Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Monday, September 11, 2006, at 2 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``NAFTA at Year Twelve.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins and Senator Grassley for their cooperation, and our counterparts on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues Senator Inouye, Senator Murray, and Senator Baucus, those who are working with us to move this bill as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as we all know, Monday marks the fifth anniversary of September 11 and the terrorist attacks against this country. Shortly after those attacks, during the 107th Congress, the President signed into law the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, which was developed by our Commerce Committee to enhance our country's maritime security. Since then, our Commerce Committee has worked as hard as possible to pass and implement a number of initiatives which have made our ports and borders more secure. Today we take up the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This bill marks the first time three Senate committees have merged their collective expertise and crafted a truly comprehensive approach to port security. A bipartisan group of members from the Commerce Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have worked together for several months on this bill. As I know the Senate will realize, these three committees each have tremendous knowledge about our ports and programs which protect and secure our international supply chain. I believe it is a credit to the Senate that each committee agreed to pool their resources, put aside jurisdictional issues, and reach a consensus on this bill. When enacted, this bill will strengthen our land and sea ports, improve our maritime transportation security strategy, and enhance communication between the Department of Homeland Security and transportation security stakeholders. It includes a plan to get our trade activities up and running again in the event of a transportation security incident. And it creates a pilot program which will study the feasibility of scanning each of the containers--100 percent of the containers--entering our ports. Mr. President, I spent considerable time in the last couple of years examining our ports, and particularly the west coast, which is really sort of the domain I know best. When I was a boy, the Port of Los Angeles was three separate Ports of San Pedro, Long Beach, and Los Angeles. The Port of Los Angeles is now an enormous area. Forty percent of the seaborne trade of the U.S. comes through the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of San Francisco, and of course, the Port of Seattle, which is the home of our colleague, Senator Murray, but also is sort of the stepping stone into my State of Alaska. It is a dynamic port and one that has been experimenting to a great extent on how to bring about container inspection, container scanning. I personally went through each of the ports to see what was being done. There are still a great many problems. I must say that the people operating the ports, including those who are really the working people, have gone out of their way to try to make certain that those ports are safe and secure and that the containers are, in fact, scanned to the best extent possible now. But we want to do this pilot program to see if it is possible to tell our people that 100 percent of the containers coming into the country are scanned. This legislation will enhance the collection and analysis of information about cargo destined for our ports. Those in the shipping industry are our eyes and ears with respect to security, and this bill aims to increase awareness of the operations at domestic and foreign ports. Once those in industry share important information about cargo in the international supply chain, we must analyze it quickly. This legislation expedites that process and ensures it begins earlier in the supply chain--before containers even reach our shores. This act requires information about cargo be provided and analyzed before the cargo is loaded on a vessel in a foreign port and shipped here. That will be a significant change. This bill also expands several initiatives with a proven track record of success. There are currently five interagency operations centers up and running throughout our country. These centers bring together Federal, state, and local security enforcement officials to ensure communication among them. This act expands this effort to each of the major seaports, and places the Coast Guard in charge of these centers. This act also builds upon the Department of Homeland Security's past cooperation with foreign governments. The Container Security Initiative, CSI, contained within this bill enables the department, working in partnership with host government customs services, to examine high-risk containerized cargo at foreign seaports before it is loaded on vessels destined for the United States. The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT, a voluntary public-private partnership, is also strengthened in this bill. The Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection will now be able to certify that a business's supply chain is secure from the point of manufacture to the product's final U.S. destination. Under this legislation, whether cargo crosses our border at Laredo or arrives on a ship from Hong Kong, participating companies' supply chains will undergo a thorough security check. This will add another layer of security to the C-TPAT initiative. Since this is a voluntary system, we have also included provisions which encourage those in industry to go above and beyond the security requirements already in place. These new incentives include expedited clearance of cargo. Mr. President, while I was disappointed earlier this year by the negative public reaction to foreign investment in our Nation's port terminals, we learned a great deal from hearings held by the Commerce Committee on this matter. As a result of those hearings, this bill requires DHS to conduct background checks on all port personnel. Current law only requires the Transportation Security Administration to perform checks on those workers directly tied to transportation at the port, or involved in its security. From the Commerce Committee hearings, it was evident that a more stringent requirement was needed, and it is in the bill. The events of September 11, 2001, forever altered the course of our Nation. Senator Inouye and I traveled to ground zero shortly after the attacks. It was a sad and terrible sight. It was also a stark reminder that we must do everything possible to prevent those who wish to harm Americans from carrying out their missions. To prevent future attacks, we must secure our ports, and this bill is a major step forward in this effort. Senator Inouye, my co-chairman on the Commerce Committee, and I thank Senators Grassley, Baucus, Coleman, Collins and Lieberman for their leadership in drafting this bill. I would also like to thank the staff members on each of the committees; they have worked tirelessly on this bill. Each of the committees involved in this bill has jurisdiction over an area vital to the safety of our ports. The Commerce Committee oversees issues related to the shipping industry, transportation security, and the Coast Guard. The Finance Committee oversees international trade and customs. And greater security of our ports and borders is central to the Homeland Security Committee's mission. Working together, our three committees have developed a comprehensive bill which will help shield our Nation from future terrorist attacks. It is my hope our colleagues will support this act and move quickly to pass this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my statement a summary of the bill prepared by Ken Nahigian, who sits next to me and is counsel for our Commerce Committee.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand that there was a negotiation going on concerning an amendment that is before the Senate now. I have been asked to call up Senator DeMint's amendment. There is a negotiation going on concerning a possible modification of it. He called and asked that this be placed before the Senate. I wish to comply with his request.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I might say on the visit that I made to Los Angeles Harbor, it is very clear that rail is essential for the 40 percent of the cargo that comes into the United States. The majority moves out of the Los Angeles Harbor by rail, and currently that is very sensitive because there is only one rail coming out of there and there should be multiple rails. Senator McCain has offered S. 1052, which our committee reported in November of 2005. That bill contained sections of aviation, rail, trucking, and port security. In addition, Senator McCain's bill passed the Senate in 2004. It is not controversial. I will urge the Senate to let us pass it again without amendment so we can take it to conference, and I do believe it will become law. It is very clear it is as essential as the port security section, and I thank him for bringing it to the floor. I intend to support it completely because I hope we can get back to both the aviation and trucking portions of S. 1052 sometime. I don't think it will be in this Congress, however, because it has become too controversial. But we intend to take them up again, I believe, early next year whether there is change of management or not in terms of the Commerce Committee. I do hope we can realize the aviation and trucking areas need to change, as far as security considerations are concerned, in terms of their basic law. But I am here to urge the Senate very favorably to approve this, and I am certainly urging the Senate to adopt the McCain amendment when we start voting on this bill next Tuesday. Is there anyone else who wishes to comment at this time? Amendment No. 4922, as Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is no one else who wishes to speak on the bill or the McCain amendment at this time.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter addressed to me dated September 8, 2006.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pamela Friedmann, who is a fellow from the Transportation Security Administration, be granted privileges of the floor during the consideration of H.R. 4954.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the Senators from North Dakota.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for voting on this amendment be delayed until we can confer with the leadership.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4897

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Funding Traumatic Brain Injury

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we have time on the floor. I seek recognition.

Mr. STEVENS. He is right.

Mr. STEVENS. If that is an inquiry to me, I am interested in a time agreement, without any question. I am happy to set a time to vote, at noon or at any time.

Mr. STEVENS. We are checking.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side by Senator Inouye and myself. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the pending Conrad amendment at 12 noon, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote, and with the time equally divided between the two managers or their designees.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am, as are the Senators from North Dakota, quite worried about this amendment. It is my intention to ask the Senate to vote. It is my understanding that they want a vote on this amendment. It is my intention to ask every Senator to vote for the amendment. It is a political season. I understand that. I consider this amendment to be a slam at the intelligence community. I can tell the Senate that there is more money than this available. If I tried to discuss the amount of money which is available, I would be violating my oath as far as confidential and classified material. For reasons of national security, I cannot elaborate on that. I arranged for the two Senators from North Dakota to be briefed about the programs which Senator Inouye and I know about. We urged them not to offer this amendment. There are many funds dedicated in our bill for the global war on terrorism. There are funds in our bill to continue the search for Osama bin Laden. That has never lapsed. It does not need this amendment. The classified annex accompanying this bill provides details of classified programs in this bill, and they are available to every Senator in room 405 if they want to question my view. Those were offered to the Senators from North Dakota. I do not know whether they took advantage of that or not. We cannot discuss those programs here. We would jeopardize the lives of many people if we did so. I know of no way to handle this amendment except, as I said, I ask all Senators to join and vote for this amendment and to trust Senator Inouye and myself to find a way to deal with it in conference. Maybe the Senate will listen to us when we come back. I remember once, years ago when I offered an amendment to provide funds to deal with Osama bin Laden, offering a reward of dead or alive. That was objected to by a Member on the other side of the aisle. I note that this amendment says to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. To bring him to justice--does that mean dead or alive? Must we keep him alive if we find him? There are a lot of things we could discuss on the floor of the Senate about this issue. I am going to sit down in a minute and I am not going to answer any questions. I am not going to discuss it any more because I consider it to be an irresponsible amendment that should never have been brought before the Senate. With all of these pictures, it is a campaign period. But to imply to the American public that we have not been looking for Osama bin Laden for years--I can tell you, I am not going to press my friend from Hawaii, but we have spent hours and hours and hours with the intelligence community seeing how we can better devise methods to find this man. I can assure the Senate that without any question the search for Osama bin Laden has not been hampered by a lack of funds. It has not been hampered by a lack of funds in this bill. If I tried to tell you where the funds are, I would violate my oath. It is time for us to come to some understanding about what led to this amendment. It was the President's statement the other day. I was there. The conversation on this floor misses the point. It was not Hitler during World War II he was talking about; it was Hitler before World War II. Let me quote what he said on September 5. I listened to it. He said: In the 1920's, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super- state in Germany and take revenge in Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intention as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? The world can tell I am close to losing my famous temper. I do have one. As I said, I arranged for these Members to be briefed on information that is in this classified annex. I don't understand this amendment. I intend to let the Senators have their half of the time. The balance of the time will be spent in a quorum. I yield to my friend from Hawaii.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that the next vote will be Senator Domenici's 13,000th vote. I also announce to the Senate that my younger brother, from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has a birthday today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.