Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (Senate - July 25, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO GREENLAND

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand we are going to have a group of Senators visiting Greenland this weekend to see the effects of global warming on glaciers. I am sure they will visit areas where you can see icebergs breaking off glaciers, presumably more frequently than normal, due to global warming, although this phenomena has always occurred to some extent.

Perhaps these Senators will also visit with local residents, such as farmers who have been able to graze their sheep longer during this warmer weather that now seems to be there.

However, I wonder if, for a little historical perspective, the group will be visiting the Viking ruins on the southern tip of Greenland. As someone interested in history, I think such a visit would be very fascinating. I have always believed that we can learn a lot from history, so I am sure some value could be found in such an excursion to the Viking ruins at the southern tip of Greenland.

As many of my colleagues may be aware, archeologists have dug through the permafrost to excavate the remains of Viking farms, part of two major settlements that at one time may have had up to 5,000 inhabitants, and those settlements, presumably, lasted for over 400 years.

As we all know, Greenland was first settled by Erik the Red, who encouraged fellow Norsemen to join him in colonizing the empty land that we call Greenland today. These men grew grain and grazed sheep and cows in pastures. They prospered, at least at first, building structures like a great hall and a cathedral, as well as homes and barns. The remains of about 400 stone structures still exist on Greenland.

For reasons I am not sure are fully understood, sometime around the end of the 15th century, the Viking settlement in Greenland disappeared. No one knows precisely why the Vikings disappeared from Greenland, but it appears from the archeological evidence that life got somewhat harder and the climate became cooler and the land more difficult to farm, until Greenland could no longer sustain the Viking settlements.

I had an opportunity to be reminded of this as I saw on the Discovery Channel this week where they were talking about a small ice age overcoming the Northern Hemisphere during the late 1400s, 1500s, and 1600s. Maybe that had something to do with the Viking settlements disappearing from Greenland. But 500 years later, we are able to catch a glimpse of what their life must have been like by digging through a farm buried in that permafrost on Greenland. Only a little more time has passed since the Viking settlements disappeared until today, than from the time they were established there in Greenland until they were abandoned.

Contemplating the passage of time over centuries humbles us by putting our own short lifespan in historical perspective. It makes us realize that God is ultimately in control and the activities of human beings today are one tiny part of that divine plan. I think, from time to time, we need to reflect that way, which is why I hope my colleagues visiting Greenland this weekend have an opportunity to take time out of their schedule to visit the Viking ruins.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I visited with the managers about speaking on some amendments.

The first amendment I am going to reference, I will just speak about it because it is still in Legislative Counsel, but we will have it shortly. That probably means tomorrow. But I wish to alert people to a problem we have with Homeland Security that I would like to fix through amendment. The amendment would restrict the Department of Homeland Security from using any funds appropriated in this bill for the enforcement of interim final chemical security regulations relating to the stored quantity of propane gas between 7,500 pounds and 100,800 pounds. I will put this in language that people, at least in rural America, can understand.

We have a situation where you don't have natural gas, and that is on most farms, a lot of small businesses, and small towns. Homes are heated with propane, 500-gallon tanks that are somewhere on the property, usually behind the house or, in the case of a farm, out by the grain bins where you dry your corn or other grains using propane gas. Things of that nature are what I am talking about.

Let me be very clear; my amendment is limited and narrowly tailored in that it only limits use of funds for enforcing one listed chemical. That one listed chemical is propane. Some people refer to it as LP gas, liquid propane gas--one and all the same.

It would allow the Department to use funds to enforce the regulation for larger facilities, things that can honestly be said could be used for terrorist activity, but not the propane tank behind some farmhouse or by some grain bin. This amendment is necessary to ensure that these regulations truly protect our homeland but not burden farmers and small businesses and create a bigger problem with regard to propane security that I will mention in a minute.

This final rule was published by the Department of Homeland Security on April 9, 2007, and became effective June 8 of this year. These regulations were required by Congress as part of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill of 2007 and are known as the chemical facility antiterrorism standards. The regulations include an appendix that lists chemicals of interest to the Department and the stored quantities that will trigger reporting and screening requirements for those who house the listed chemicals. Included in the list of chemicals of interest is propane stored in quantities greater than 7,500 pounds.

Propane is used by virtually every arm of agriculture, from small family farms to large agribusinesses across the country. Propane is used to dry grain, to heat facilities for livestocks and poultry, and to heat thousands of rural homes across the country. This listed quantity of 7,500 pounds is roughly 1,785 gallons.

For those who are not from rural America, the typical rural home has at least one thousand-gallon tank for heating and maybe has two or three of these tanks for home heating and cooking, depending upon the size of the home. Some family farms may have a home tank and multiple farm tanks. Under the current regulation and thresholds, these rural homes and farms would qualify as a chemical facility and would have to complete what is known as the ``top screen'' process to register the site as a chemical facility. These are not homes in large metropolitan areas; they are rural homes where the nearest neighbors could be miles away. But under the current regulation, counting all tanks on one property, they would be subject to the screening requirements and also subject to penalties if they failed to complete the screen.

Most people listening to me are probably saying: So what. If the Department lists the chemicals, these folks should register. Well, in its own regulatory analysis--I am quoting from the Department now--the Department calculates that the average cost to complete the top screen process will be between $2,300 and $3,500 per screen. That is not a lot of money to some large chemical facility, but to John Q. Public who owns three tanks on his farm to heat his home as well as to heat his sheds and barns and maybe dry grain, $2,300 to $3,500 is very real money.

Further, the top screen requires individuals to fill out a lengthy form that is highly detailed and may require help from attorneys to ensure that the forms are filled out properly. Once this is completed, the Department then makes a determination if the site will need to complete a security vulnerability assessment. If this assessment is necessary, the Department then determines if a site needs a site security plan for chemical security.

The bottom line is that many rural homes, farms, and small businesses could be required to pay $2,300 to $3,500 as just a preliminary step to determine whether they are ``high risk'' for a terrorist attack. These lengthy forms, complex requirements, and high costs pose a harsh, undue burden upon rural America; hence my amendment and hence my begging for consideration of this from my colleagues.

I also believe this regulation has a possibility of increasing threats to our country as opposed to making it safer.

As written, this rule and the current quantities of propane may lead many homeowners, farmers, small businesspeople to limit how full they might keep their onsite storage tanks. For example, a home with multiple tanks may only fill a backup tank part of the way to stay under the threshold so they do not have to fill out the top screen.

Now, as a result of that, that home, that small business, that farm may have to increase the number of times its tanks are filled once or twice during the winter months. This increase in the number of tank fills--because they are only going to be partially filled--means the number of trips propane trucks make is very much increased, leading to more propane tankers per business and more propane tankers going down our highways.

Now, I ask all of you to consider, what is a more vulnerable threat to America, John Q. Public's family home in rural Iowa--or in any other State--or an increase in hundreds, maybe thousands, of extra propane tankers on America's highways and roads?

Now, I tried to solve this problem before this amendment. On June 25, 2007, I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking him to consider the impact of including propane in quantities of 7,500 pounds in the regulations. I asked Secretary Chertoff to consider including an exemption for rural homes, farms, and small businesses that store and provide propane in excess of 7,500 pounds. To date, I have only received a response saying the Department is ``giving careful consideration'' to my letter.

Now, I appreciate the careful consideration being given to my letter, but I wish to know what is being done to ensure there is no undue burden placed upon rural Americans and that these rules have the impact that is intended. We all want to ensure our homeland is as safe as possible, but we need to do so without overburdening rural Americans and threatening the growth of a small business.

Further, as I pointed out, there is an additional possible safety concern that may be a consequence of the regulation. As such, I will offer an amendment that would prohibit the use of any funds to the Department to enforce the current regulations for propane when the site of that propane has more than 7,500 pounds but less than 1,800 pounds, until it amends these regulations to provide an exemption for rural homesteads, agricultural producers, and small business concerns.

Again, this amendment is narrowly tailored only toward propane and does not impact enforcement of the regulations for other listed toxic chemicals. Additionally, this amendment includes safety provisions to ensure that if a threat is imminent to rural America, the Department can inform Congress of such threat and continue with its current regulations. This amendment is necessary to ensure that Government regulations meet a commonsense test and do not unduly burden rural America.

AMENDMENT NO. 2444 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2383

Mr. President, I am now going to go to an amendment I do have written and would like to offer. I send amendment No. 2444 to the desk and ask for its consideration. Mr. Inhofe should be listed as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the pending amendment?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available under this Act may be expended until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to Congress that all new hires by the Department of Homeland Security are verified through the basic pilot program authorized under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 or may be available to enter into a contract with a person, employer, or other entity that does not participate in the such basic pilot program)

On page 69, after line 24, insert the following:

Sec. 536. None of the funds made available under this Act may be expended until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to Congress that all new hires by the Department of Homeland Security are verified through the basic pilot program authorized under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

Sec. 537. None of the funds made available under this Act may be available to enter into a contract with a person, employer, or other entity that does not participate in the basic pilot program authorized under section 401 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

Mr. GRASSLEY. This amendment to this appropriations bill is to strengthen our efforts to verify if people in the United States are legal to work in this country.

Without a doubt, we have an illegal immigration problem. People are crossing our borders each day to live and work in the United States. Some individuals may have innocent motives, some may not. Some may be living in the shadows and wish to do our country harm.

We do not live in a pre-9/11 world anymore. We must do all we can to protect our country. That is why I am proposing this amendment. It would do two things very appropriate in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It would require the entire Department of Homeland Security to use the basic pilot program--also known as the electronic employment verification system.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire and employ aliens not eligible to work. It required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all employees.

The easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of the 1986 bill. Fake documents are produced by the millions and can be obtained very cheaply.

In response to the illegal hiring of immigrants, Congress created the basic pilot program in 1996. This program allows employers to check the status of their workers by checking one's Social Security number and alien identification number against Social Security Administration and Homeland Security databases.

The immigration bill before the Senate last year and this year would have required all employers to use the basic pilot program over a period of time by
phasing it in. Both the administration and Congress were poised to pass legislation mandating participation in this program. It has been argued that the employment verification system is crucial to enforcing the laws already on the books. Many say the system is a needed tool for employers to check the eligibility of their workers.

Since 1996, the system has been updated, the system has been improved. It is a Web-based program, and employers can go online quickly and very easily when hiring an individual. Employers in all 50 States can use the program, and it is voluntary for the private sector. Currently, over 18,000 employers use the basic pilot program.

Under current law, however, the Federal Government is supposed to be using the employment verification system--emphasis upon ``current law'' and ``supposed to be using.'' We are talking about the Federal Government as an employer and whether we are setting a good example for the private sector on checking whether people are legally in this country if they are going to work for us. Of the 18,000 users I have mentioned, Homeland Security says 403 Federal agencies are using this pilot program. But my colleagues will be shocked to hear that very few of the 22 agencies at the Department--the Department of Homeland Security--are actually participating in this program.

I asked Secretary Chertoff in January of this very year about requiring all agencies to use this system and extending the requirement to contractors who do business with the Federal Government.

The Department of Homeland Security responded by saying these 403 Federal agencies are participating in the basic pilot program. The Department said it was also on track to make sure all agencies were using this system by the end of the fiscal year.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record my letter to the Secretary and the Department's response.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Since receiving the letter from Secretary Chertoff, this is what I have found out: that this response--that 403 Federal agencies are using the program--was deliberately misleading. In fact, congressional offices make up to 99 percent of the Federal users. Of the 411 or more Federal Government users, 400 are congressional offices--136 in the Senate and 264 in the House.

So I am taking issue with the Department for their response to me and feel this is deliberately misleading the Congress on the use of the basic pilot program--when I get back a letter that says 403 Federal agencies are using the program, and 99 percent of them are here on Capitol Hill, not downtown.

According to staff at the Citizenship and Immigration Service, only 11 executive branch agencies are using the program--only 11--and only 5 of the 22 agencies at Homeland Security are using the program--only 5.

The President visited a Dunkin' Donuts shop last year. The company announced all of its franchises would use the basic pilot program to verify their workers. If Dunkin' Donuts can use the system, so can the Federal Government, particularly the Departments with the mission of protecting the homeland.

We ought to be setting an example, the Federal Government, for all employers. But within the Federal Government, the very department enforcing the law, suggesting it is being used, ought to set the example.

I am ashamed to say the Department of Homeland Security--the most valuable component of the executive branch in securing our Nation from terrorism--then is setting a very bad example.

Congress and the administration must be a model of good employment practices for the rest of the country. My amendment is needed to push executive branch participation in this program.

Now, there is a second part to my amendment. It would extend this principle to contractors who do work for the Federal Government. Because the second part of the amendment would require all contractors--in just the Department of Homeland Security--to use the basic pilot program to check the eligibility of their workers.

Now, I think it ought to go beyond contractors for the Department of Homeland Security, but we are working on the Homeland Security appropriations bill so I am limiting it to that. It is my opinion that those who do business with Homeland Security agencies should also be required to use the electronic employment verification system. They may be private-sector people, but they are working for the Federal Government and they are in place of Federal employees.

There have been many examples of aliens illegally in the country working for Government contractors and being allowed to work in sensitive areas. I gave a number of examples last week during consideration of the Defense authorization bill when I tried to apply this same principle to that bill when it was up.

But the Department of Defense, I want you to know, is not the only culprit. This week, a man from Houston was sentenced for harboring illegal aliens, some of whom had access to an Alexandria airbase and Louisiana National Guard facility under a Federal Emergency Management Agency construction contract.

The company employed 30 to 40 workers, contracted with FEMA, and was able to send illegal aliens to a worksite where they had access to a National Guard facility and airbase.

There were many news stories about undocumented individuals working in the construction industry in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Then there was ``Operation Tarmac,'' launched by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2002, to enhance security at our airports and remove undocumented immigrants from these critical facilities.

The operation resulted in investigations of hundreds of thousands of people and more than 900 arrests of unauthorized workers. Aliens illegally in this country were working as janitors, baggage checkers, and luggage handlers.

Whether it is FEMA or the Transportation Security Administration or Border Patrol or the Citizenship and Immigration Service, we must make sure those hired by the agencies are legally able to work in the United States.

While Immigration and Customs Enforcement has taken some steps to find unauthorized workers at secure sites, illegal aliens should not be hired in the first place. We cannot allow people illegally in our county to check our bags or process immigration benefits.

One way to get at that problem, then, is to require Departments, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to use the basic pilot program up front.

There is no cost to employers. Instead, the American public will be more protected than it is today.

Earlier this year, the Senate voted unanimously to debar employers from Government contracts if they are found to hire aliens illegally in the country. That vote signified an overwhelming opinion that our Government should only be doing business with those who take our immigration laws very seriously. Therefore, this part of my amendment should not be problematic.

I hope my amendment can be considered this week. It is not overly expansive. It is to the Department we are appropriating money for. I don't believe it is overly burdensome because the Federal Government is preaching to the private sector. They are preaching to the other Government agencies that we ought to be doing it. We in Congress have adopted it more than anybody else in the Federal Government has. If we can do this in our hiring of people, surely other Government agencies can.

I hope this amendment--I think a commonsense amendment--can be considered. I am happy to debate it, but I am finished presenting it. I have it before the Senate and I will let the managers of the bill take the course from that point.

Source