Security and Accountability for Every Port Act
SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT -- (Senate - September 13, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 4936
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier today in morning business, the Democratic leader spoke in favor of the amendment that he has brought to the Senate floor which we will vote on shortly this afternoon. I rise in opposition to Senator Reid's amendment.
Mr. President, this is Senator Reid's amendment, and this is the port security bill. I can barely hold up the 507 pages of the Democratic leader's amendment. It is an interesting hodgepodge of provisions that are irrelevant to the underlying bill--to port security. It includes provisions that have already been rejected by the Senate. It includes provisions that have already been enacted by the Congress and signed into law. It includes provisions that have just recently been passed by the Senate and added to the port security bill.
What it does not include are provisions that have to do with port security. This proposal, 507 pages, includes 37 pages of findings, 16 senses of Congress, and no fewer than 95 reports, certifications, and determinations.
Let me tell my colleagues a bit about what is actually in Senator Reid's amendment. Let's go first to the category of provisions which have already been rejected by the Senate. Let me give two examples. The legislation includes, word for word, the exact same language regarding the involvement of the United States in Iraq that was soundly rejected by the Senate by a vote of 39 to 60 in June of this year. This is the language that calls for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. It has nothing to do with port security, and it is legislation that this body has already thoroughly considered and voted against.
Let me give a second example of provisions of the Reid amendment on which the Senate has already spoken. The Reid amendment contains a first responder funding formula amendment that is almost identical to the one the Senate rejected earlier this year by a vote of 32 to 65. Indeed, the sponsor of this amendment voted against the formula change he has included in this bill, as did a total of 25 Democratic Senators, the majority of the Democratic caucus. It is not surprising that they did, for if the Reid amendment were to pass, 34 States would lose money for homeland security activities. It is also ironic that the funding formula included in Senator Reid's amendment is an implicit endorsement of the funding allocation decisions that were so widely and correctly criticized earlier this summer.
This bill would give the Department of Homeland Security additional discretion in allocating homeland security funds. We know what happened when we gave the Department additional discretion. The outcome was not a good one.
I mentioned that the amendment also includes provisions that have already been signed into law. Let me give an example. Mr. President, 105 pages of this 507-page amendment have to do with implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on foreign policy and public diplomacy. The proposals outlined in that section of Senator Reid's amendment were signed into law as part of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. They are almost exactly the same as title VII of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. Why do we need to repeat this? It is already law. How does enacting it a second time somehow improve our national security? It makes no sense.
Let's move to the third category; that is, provisions in this amendment which have already passed the Senate. There are many good examples of that, but let me just cite two. They have to do with the rail security and mass transit security amendments which we have already adopted.
Senator McCain's rail security amendment was adopted very early in the debate on this bill. The proposal offered by Senators SHELBY and SARBANES last night is identical to the mass transit security provisions in the Reid amendment. Since those two amendments have already been included in the bill, why would we want to do it all over again?
I think what most disturbs me about Senator Reid's proposal is that it is clearly a partisan amendment that has been offered to a bill, the port security bill, that has been bipartisan every step of the way, from conception to introduction to committee consideration to the floor deliberations. Port security is so important. I know the Presiding Officer understands that well, coming from Louisiana. We have gone to great lengths to make sure that the port security bill was bipartisan.
PATTY MURRAY has been the leader on this bill on the Democratic side. Senator Lieberman worked hard on it in the Homeland Security Committee. Norm Coleman, Senator Coleman, on our side of the aisle, worked with Senator Levin to investigate port security programs.
Even in the House, this has been a completely bipartisan--indeed, a nonpartisan--effort, with the legislation being authored by Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harman.
At every step of the consideration, this has been a bipartisan bill. When it went through the Homeland Security Committee, it was bipartisan. In the negotiations with the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee, it was bipartisan. It is very unfortunate that we are now having a blatantly partisan amendment offered to a bill that I had hoped would be the exception to the rule, a bill we could enact in a bipartisan manner, because it is so important that we act without delay.
As I indicated, from the very beginning of the discussions on this bill, from the hearings, through the committee markups, through visits to ports around the country, it has always been bipartisan. Let's not weigh this bill down with partisan amendments. Instead, let's get the job done and send this bill, a bipartisan bill, to the President for his signature without delay.
I reserve the remainder of the time on this side.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me just add to the comments made by the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee about the amendment offered by the Democratic leader. I mentioned earlier that this amendment is 507 pages. This, in my hand, is the port security bill. Now, this, in my hand, is the Reid amendment. I can barely lift it. It requires no fewer than 95 reports, certifications, and determinations. It has 37 pages of findings. It has 16 sense-of-the-Congress resolutions. It requires 36 GAO reports and audits.
But what is not in there? There is virtually nothing in there that relates to port or maritime security. In fact, we have now done a search of the entire amendment. We found one--one--reference to port security and one reference to maritime and cargo security in the entire Reid amendment.
I think that makes the point. I think that says it all. This amendment is irrelevant to the underlying bill.
As I mentioned earlier, it includes provisions that the Senate has already decisively rejected on what our policy should be in Iraq and what the funding formula should be for the homeland security grant program. It is not as if those provisions were rejected years ago; they were rejected just a few months ago. So it makes no sense for this amendment to include formula changes and a change in our policy in Iraq that this body, by more than 60 votes in each case, decisively rejected.
In fact, when it comes to the funding formula for homeland security grants, the majority of the Democratic Caucus rejects the formula change that is included in the Reid amendment. As I mentioned, over 100 pages of the Reid amendment deal with foreign policy recommendations, public diplomacy recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that are already law. They are virtually identical to a title of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which is already law. Other provisions in the Reid amendment we have passed during the debate on the port security bill--the proposals of Senator McCain and Senators Shelby and Sarbanes on rail and mass transit security. We already adopted those. Those are redundant at best.
What it comes down to is, unfortunately, this is simply a partisan amendment. That is so unfortunate because the work on this port security bill has never been partisan--never. There have been leaders such as Senator Murray and Senator Lieberman on the Democratic side. There have been leaders on the Republican side. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee did investigations of the port security programs that were completely bipartisan, headed by Senators Norman Coleman and Carl Levin. The committee consideration both in the Homeland Security Committee and the Commerce Committee was completely bipartisan. This has been a bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives, as well, where the bill was sponsored by Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harmon. It has been bipartisan since the conception to where we are today.
It is so unfortunate to have a blatantly partisan amendment, 507 pages, that swamps the bill and has nothing to do with the bill offered by the Democratic leader. So I hope our colleagues will take a look at what is really in the Reid amendment. I fear we may well have a partisan vote. I hope we do not. I think if my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually look at what is in the Reid amendment, I would be surprised if they vote for it because they voted against large chunks of it in the past.
So I hope once we have disposed of the Democratic leader's amendment, we can return to the constructive, bipartisan approach that we have taken on this bill. This is an important bill. It is a bill that matters to the security of our country. It is a bill that is too important to be bogged down in partisan politics. It has never been bogged down in partisan politics. It has been bipartisan every step of the way. Let's conclude consideration of this bill in a bipartisan way, in a way that reflects well on this Senate, and send this important bill to the President for his signature.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is interesting to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the 9/11 Commission and then imply that the Reid amendment would finish the job of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, over 100 pages of the 507-page Reid amendment already are law. They are the foreign policy and public diplomacy recommendations that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission and included in the Intelligence Reform Act which became law 2 years ago--2 years ago. Many of the other recommendations of the 9/11 Commission were enacted as part of that legislation.
Now, there is one area where the 9/11 Commission did recommend changes that have not been completely made, and that is in the area of congressional oversight and the reorganization of committees. Instead, the Senate and the House adopted some, but not all, of those recommendations. But, ironically, the amendment proposed by the Democratic leader does not deal with that unfinished recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. So I don't want to leave the impression that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations are what are largely found in this amendment; they are not, other than the more than 100 pages on the foreign policy and public diplomacy recommendations, which are already law and have been for almost 2 years.
The fact is, our country has made tremendous progress in strengthening our security since 9/11. We have taken many actions, and if we talk to the experts, they will all tell us that those actions have made a difference. Are we completely safe? Of course not. We can never say that we are completely safe, but we are clearly safer than we were 5 years ago due to actions taken by this Congress, this administration, and State and local law enforcement. We have a ways to go, and the underlying bill on port security will help advance the security of this country.
So for the reasons I have already spoken on extensively today, I hope that our colleagues will vote to sustain the point of order which I will shortly be raising against Senator Reid's amendment. It does violate the Budget Act, and I will be raising a point of order against it.
But aside from the budget issues, the procedural objections, I hope my colleagues will actually look at the Reid amendment and look at what it does contain. If they do, they will find only one reference in it to port security--only one reference in it to maritime and cargo security. They will instead find page after page of policy that this Senate has already rejected with regard to our engagement in Iraq and the policy on the formula for homeland security grants. They will also find legislation that is already law, and they will find amendments that we have already adopted having to do with rail and mass transit security.
So, unfortunately--and I mean this--sadly, this amendment is simply a partisan hodgepodge of provisions that have been cobbled together. I hope we can dispense with it quickly and then move back to the port security bill, an enormously important bill, a bill that many of us have worked on for years, a bill that has been bipartisan from the very start in both the House and the Senate. That is unusual, as the Presiding Officer knows. This bill is an exception to the rule. But, apparently, we couldn't quite get through the floor debate without having a partisan bomb lobbed at this bill, and I think that is unfortunate. But I hope once we get through this, we can go back to bipartisan consideration of relevant and germane amendments and we can get this work done.
This is a gap in our homeland security. When we talk to the experts, they all tell us they are worried about the security of our seaports and the 11 million shipping containers that come into this country each year. We have a carefully crafted, balanced bill that strikes the right balance between the need to strengthen security and the need to facilitate trade.
Again, I recognize the work that Senator Murray has done on this bill. She originated a lot of the concepts in this bill. It has been that kind of bipartisan partnership that has brought us to where we are today. So let's get this partisanship out of the way, and let's return to a bipartisan debate. This bill is so important to the security of people living near our seaports, to those working on our seaports, to the retailers in this country that rely on the cargo brought into our seaports, to our farmers who rely on shipping their crops out of our seaports. Let's remember the impact of this bill on communities not just on our coasts where the seaports are located but communities all across this country that rely on the products brought to our shores by cargo ships, or rely on the cargo ships to export these products.
So I hope we can return to the underlying bill. It is a good bill, and it deserves continued bipartisan support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the reports recently released by the Mount Sinai Center did reveal disturbing news about the long-term health effects suffered by those working in recovery efforts after September 11. It is very disturbing because, clearly, we should make every effort to respond to and monitor the health problems of those who were at or near Ground Zero on that day--the heroes who risked their own lives and, apparently, their long-term health by rushing in to rescue others.
This amendment would direct the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to award grants to entities to provide medical and mental health monitoring, tracking, and treatment to individuals whose health has been directly affected as a result of the attacks on New York City on September 11.
I do have some questions about the amendment, however. For one--and I see the sponsors otherwise engaged, but I am going to pose the question anyway. Again, I am very sympathetic. I think we have an obligation to those rescue workers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, police officers, and others who risked their own lives and health to respond to the needs of others.
I am concerned that the amendment only applies to those first responders in New York City. There may well be health impacts that were suffered by the rescue workers, firefighters, police officers, and others who responded to the Pentagon. I am concerned that the Senator limits the nearly $2 billion in funding to only New York, and that doesn't seem fair to me. It seems to me that it should apply to both jurisdictions. I don't know whether there were similar problems in Pennsylvania, as well, but it seems to me it should be broader.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may I respond to the Senator?
Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York to respond to the question.
Mrs. CLINTON. I greatly appreciate the Senator's awareness and commitment to doing something to help those who were affected. Certainly, from her position as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, she knows as much or more about these issues than any one of us. I appreciate greatly the suggestion that we include everyone. I make the following two additional points: Apparently, the rescue workers at the Pentagon were given respiratory equipment, given appropriate garb to wear, and were put into decontamination showers. They had the kind of worksite I wish we had had after a couple of days when the emergency immediately passed. So I wish we had that at Ground Zero. If there are those suffering from ill effects, I completely agree with the Senator. That is one of the reasons Senator Voinovich and I have joined together to try to expand the ability to treat first responders who come from anywhere. He had a rescue unit that went back to Ohio and they are sick.
The final point in response to the Senator's question is, our issue in New York is somewhat complicated by the fact that the EPA, under then-Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, consistently stated that the air was safe, told the city, the State, and the workers that, and that there was no effort made to try to even obtain the respiratory equipment and other protective coverings the workers might have needed. I agree that we should not leave any of our responders behind, no matter where they came from or who they are.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New York. The conditions in New York, as far as respiratory equipment, may have been different. But I have worked closely with Senator Voinovich on his broader bill. We reported it from the Homeland Security Committee. He offered it today as an amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can have a meeting of the minds on what is a real problem. We do not want those who were so brave that horrible day to not receive assistance, care, and monitoring for health problems associated with their bravery, regardless of which environment they were in.
The second issue I have to raise is the extent of the resources that will be needed to deal with this issue. I don't know the basis for the nearly $2 billion authorization that the Senator has come up with, so I cannot comment on it.
That leads me to my third point, which is the way the Senator has drafted this amendment, directing the Secretary of HHS, through the Director of the CDC, to allocate the funds. That means it is not in the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee, or even the Commerce Committee or Finance Committee. It is in the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. So I have asked staff to notify the HELP Committee of this amendment so that they have an opportunity to review it.
With that, let me again repeat that I think the Senator from New York has identified a real problem. It is not germane to the underlying port security bill, but it is an urgent and real problem. It is in another committee's jurisdiction. We have a different approach that the Homeland Security Committee has taken in working with Senator Voinovich because this even goes beyond 9/11.
I know the Senator from New York has also worked with Senator Voinovich on his amendment, which is under the Homeland Security Committee's jurisdiction. So I suggest that we get some input from Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy, since they are the committee of jurisdiction.
Thank you, Mr. President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York. I have listened carefully to the reasons the other side is objecting. At this stage, it sounds as if they are objecting. I hope they will accept this amendment.
Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Ms. COLLINS. There is not necessarily an objection. I don't know because it is not under the jurisdiction of the committee that I am privileged to chair. So I don't want to prejudge whether there is an objection from the HELP Committee or not because I don't know. I have saluted the Senator from New York for bringing a very real problem to our attention, although I wish it were on a different bill. I wish we would move the Voinovich bill separately, which has been on the calendar for a long time. I don't know that there is an objection on this side.
Mrs. CLINTON. A point of clarification, Mr. President. I believe the amendment builds on the World Trade Center monitoring program which did go through Homeland Security. That may not be the best way to proceed in the future, but that is an existing structure.
I absolutely agree with the Senator from Maine that the Voinovich bill will give us an opportunity to avoid these problems in the future, which has to be one of our primary goals.
I thank the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the port security legislation we are considering requires that radiation detection equipment be installed in the busiest 22 ports of entry by the end of next year. That would result in 98 percent of all cargo coming into this country being screened for radiation or radiological devices.
The Senator's amendment raises the question of, What about those smaller ports? Doesn't this invite, for example, terrorists, knowing they will be screened at the 22 largest ports, to instead divert dangerous cargo to a small port?
The Department of Homeland Security wants to make sure it has flexibility to do, perhaps, handheld devices for screening rather than the expensive, large radiation portal monitors that are at big ports, such as Seattle.
I would pose a question, through the Chair, to the Senator from Florida, whether there is anything in his amendment that speaks to the type of equipment that must be installed, because obviously, if you have a very small port that only gets a couple of cargo ships per year, it may not make sense to invest in radiation portal monitors, but it may make sense to, instead, assume that the Customs and Border Patrol agents are equipped with handheld screening devices, which still screen.
So I would ask, through the Chair, my colleague from Florida whether his amendment, as I read it, gives flexibility to the Department as to the types of equipment, in keeping with the fact there are different needs and different volumes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Florida will be given the opportunity to reply.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Well, indeed, thank you, Mr. President.
The Senator from Maine is exactly correct. There is the flexibility in the amendment for the Department to make that determination because it is specifying the implementation of a program for examination of containers for radiation at ports of entry.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his clarification.
With that understanding, I am pleased to recommend that the Senate adopt his amendment.
I yield to the Democratic manager of the bill to see if we could clear this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of the Senator from New Jersey in which he advocates for 100 percent scanning. He says, for example, that is the only way we can be safe, that we would never scan just 5 percent of the people coming to the White House. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how the current system works, so let me start with an explanation of the layered system of security we have at our ports right now.
First, all cargo manifests are submitted to authorities 24 hours before ships pull into ports. The automated targeting system is a sophisticated analysis that looks at where did the cargo come from, what is its destination, what is the cargo, who are the shippers involved, who is the retailer or other recipient of the cargo. Through a classified system, those and other factors are considered, and the cargo is assigned scores depending on this analysis.
Let me first be very clear. Every single container goes through that step, and that is called screening. There is a lot of confusion among the terms ``screening,'' ``scanning,'' ``integrated scanning,'' and ``inspection.'' So what I have described is the screening process that uses this automatic targeting system to identify at-risk containers.
After the at-risk containers are identified, they are supposed to be scanned or even physically searched by Customs and Border Protection. However, an investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security Committee, which Senator Coleman led, indicated that this system didn't always result in an inspection of the high-risk container, despite it being identified. Senator Coleman is going to be offering an amendment shortly that will ensure 100 percent scanning of those high-risk or at-risk containers. So that is one aspect of the system we have now.
Another layer is the Container Security Initiative. Under this program, our American Customs and Border Patrol officers are stationed at foreign ports. The CSI program is currently operational in 44 ports which cover approximately 75 percent of containerized cargo heading for the United States by sea. What we do is we work with the host government, and again, the process is to push hazards away from our shores, identify the high-risk cargo, and make sure it is never loaded onto our ships in the first place.
In addition, there is another system, which is that many containers are also scanned for radiological material at U.S. ports. When I visited, with the Senator from Washington State, the Seattle Port, we saw the radiation portal monitors that do this kind of scanning. Our bill requires that by the end of 2007, the largest U.S. ports must have radiation scanners which will ensure that 98 percent of inbound containers are scanned.
There is also a Department of Energy program called the Megaports Initiative that is currently scanning containers in foreign ports for radiological material.
Yet another layer of security is the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, the so-called C-TPAT Program. This is a program whereby manufacturers, retailers, and shippers secure the supply chain so that security is assured from the factory door to when the container arrives at our shores. Every step of the supply chain is secured. Senator Murray has improved upon that concept with her GreenLane concept which will give additional benefits to shippers who undertake even stronger security measures. This involves making sure, for example, that containers are sealed with electronic seals that can reveal whether they have been tampered with or opened en route. In other words, this is a risk-based approach to enhancing the security of our containers.
At the same time--and this is the approach our bill builds upon--the layered approach to security allows the maritime cargo industry in the United States, which moves more than 11 million containers per year, to function efficiently. That is important. I have seen the giant VACIS machines that do these x-ray screenings. It is not that quick a process. It takes a while. It takes probably 4 minutes or so for them to go around the container, and then the analysis of those images can take up to 15 minutes.
With 11 million containers entering the U.S. seaports every year, the delay caused by screening all containers would cause a massive backlog of cargo at the ports. That doesn't mean that someday--someday soon, I believe--we are not going to have the technology that will allow us to do an integrated scan, both in x ray and a scan for radiological material, in a far more efficient way and have a method of triggering an additional review if something is found.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if you think about it, those who are advocating that we go to 100 percent scanning prior to having the technology in place to do it efficiently without slowing down trade are, in fact, rejecting the whole notion of the C-TPAT Program. Why should a shipper, retailer or manufacturer, secure its supply chain from end to end if they are going to be subjected to the same kinds of inspection as a shipper who has high-risk cargo in an unsecured supply chain? That doesn't make any sense at all. It completely undermines the C-TPAT Program, the container security initiative, because it embraces the concept that all cargo is alike. It is not all alike. There are low-risk containers.
I think we should think very carefully about the implications of this amendment. I think Senator Coleman has come up with an excellent amendment. He has done a great deal of work, and I urge my colleagues to support the Coleman-Collins-Stevens amendment and to vote against the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the clarification.
Mr. President, this proposal of the Senator from Illinois is very similar to a provision of the post-Katrina Stafford Act reforms that were reported by the Homeland Security Committee. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right that we need to do a far better job in this country of developing comprehensive plans for the evacuation of individuals with special needs before, during, and after a disaster.
When we look at the experience with Hurricane Katrina, what we find is those who were left behind were predominantly elderly and disabled. Those were the characteristics that caused people to not be able to evacuate. Another factor was they tended to be lower income individuals, too. But the disabled individuals of the area, in Louisiana in particular, also actually had the experience of going to Red Cross shelters and being turned away, which is something I have discussed with the Red Cross.
So I think it is a good idea to require State and local governments to develop these kinds of plans, and I am happy to accept the amendment. I urge adoption of the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov