, Senator Brownback had placed a hold on Judge Neff's nomination, even though he raised no objection to her nomination when she was unanimously reported out of Judiciary Committee. He later sent questions to Judge Neff about her attendance at a commitment ceremony held by some family friends several years ago in Massachusetts. Senator Brownback spoke of these matters and his concerns on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Could it really be that Judge Neff's attendance at a commitment ceremony of a family friend failed some Republican litmus test of ideological purity, that her lifetime of achievement and qualifications were to be ignored, and that her nomination was to be pocket filibustered by Republicans? I do not know why the President has not chosen to renominate Judge Neff. The situation in the Western District of Michigan is quite dire. Judge Robert Holmes Bell, Chief Judge of the Western District, wrote to me and to others about the situation in that district, where several judges on senior status--one over 90 years old--continue to carry heavy caseloads. Judge Bell is the only active judge. Senator Brownback, who raised concern about the burdens falling on senior judges in his home State, should be sensitive to the dire situation in the Western District of Michigan exacerbated by his hold. I have long urged the President to fill vacancies with consensus nominees, particularly for those determined to be judicial emergencies. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, after Judge Lioi's confirmation, there will remain 50 judicial vacancies, 25 of which--more than half--have been deemed to be judicial emergency vacancies. Of those 25 judicial emergency vacancies, the President has yet to send us nominees for 17 of them. That means two-thirds of the judicial emergency vacancies are without a nominee from the President. That includes the judicial emergency vacancy that Judge Neff should have filled months ago but for another Republican pocket filibuster. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. I see the ranking member on the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Vote

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I may need it--Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Without sounding like a poor rendition of Johnny Cash's song ``I Have Been Everywhere, Man''--one of my favorites, I might say; he actually mentions Brattleboro, VT. If you vote for my amendment, which will be the third one, here are the States that do not lose or break even. These are the States that will be protected under current funding: Alabama, Alaska--these are States I hope will support the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, because it is to their State's benefit: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming--I realize the District of Columbia can't vote, but if they could, they would vote with us. Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the Senator from Vermont or is any time remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, using part of my remaining time, again I would tell my friends, my dear friend, the senior Senator from New Jersey and others, we have set aside nearly 60 percent of these funds for special purposes, high-threat areas, areas that we determine need that money. We are talking about the all-State minimum going to what is remaining. Again, I hope someone is listening to this debate. You can vote for these next two amendments and a few States will gain from them, but if you vote for these next two amendments, here are the States that will lose or at best break even: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma--Mr. President, I haven't used my 13 minutes yet, have I, because I still have a lot of States to name here----

Mr. LEAHY. I thought we were voting at 5:30. That time has slipped or is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is left to the proponents of the various amendments?

Mr. LEAHY. Very quickly. Vote against my amendment, and here are the States that lose: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. If you want to vote for my friend from California, the States that do gain are: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY. I may need it. Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In case anybody missed that, these are the States which will lose if my colleagues do not adopt the Leahy-Thomas, et al amendment. These States will lose if my colleagues adopt the amendment of the Senator from California: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The Senators from those States, of course, feel free to vote any way they want, but should anybody be checking back home, they should know what their vote means. I hope my colleagues will support the Leahy-Thomas amendment, No. 333, to restore the minimum allocation for States in the State Homeland Security Grant Program from .45 percent, which is proposed by the underlying bill, and bring it back to current law. We are not asking for an increase but bring it back to current law, which is .75 percent. If you don't, the proposed changes in the formula result in the loss of millions in homeland security funding for the fire, police and rescue departments in small- and medium-sized States. It will also deal a crippling blow to dozens of States' efforts to fulfill federally mandated multiyear plans to build and to sustain their terrorism preparedness. What I am saying is, the Federal Government has said: Here, small States, cities, communities. Here is what we are saying you have to do. Initially, they said: We will give you some money to help. But now we are going to say: You still have to do it, but tax your people to do it. We don't have the money. We are going to send it to the Iraqi fire departments and to the Iraqi police departments. We are going to send it to the Iraqi homeland security. We can't spend it on your State. As with current law, the State minimum under our amendment would continue to apply--and this is important--only to 40 percent of the overall funding under this program. The majority of the funds would continue to be allocated based on risk assessment criteria, which are the funds of several separate discretionary programs the Congress has established for solely urban and high-risk areas. A lot of these smaller States have voted for these extra amounts for these urban and high-risk areas. I think it is a good idea. The majority of the funds are not allocated to these smaller States or to areas based on risk assessment requirements. The underlying bill now before the Senate would reduce the all-State minimum. The House bill reduces it even further. We know, however, that this is a matter that is going to face the conference anyway, and because of these formula differences, there is no guarantee that the minimum will not even further be slashed during conference. Small- and medium-sized States face enormous cuts. With appropriations for formula grants already being cut by 60 percent since 2003--$2.3 billion in 2003 to $900 million in fiscal year 2007--further reductions to first-responder funding would hamper even more these States' efforts. The cuts would be even deeper should the President's budget request for next year be approved, since he has requested only $250 million for these two important first responder grant programs. I am almost tempted to tell some of these small States and towns to change their names to Baghdad or northern Iraq or something similar to that and they will get all the money they want but not if they want to defend their own people here in the United States. I have heard the argument from urban States, arguing that Federal money to fight terrorism is wasted in smaller States. They seem to forget that the attacks on 9/11 added to the responsibilities and the risks of all the State and local first responders nationwide. The Federal Government has called on all of them, and the portion that is allocated to all States--again, only a portion of these funds--is part of the Federal Government's fulfillment of that directive. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to restore the .75- percent minimum base and ensure continued support and resources for our police, fire, and ambulance services in every State. Homeland security is a new responsibility entrusted to our first responders, and this program, along with this assurance of basic help--not the special help that goes to the large States but the special help that goes where we see special needs--but this basic help will make a big difference. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would that it were that easy, as my friend from California has said, I would be eager to vote for her amendment, but she is assuming that rather than following what the law now says, the head of the Department of Homeland Security will use discretion always to benefit everybody's State--something we saw does not always work, as the people suffered after Katrina. Under the amendment of the Senator from California, States that will substantially gain are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. The States, however, that lose or break even by lowering the all-State minimum for homeland security formula grants are these. I hope Senators are listening because they are going to be called upon to vote. These are the States which lose or break even. They don't receive an additional amount. The States that lose or break even by lowering the all-State minimum are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma. Madam President, I haven't used my 13 minutes yet, have I? I still have a lot more States to name.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 338

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEAHY. Has there been time reserved for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there an order for recognition?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I reserve my time.

Mr. LEAHY. Further parliamentary inquiry: Does anybody else have time reserved to them?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I can explain this easily. It is a bipartisan amendment. I offer it on behalf of myself and Senators Thomas, Stevens, Roberts, Pryor, Sanders, Enzi, Hatch, and Whitehouse to restore the minimum allocation for States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program. Right now, in the underlying bill, it is proposed at .45 percent. Our amendment would restore it to current law which is .75. That means that every State would have, of the homeland security money, at least .75 percent of it. I should point out, incidentally, as with current law, our State minimum, under our amendment, would apply only to 40 percent of the overall funding of this program. This may sound somewhat tricky, but what it means is we have special funding for certain unique areas--ports areas, large cities and all--but this applies to only 40 percent of the overall funding. The majority of the funds would continue to be allocated based on risk assessment criteria--again, the idea of a major port, or something like that, as are the funds under the several separate discretionary programs which Congress has established for solely urban and high-risk areas. These are also governed by risk assessment calculations. That is not something that is going to be affected by the so-called small State minimum. The underlying bill before the Senate would reduce the all-State minimum for SHSGP in the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program to .45 percent. In the other body it is reduced even further, to .25 percent. So we know this is going to be a matter in conference under any circumstances. In fact, due to the formula differences--it is somewhat complicated, but as a result, there is no guarantee that the minimum would not even be further reduced during conference negotiations. Small- and medium-sized States face a loss of millions of dollars for our first responders if the minimum is lowered. If you reduce the all- State minimum to .45 percent, the underlying bill would reduce the guaranteed dollar amount for each State by 40 percent. With the appropriations for the formula grants having been cut by 60 percent since 2003--it was $2.3 billion in 2003; it is $900 million in fiscal year 2007--if you have a further reduction in first responder funding, it is going to hinder, actually, every State's effort to deal with potential terrorist attacks. That applies to fiscal year 2007 homeland security and law enforcement terrorism grants which were funded at $525 million and $375 million, respectively, for a total of $900 million. Under the current all-State minimum, the base amounts States receive is $6.75 million. Under the 2007 levels, each State would face a loss of an estimated $2.7 million or 40 percent under this new formula, and this is assuming we do not go even lower when we go to conference with the other body. For small States--one that comes to mind is Montana. Why that particular one came to mind I don't know. Maybe looking at the distinguished Presiding Officer made me think of it. But the cuts would be even deeper should the President's budget requests for next year be approved. He requested only $250 million for these two important first responder grant programs. Under the .45 percent minimum proposed by the underlying bill and the .25 percent minimum proposed by the Feinstein-Obama amendment, the guaranteed amount for each State would drop to $1.125 million and $625,000 respectively. Again, these are all numbers and percentages you talk about. But what it means is it would be a loss of millions of dollars in homeland security funding for fire, police, and rescue departments in small and medium-sized States. At the same time we are being told, you have got to prepare to be able to do this and do that; we have to be able to have a unified response around our Nation, we are going to have to call on you first and foremost; you have got to have your radios, your equipment, your training. Oh, by the way, find the money somewhere. You are part of a national effort, but find the money somewhere in your small communities or States to do it. It deals a crippling blow to launch federally mandated multiyear plans for terrorism preparedness. Basically we can say from Washington what you should do in these multiyear plans. We tell you how to coordinate, how you train and plan, and it may be a small town on the border, the Federal border, you could be on a major waterway, but find the money somewhere. We want you to do this because the Nation needs you, we just cannot help you. Now, I understand there is a budget crunch. We need a lot of money to send over to Iraq so the Iraqis can prepare for national defense. We need a lot of money to send over to Iraq so they can spend it on their police departments. We need a lot of money to send over to Iraq so they can spend it on their fire departments. I don't know, maybe I am old- fashioned in this regard, but I think maybe we kind of ought to look at our police departments first, our fire departments first. If I have a burglar in the middle of the night, I am not going to call the Iraqi police department, I am going to call my local police department. If we have a fire, I am not going to call the Iraqi fire department, I am going to call my own fire department. If we have a terrorist attack, if we have a terrorist attack coming across our border or on one of our major waterways, I am not going to call the Iraqi fire department or police department, I am going to call our own. We are going to be the first responders. It is not going to do much good to say, sorry, we do not have the money for you because we needed it for your counterparts in Iraq. Even if the current .75 percent minimum is applied to the President's budget request, as my amendment does, States would still see a major drop. They would be guaranteed a minimum amount of $1.875 million. That is a drop of $4.875 million from the fiscal year 2007 guaranteed minimum amount. Now, I have voted for, I have supported, antiterrorist efforts for our large States. We have seen what terrorism can do in larger States. In Oklahoma, it was, of course, homegrown. In Oklahoma City it was an American, former member of our armed services who attacked. But the damage to our people was as great as somebody coming from outside. In New York City, it was from outside our Nation, the Twin Towers, and every one of us who goes to work in this building that was targeted for destruction by the terrorists. I have no problem in giving special funding to places that might be seen as being possible high-profile targets. But I wrote the current all-State minimum formulas as part of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 to guarantee each State receives at least a fraction of 1 percent, three-quarters of 1 percent of the national allotment to help meet their national domestic security needs. Some States may have many times that, of course. But each State receives some kind of a minimum amount because every State--rural, urban, small or large--has basic security needs. They are going to have basic security requests from the Federal Government, and they deserve to receive Federal funds under this partnership to meet both those needs and the new homeland security responsibilities the Federal Government demands. As I said before, high-density urban areas have even greater needs, and that is why this year alone we provided $1.3 billion for homeland security programs which Montana cannot apply for, Vermont cannot apply for. I don't have any problems with that. There is only a small number of urban areas that can, and we have a special pot of money for that. Those needs deserve and need to be met. We are talking about the amount of money for homeland security which is a fraction of what we currently are spending in Iraq anyway. At some point we have to talk about what our needs are here inside the homeland. I worked very hard over the years to help address the needs of larger States and high-density areas. I have done it on the Appropriations Committee, I have done it in the Judiciary Committee, and I have opposed the administration's efforts to pit our States against each other as they have tried to mask their efforts, the administration's efforts, to cut overall funding for first responders. Smaller States especially would never be able to fulfill the essential duties they are asked to do by the Federal Government on top of their daily responsibilities without some Federal support, such as DHS currently suggesting that States will have to pay for REAL ID implementation, this idea they have come up with, which is basically having a national identification card. No matter what you call it, it is the first time in our history that we have a national identification card. But you know that is going to cost the States, this idea that was cooked up out of an office here in Washington. It is going to cost our individual States $16 billion. If you cut down the minimum even more at the same time you are making substantial drops in overall first responder funding, then small and medium-sized States are not going to be able to meet these Federal mandates for terrorism prevention, preparedness, and response. Some from urban States argue that Federal money, the Federal money to fight terrorism, is being spent in areas that do not need it; it is wasted in small towns. They claim the formula is highly politicized and insist on the redirection of funds to urban areas that they believe face these heightened threats of terrorist attacks. Well, what the critics of the all-State minimums seem to forget is that since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Government has asked every State, every State and every local first responder, every local first responder, to defend us as never before on the front lines in the war against terrorism. Emergency responders in one State have been given the same obligations as those in any other State to provide enhanced protection, preparedness, and response against terrorists. The attacks of 9/11 added to the responsibilities and risks of first responders across the country. In recent years, due to the .75 all-State minimum allocation for formula grants, first responders have received resources to help them meet their new responsibilities. They have made their neighborhoods safer. They made our communities better prepared. A lot has been done. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to restore the .75 percent minimum base and give us the kind of support and resources for our police, fire, and EMS services in every State if we want them to carry out the responsibilities. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, one of our cosponsors on the floor. I yield the floor.