Security and Accountability for Every Port Act - Continued

SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT--Continued -- (Senate - September 12, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, while we are awaiting representation on the other side of the aisle in order to get the yeas and the nays, let me respond to the Senator from Texas about her amendment.

First, let me acknowledge the work of the Senator from Texas on port security issues over the past few years. Her amendment would increase the minimum hiring of Customs and Border Protection officers in the resource allocation model of the legislation before us from 725 to 1,000. As the Presiding Officer is aware, our bill requires the Department to do a resource allocation model, really take a hard look at how many CBP officers are needed at which port.

One reason we believed that was necessary was the experience of Houston's ports and airports. The Senator from Texas has told me of the problems that Houston has experienced, where CBP agents actually are being transferred from the port to the airport to deal with incoming flights and then are sent back to the port. Clearly that is a situation that cries out for more agents so they do not have to be constantly shifting back and forth from a busy port to a busy airport.

I think the Senator is correct that she has a real problem with understaffing in the Houston seaport and airport and that we do need to have more agents allocated. But I also want to point out to my colleagues that we do specifically require the Department to do this resource allocation plan. There may be some seaports or airports that actually have more staff than they need. Those could be allocated to busier seaports and airports. But clearly the situation in Houston cries out for more agents so we do not have this constant choice of where they should be.

I do support the amendment of the Senator. I will assist her in gaining the yeas and nays when we have representation from the Democratic side. I hope that will be shortly.

I also suggest that we stack the vote on the amendment of the Senator at 5 o'clock, after the vote on the Lautenberg amendment, in order to make it more convenient for our colleagues.

Once we get the yeas and nays, I will be making a unanimous consent request that the vote occur immediately after the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, with 4 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. But I am withholding that unanimous consent request until we have representation from the minority on the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Murray's amendment. I commend her for offering it. Each year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects more than $24 billion in Customs duties and fees.

The amendment would extend the merchandise processing fee and passenger conveyance fee for an additional year, and our hope is that that money will then be targeted to pay for this bill. This makes sense. In many ways, it is a user fee. It makes a great deal of sense. It will help ensure that there is a dedicated funding source for the security measures.

I point out again that the amendment has been cleared with the Finance Committee. Senator Murray has worked hard with Senators Grassley and Baucus to find the source of funding. I commend her for her efforts. I fully support the amendment and I urge its adoption.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. I commend the Senators for their initiative. The horrific terrorist attacks in London and Madrid demonstrate that terrorists are willing and able to attack transit systems. Our systems in the United States remain vulnerable.

Just today, the Homeland Security Committee held a hearing looking at the next 5 years and what challenges face us. The witness, the deputy commissioner for counterterrorism from New York City, specifically pointed out the vulnerabilities of our transit systems and also the inequities in funding. I believe the statistics he gave us were that there was a ratio of 9:1 in the amount of money that had been spent on aviation security versus other forms of transportation security. So I think there is an imbalance. I believe this is a vulnerability and that this amendment would allow for the authorization of significant transportation security improvements. I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov