Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to make two statements supporting the amendments of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, submitted earlier today. One of the amendments, amendment No. 295, is actually identical to a bill Senators Landrieu, Stevens, and I introduced earlier this year called the Local Government Disaster Relief Act of 2007. That bill, S. 664, would waive the 10 percent State match requirement for the restoration of public infrastructure under FEMA's Public Assistance Program. This amendment is identical to a bill that Senators Landrieu, Stevens, and I introduced earlier this year called the Local Government Disaster Relief Act of 2007. That bill, S. 664, would waive the 10 percent state match requirement for the restoration of public infrastructure under FEMA's Public Assistance Program. FEMA provides Federal assistance for restoring public infrastructure--highways, bridges, schools, utilities--that have been damaged in a disaster. The law requires a match of no more than 25 percent from the States, but for rare and particularly catastrophic disasters, the President is authorized to waive the matching requirement. This matching requirement was waived for both Hurricane Andrew and the September 11 terrorist attacks. These were obviously two horrendous national emergencies. But the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina was equally as catastrophic, and the geographic scope of the Katrina devastation was far worse. Over 90,000 square miles were devastated by Katrina and Rita combined. Per capita cost is the traditional measurement used when determining whether to waive the match. In New York, the per capita cost for September 11 was $390.00. In Florida, after Hurricane Andrew, the cost per capita was $139.00. Louisiana's cost per capita was approximately $6,700. This number helps illustrates the massive challenge facing the State, and underscores the continuing need for Federal support as the regions struggles to regain its footing. Nevertheless, FEMA is requiring Gulf Coast States to pay a 10-percent match. This is an enormous burden for States still picking up the pieces and struggling to rebuild. And CBO has scored this legislation at no cost to the Federal Government. In Louisiana, as much as $1 billion in matching funds will have to be repaid if this requirement stands. I know from several visits to the gulf coast, that the State and local governments--and more importantly, the people--appreciate the generosity the American people have shown them in the wake of this disaster. But we must continue to demonstrate that generosity as people in the gulf States work to recapture their lives. We have asked the President to waive the 10-percent match. He has not responded. This amendment is the fair and right thing to do. It is a common sense, bipartisan amendment to fix a problem that never should have occurred in the first place. I urge every Senator to support this amendment to fulfill our commitment to help the gulf coast back on its feet. Senator Landrieu talked about this matter earlier in the day, and I believe she will return to the floor to describe it in more detail. Our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing in New Orleans during January of this year. Progress has been made in recovering from Hurricane Katrina, but there is an enormous amount yet to be done in the Gulf Coast. Particularly in New Orleans, one of America's great cities, large sections now resemble a ghost town. There is a lot of bureaucratic red tape. The problem here is not that Congress has not responded. In fact, we have appropriated, I believe, well over $110 billion in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the Gulf Coast. The problem is that so much of that money is tied up--and in the case of this match, a lot of the programs are tied up because some of the governments down there just don't have the resources to provide the match. The match has been waived in other natural disasters. I believe this amendment which has been offered is exactly the right thing to do to expedite the recovery of the Gulf Coast. Amendment No. 296 The second amendment Senator Landrieu offered is amendment No. 296, which I also want to support. It would allow the forgiveness of certain loans provided in the second Katrina supplemental appropriations bill passed last Congress to Gulf Coast States devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Congress passed the supplemental appropriations bill in part to provide $750 million to help Gulf Coast localities recover from the storm, and the bill waived the respective $5 million and 25 percent caps because of the enormous and immediate need all of us saw. This law would continue that. I supported waiving these caps to allow for the full flow of aid. At the time, I did not, however, support another provision that prohibited forgiveness of the CDL loan as a condition for allowing funds to be released. The fact is that building is underway, but the recovery will take years, perhaps even decades. The Stafford Act provides for the forgiveness of these loans because it recognizes, in certain instances, that localities are simply unable to recover lost revenues. This, in turn, stops their efforts to rebuild and ultimately leads to longer dependence on Federal assistance. This amendment would allow the Gulf Coast localities--many of them so devastated, with their revenue bases dramatically shrunk--to continue their rebuilding free from the burden of repaying loans they simply, in fact, cannot repay. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, unless my friend from South Dakota wishes to speak.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from South Dakota for his statement. I believe the Senator from Maryland has been here a while. If he is not ready to proceed, we will go to the Senator from Oklahoma, and then the Senator from Maryland will be next.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Seth Poldberg of Senator Grassley's office be granted floor privileges on this coming Monday, March 5.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is the second day of our consideration of this important legislation that came out with a bipartisan vote of 16 to 0, with one abstention, from our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As its title makes clear, this bill is aimed at finishing the job, completing the mission the 9/ 11 Commission gave us to secure the American people while at home from potential terrorist attack post-9/11. We had some good discussion in the opening day yesterday. We adopted by voice an amendment offered by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, which improved the security elements of the so-called visa waiver program, and we adopted in rollcall votes two amendments by Senator DeMint and another by Senator Inouye which would codify the existing regulatory framework that creates the Transportation Worker Identification Card, TWIC. This is the system by which, again post-9/ 11, we are doing things we never thought we would have to do. Then again, we never thought we would be attacked by terrorists at home, striking against civilians using elements of our own commercial society, in that case planes, to try to destroy us. So here we are with these two amendments now that would codify the screening process by which we aim to assure that those working at our docks, and this will be extended more broadly over time to transportation sectors--there is a card now that exists for aviation- related facilities--to make sure that we have done some screening to see that the people who are now working behind the scenes or even in front of these transportation nodes, which have now in this age become potential targets of terrorists, will be people whom we have reason to trust with that now very sensitive responsibility. We return to the bill this morning, and we are moving ahead. There are several amendments that I know are being discussed. We have an amendment my ranking member, Senator Collins of Maine, filed regarding the so-called REAL ID Act that is pending. There are other amendments that are being discussed. I would advise my colleagues and their staffs, if they are hearing this at this moment, that the floor is open. We gather that Senator Schumer and Senator Menendez may be coming over with an amendment early this afternoon dealing with port security, but there is nothing before us now. If you have an amendment, this would be a good time to bring it over. Mr. President, I note the presence of my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu, on the floor, and I yield the floor to him at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Collins for her leadership and for having created a context in which the administration now has come forward, finally, with the regulations pursuant to the so- called REAL ID Act, which does create some flexibility for States to comply with the requirement but also doesn't eliminate it because it is an important one. This is in the nature of this glorious governmental system of ours, the wisdom of the Founders more than two centuries ago to create the checks and balances. The legislature acts, Congress acts, the executive branch begins to work on implementation, States--this could actually be a textbook. Incidentally, I said to my friend I cannot say enough that it was my honor, too many years ago, in teaching a course at Yale to have the current occupant of the chair, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, as my student. He learned very well. He taught me a lot, actually, as time went on. This sounds like we are back in the classroom talking about the relationships in government. It was, I believe, the advocacy of Senator Collins that produced a reasonable result without the need for a specific legislative action. I do want to go back and set this in context because the overall purpose is a critically important one to the quest for homeland security. The 9/11 committee found that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers, the terrorists who attacked us that day, obtained American identification documents, some--I hate to use the word, but--legally, which is to say they complied with the requirements for that identification, and then some others by fraud. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the Federal Government set standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and identification cards. Driver's licenses are the most commonly used form of personal identification by people in this country. For a long time, what was identification about? It was simply that--maybe for credit purposes, maybe to get into a facility. Now identification is loaded with tremendous implications for security and abuse that go beyond financial fraud, which is what we were primarily concerned about before. The 9/11 Commission made this recommendation for national standards for driver's licenses and other forms of ID cards. They saw it as important to protecting the Nation against terrorism post-9/11 because often--it is very important to think about this--ID cards are the last line of defense against terrorists entering controlled areas such as airplanes or secure buildings. Obviously, it is important that we know exactly who those people are, that they are what the card says they are, and that they haven't obtained that card through fraud. In 2004, as part of the legislative effort successfully completed to adopt the proposals of the 9/11 Commission and put them into law, Senator Collins, Senator McCain, and I drafted provisions to implement this recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. I am pleased to say that we did so with input from both sides of the political aisle and all interested constituencies to increase security for issuing driver's licenses. Our language was endorsed by State and local governments, by the administration, and by a range of immigration, privacy, and civil liberties advocacy groups. In fact, our provisions to create national standards for State issuance of driver's licenses were enacted into law as part of the 2004 intelligence reform legislation. In 2005, beginning in the other body, so to speak, the House of Representatives, the REAL ID Act was included in a supplemental appropriations bill providing emergency funding for our troops. The REAL ID Act repealed the provisions I have spoken of that Senator Collins, Senator McCain, and I and others had put into the 9/11 legislation the previous year. In place of what I still believe was our workable and balanced program, which would have achieved the aims the 9/11 Commission gave us, the REAL ID Act imposed very difficult and, in some cases, unrealistic and, of course, unfunded requirements on States to verify identification documents by plugging into a series of databases that require technological changes that are expensive and, as is happening right now, delaying the actual implementation of a national set of standards which would have guaranteed us that driver's licenses and other ID cards are more secure. The fact is, REAL ID obviously, if it did not have this escape valve opened up as a result of Senator Collins' work, would slow down the issuance of driver's licenses to everyone and, I fear, might even increase the risk of identity theft. Notwithstanding that, if I had my druthers, as they used to say, I would go back to the provision we had in the original 9/11 legislation, but we are not there. The REAL ID Act is law, and it is beginning to be implemented. The most important thing we can do is not pull away from the goal which remains critically important to our national security in the war against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and want to do it again; that is, to make sure our driver's licenses and other forms of identity are tamper-proof and real. We have now struck a balance, with the initiative of Senator Collins and others and the response of the Department of Homeland Security this morning. We still have the goal, and we are going to implement it in a more balanced and reasonable fashion. But it is critically important not to move away from the goal. The goal is fundamental to the security of each and every American. Yes, it is going to be a little harder to get the driver's license but not a lot harder. What it is going to mean to everybody is that we can feel more secure when we get on a plane, when we go into a secure building, when we just move about enjoying the freedom and way of life we are blessed to enjoy as Americans. I thank Senator Collins for her leadership and the good result. I remind colleagues that the floor is open for business. We welcome amendments. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire. These sound like two very constructive, sensible amendments. We will take a look at them and be in touch with him. But I am optimistic we will want to support these amendments. They improve the basic architecture of the bill, and particularly in the critical area of establishing programs of Federal support for the first time that will enable States and localities, consistent with a plan--not just willy- nilly but consistent with a plan--to finally make communications interoperable so our first responders can talk to one another in times of crisis. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for his initiative.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, again, I congratulate Senator Collins for having achieved the purpose of her amendment without having to put it formally on the bill, and I look forward to seeing the Department move ahead in a more cooperative way with the States to achieve the purposes that the 9/11 Commission set out, which is to make the ID cards more secure to protect the rest of us Americans from those who would abuse those identity cards. It is a great accomplishment for my friend from Maine. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to build on some things my ranking member, Senator Collins, said about this amendment. I think what ought to be acknowledged is that everyone in the Senate, everyone in America would like to get to the point where we have 100 percent scanning of containers coming into this country--scanning for radiation because we are worried about the potential catastrophe of a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb in a container coming into this country. We know the number of containers coming in is enormous. Each day, more than 30,000 containers offload millions of tons at our maritime borders. We understand this requires two kinds of screening: First is radiation detection equipment to pick up, obviously, radiation emanating from a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb; secondly, so-called nonintrusive imaging equipment, which is needed in case terrorists have shielded the nuclear weapon or dirty bomb inside some kind of material that will stop it from registering on the radiation equipment. So the nonintrusive imaging equipment, x-ray equipment, will note there is something there that is shielded, which will then lead to a physical inspection of the container. There is no question in my mind that everybody in the Senate wants to get us to a point where we have 100 percent of the containers coming into America being scanned in the way I just described as soon as possible. What I want to say at this point is that the SAFE Port Act, which, as Senator Collins said, came out of our Homeland Security Committee last year--during those halcyon days when she was Chairman and I worked deferentially as the Ranking Minority Member--was a good, strong bill. It came out of committee, was adopted by both Houses, enacted, and became law on October 13 of last year. Here is the point. The SAFE Port Act, existing law, sets the goal of 100 percent scanning by radiation detection equipment and nonintrusive imaging equipment, as soon as possible. Obviously, if somebody says we should do it in 5 years, you would say: Sure, why not do that in 5 years. But I want to suggest now that I believe the existing law holds open the possibility of achieving that goal of 100 percent cargo scanning, assuming we can get over all the technological obstacles that Senator Collins and others have spoken of, sooner than the 5 year requirement found in this amendment. That is why it seems to me, with all due respect, that this amendment is unnecessary and, in fact, is less demanding than existing law. Let me go now to section 232 of Public Law 109-347, which is the SAFE Port Act. It says that the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, and foreign partners as appropriate, shall ensure integrated scanning systems are fully deployed--100 percent--to scan, using nonintrusive imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment, all containers--all containers, 100 percent--before those containers arrive in the United States, as soon as possible. As soon as possible, I hope, will occur before the 5 years required by this amendment. Not only does it set the goal as soon as possible, it creates a process that, with all due respect, is not found in this amendment, and that process as Senator Collins and Senator Coleman have described. A one year pilot project scanning 100 percent of cargo containers by these two methods of detection, at three ports around the world. That pilot has already begun. Six months after the conclusion of the pilot program, the Secretary has to report to Congress on the success of the program. The Secretary also has to do something else, according to the law. The Secretary has to indicate to the relevant committees of Congress how soon the 100 percent scanning goal of the SAFE Port Act can be achieved. Not only that, but subsection (c) of section 232 of the SAFE Port Act says that not later than 6 months after the submission of the initial report--and every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees describing the status of full-scale deployment of 100 percent cargo screening. That is not in the House-passed provision or, as I see it, in this amendment before us now. In other words, 6 months after the year long pilot project, the Secretary is going to report on the results and tell us when exactly he thinks we can achieve 100 percent screening of all cargo. The Secretary will then be required to file a similar report every 6 months thereafter until we achieve full-scale deployment of these two types of scanning devices to detect nuclear weapons that may be smuggled into this country in a container. Obviously, if the relevant committees of Congress that receive these reports--the first of which by my calculation would be April of next year, 2008, and then every 6 months thereafter--believe this implementation is not moving rapidly enough, we can come back and set a definite deadline date. Right now, however, I submit to my colleagues, existing law, the SAFE Port Act, actually sets a goal of 100 percent cargo scanning that I think may be more quickly achieved than the 5 years in this amendment, and sets up a process not found in the amendment, which requires reports to Congress every 6 months. This will inevitably, by the nature of the congressional process, trigger further legislation, perhaps specifically stating a deadline date for 100 percent scanning if we, in our wisdom, think that the Secretary and the industry are not moving rapidly enough. The bottom line is this. Existing law, in a technologically very difficult area, with significant potential impacts on our economy and the world economy, actually holds the potential of achieving more, and I believe will achieve more, than the amendment that is being offered. For those reasons, I will respectfully oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Jersey will withhold, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. for the national security briefing in S. 407; that upon reconvening at 4 p.m., the Senate resume the Schumer amendment No. 298; that prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, there be 45 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by Senators Schumer and Lieberman or their designees; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; and that upon use of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relationship to the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New Jersey. Amendment No. 298

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, at 4:45, there will be a vote on or in relation to the amendment offered by Senator Schumer and Senator Menendez. I wish to explain very briefly--and Senator Collins will speak later--on why we did not include this provision in the committee bill. This provision which Senators Schumer and Menendez have offered mirrors the section of the House-passed 9/11 bill. It was not actually called for by the 9/11 Commission, specifically, but it obviously relates to security and our concern about nuclear weapons or dirty bombs coming in through the thousands of containers that enter our ports every day. The reasons our committee in its deliberation in bringing this bill to the floor did not include language similar to the House bill is, first, the 9/11 Commission didn't ask for it, and most of what we have done, though not all, was included in that report; but, secondly, we acted last year in adopting the SAFE Port Act, enacted into law on October 13, 2006. It does provide for a pilot program at three foreign ports to provide for the scanning of cargo containers by radiation detection monitors and x-ray devices required under this proposal. There will be a report coming 6 months after the end of that one year pilot program. Among other responsibilities dictated by the law, the Secretary of Homeland Security will be required to report not only on how the pilot program went, but when we will achieve the goal of which--reading from the law, section 232--``all containers entering the United States, before such containers arrive in the United States, shall as soon as possible be scanned using nonintrusive imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment.'' In other words, existing law requires that we move--and I quote again--``as soon as possible to 100 percent scanning of all of the containers coming into the country.'' It requires the Secretary to report on how we are moving toward that goal, and when he thinks we can achieve it, every 6 months. In my opinion, existing law has a 100-percent goal right now, with reporting every 6 months to the relevant committees. Senators Schumer and Menendez have asked that it occur within 5 years and actually give a 1-year waiver opportunity to the Secretary. At this point, I say respectfully that this requirement is premature. I hope that under current law, ``as soon as possible'' will occur before 5 years time. To my friends who offer the amendment, if after the first 6-month report, due next April, or the second 6-month report, it looks like, based on what the Secretary reports, 100 percent scanning of containers coming into the country is to be much more delayed than I had hoped it would be, then I will join them in offering an amendment that will have a definite date by which 100 percent scanning should occur. It is for that reason that our committee did not include this section. We talked about it and decided not to include it--as it was in the House bill, because we think existing law does at least as good, and perhaps a better job. I will respectfully oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Very briefly, the Senator from New York has spoken passionately. I agree with everything he said about the urgency of the threat and the need to protect our people from weapons of mass destruction, which may arrive in containers. But I want to come back to what I said for a few moments. There is existing law that sets up a process that compels the Secretary of Homeland Security to achieve 100 percent cargo scanning as soon as possible, based on the outcome of the three port pilot projects that are occurring this year. My friend from New York has said that ``as soon as possible'' could be whenever the Department of Homeland Security wants, that they have been doing nothing for the 5\1/2\ years since 9/11. However, this law, the SAFE Ports Act, just became law last October 13, 2006. So the pilot programs at the three ports have just started in the last 5 months. At the end of the year, the Secretary will make a report to Congress about how those pilots are going. Again, he is required by the law to state to the appropriate Congressional committees in April of next year, and every 6 months thereafter, the status of full-scale deployment under subsection (b), which is basically saying how soon can we get to exactly what Senators Schumer, Menendez, Collins, and I and I presume everybody--wants, which is 100 percent cargo container scanning. So, again, we think we have a mechanism. We share the same goal. If for some reason after the first 6 month report, or the second one, we are dissatisfied with the pace of implementation by the Secretary, I am sure we will all join to set a deadline. For now, the committee has decided that it is not necessary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Certainly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New York. Of course, I send back the same respect to him, truly, coming from New York, particularly after 9/11, he has been an effective advocate for homeland security. My answer is this: Maybe history will show me to be an unjustified optimist. I hope ``as soon as possible,'' as stated in the law, means that we should have 100 percent scanning sooner than 5 years. I will not have a real sense of that until we get the first 6 month report, or maybe the second. So to me, again, it is the judgment of the committee to not include the House-passed provision, not recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and to give the system time to work.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield such time to the Senator from Maine as she desires of the time I have remaining.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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