National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004-Continued
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004-CONTINUED
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Stevens no longer needs to use his time at this time. I believe he will be speaking later. So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the order that reserved time for Senator Stevens and instead have Senator Hutchison recognized to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Mississippi has to leave the floor, I want to thank him for his advice and his support as we bring this very important legislation before the Senate for consideration. I very much value the advice and support of the Senator, and I appreciate all he is doing to help move this legislation forward. He has been a very early voice in identifying the flaws in our current intelligence system and has been stalwart in his support for significant reform. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
I also commend the Senator from Texas for her continued effort to examine the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and to pursue legislative solutions, particularly in the area of improving the security of cargo and general aviation security in general. Senator Hutchison has been a longtime leader in this area. Her amendment encompasses a significant portion of S. 165 that the Senate passed by unanimous consent in May. I commend her for her foresight in recognizing areas of concern that have been singled out by the 9/11 Commission.
In the Commission's report, for example, the Commission noted that:
Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation security.
The Commission went on to say that:
The TSA and Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives.
The Commission says:
More attention and resources should be directed to reducing or mitigating the threat posed by explosives in vessels' cargo holds.
These are all areas of weakness identified by the Commission that the Senator from Texas would address in her amendment. It
will assist in implementing several of the Commission's recommendations and as a whole will help to make our Nation's air passengers, air carriers, and air cargo more secure. I would note that the Department of Homeland Security has no objections to the Senator's amendment. When the roll call does occur, I will be urging our colleagues to support her efforts.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, thank our leaders for their cooperation in moving this bill forward. The process they have outlined is a fair one. It will help us know how many amendments there are, and we will work with the sponsors of those amendments to ensure adequate debate.
If the Senator from Florida could tell me how much time he anticipates needing.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if I take 1 minute per hurricane in Florida, that would be a total of 4 minutes.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we would be happy, in light of the devastation to his State, to give the Senator from Florida 10 minutes, if that would be helpful.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following cosponsors be added to Collins-Carper-Lieberman-Coleman amendment No. 3705: Senators VOINOVICH, LEAHY, AKAKA, ROCKEFELLER, NELSON of Nebraska, and HAGEL.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Voinovich, along with Senator Levin, was very instrumental in helping to draft the
compromise represented in this amendment. I talked earlier about the efforts of the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Connecticut, but I also wanted to acknowledge that Senator Voinovich and Senator Levin worked very hard to help us strike the right balance in allocating funding so that large States with high-threat areas would receive additional funding. Yet we wanted to make sure that we recognize that every State, regardless of size or population, has certain vulnerabilities.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Specter is offering the first of what I anticipate will be many amendments to alter the authority of the national intelligence director. He is arguing that the Collins-Lieberman bill does not go far enough. Later on in this debate you will hear from those who believe our bill empowers the NID too far, with too much authority in the NID.
Our approach gives the national intelligence director full budget authority, including the authority to execute, reprogram, and transfer funds over the entire budgets of the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which are all now located within the Department of Defense.
Our bill also gives the NID enhanced tasking authority, the power to transfer personnel and authority over the selections of the heads of these agencies with concurrence from the Secretary of Defense.
What it does not do is sever the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense, nor does it give the NID exclusive control over these agencies. And that would be the impact of Senator Specter's amendment. He would sever the link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense, and he would give the NID exclusive control over these agencies.
I think that would be a mistake.
I believe our legislation strikes the right balance in the relationship that it sets forth between the NID and these agencies. I note that our approach is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It is consistent with the recommendations of the administration. The 9/11 Commission, indeed, opposes adoption of Senator Specter's amendment.
The Commission believes it would be a mistake to sever that link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense.
In deciding to keep these agencies-the NSA, the NGA, and the NRO-within the Department of Defense, we were cognizant of the fact that the NSA and the NGA are designated as combat support agencies. We did not want to in any way weaken or break the bonds between these agencies and the military forces that serve in that capacity. Indeed, many current and former defense officials warned that taking such a step would be counterproductive and would risk breaking something that is working well for the military today.
For example, at our hearings, Secretary Powell said:
We should not break the link between these intelligence organizations and the organizations that they are supporting, especially within the military context and the direct kind of support that the NRO and similar organizations give to the warfighter.
I would note that by severing that link, the Specter amendment would create some real anomalies. For example, in his proposal, he requires that every 2 years, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would submit to the national intelligence director a report on the combat readiness of these organizations. Why would a report on combat readiness go to the national intelligence director rather than to the Secretary of Defense?
There are some other unanticipated consequences of the Specter amendment that illustrate how wholesale changes to the status of NGA, NRO, and the NSA might have completely unintended consequences. For example, title X, section 442(b) now provides that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency shall improve means of navigating vessels of the Navy and the merchant marine by providing, under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, accurate and inexpensive nautical charts, sailing directions, books on navigation, and manuals of instructions for the use of all vessels in the United States and of navigators generally. The Specter amendment, in changing the Secretary of Defense to the national intelligence director, would make the national intelligence director responsible for a navigation mapping responsibility that has nothing to do with intelligence. That is just an example of some of the unintended consequences.
Again, the approach taken by Senator Specter-and I know he has given this matter a great deal of thought-does not have the support of the 9/11 Commission. It does not have the support of the administration. It would sever the link between these combat support agencies and the Secretary of Defense.
I will note that these three agencies within the Pentagon do serve customers other than the Secretary of Defense. There are other consumers, such as the CIA, for the intelligence information they produce. That is why our legislation does give the NID significant authority over these agencies, including budget authority, the ability to transfer personnel, and the ability, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to name the heads of these agencies. That is the right balance. But to break that link between these agencies and the Secretary of Defense simply, in my judgment, does not make sense.
I urge opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his excellent comments. He states the case very well.
There are two final points that I would like to make on Senator Specter's amendment, and that is, when we asked Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, to comment on this, he gave us a history of why the Commission specifically rejected this approach, and we talked about many of the reasons.
But one other that he mentioned is that one damaging consequence of stripping NSA, NGA, and NRO out of the Department of Defense is that then the Pentagon might well feel obligated to recreate the capabilities within the Department at great expense and creating many more opportunities for bureaucratic conflict. That was a point made by the executive director in expressing his opposition to Senator Specter's amendment and in giving us an insight into why the Commission specifically rejected the route taken in this amendment.
I also note that Senator Specter's amendment, while it is intended to create clear lines of authority between the NID and the combat support agencies, in reality could well create much ambiguity and confusion. While the amendment gives the NID supervision, direction, and control over these combat support agencies, it keeps them housed in DOD buildings, on DOD land, and the amendment does not take away from the Secretary of Defense the direction and control he currently has over these agencies.
For example, the law that created the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, which is now the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, establishes that Agency under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. Yet under the Specter amendment, the NSA, the NGA, and the NRO would fall under the line authority of both Agencies. I think that would create tremendous confusion and ambiguity.
Mr. President, I see the time for the vote has arrived.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge support for Senator HUTCHISON's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator will yield on that point, I think this points out the confusion and ambiguity I pointed out earlier due to the way the Specter amendment is drafted. I agree that it creates confusion and also that the implications of substituting the national intelligence director for the Secretary of Defense throughout the laws creating these agencies creates a lot of unintended problems. That is one reason I believe this amendment should be defeated.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the bottom line of the Specter amendment is that it would sever the reporting relationship between the heads of these three combat support agencies and the Secretary of Defense. I don't think that makes sense. I understand these three agencies serve consumers of intelligence other than the Pentagon, other than the war fighters, but the Pentagon, the war fighter, is a very important consumer of the intelligence produced by these agencies, and that is why in our legislation we gave a lot of thought to how to handle the organization of these agencies and the reporting requirements.
We followed the advice of the 9/11 Commission. We kept a reporting relationship to the Secretary of Defense in acknowledgment of the combat support agency role played by these organizations. But in recognition of the fact that they also provide critical intelligence to the CIA and to a host of other agencies and to the President, we recognized that they are national as well.
What we have is a dual reporting responsibility to both the Secretary of Defense and the new national intelligence director. We do strengthen the control of the national intelligence director in significant ways in acknowledgment that these are national assets. We give the director control over the budget of these agencies. We allow the director to appoint the heads of these agencies with concurrence from the Secretary of Defense. The new national intelligence director can transfer personnel and funds. But we should not sever the link between those agencies and the Secretary of Defense. That would be a big mistake.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Specter amendment.
I appreciate the support of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct and his points are well taken. In reading to me the statement from that letter, the Senator has brought up another important point. Do we really believe that the national intelligence director should have line authority, day-to-day operational authority over all of those agencies? We know that the 9/11 Commission found that one reason the CIA Director was not as effective as he should be was he had too many jobs. He is head of the intelligence community, he runs the CIA, and he is the principal adviser to the President.
Under the formulation proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, we would be worsening that problem by giving the NID line authority, day-to-day operational authority. That person cannot possibly run all of those agencies and still coordinate, oversee, and manage the intelligence community.
So I believe this amendment goes too far. The Specter amendment essentially creates a de facto department of intelligence, as my colleague from Connecticut has pointed out, and that approach was specifically rejected by the 9/11 Commission. They specifically considered what should be the reporting relationships of these three combat support agencies. They rejected the approach taken by the Specter amendment. The administration also opposes that approach. Our committee rejected that approach. Our witnesses did not think that approach was wise.
I urge my colleagues to join in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Specter.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I ask my distinguished colleague another question? This is a letter which is now submitted for the RECORD. It contains the names of about eight or nine other Senators. Have any of those Senators come to clarify this point? I would like to study what they have said.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in committee, some of the Senators who signed that letter participated in the debate. They did not convince the majority of the committee members. So far in this debate today, I don't believe that other advocates of this approach have yet been heard, but they may well be heard tomorrow. I know Senator Bond wants to speak. I think there are both proponents and opponents who still wish to be heard.
Mr. WARNER. I hope to be on the Senate floor when they do that. I wonder if the managers of the bill might acquaint them with the title 10 and title 50 provisions and ask where in the amendment those provisions are modified; otherwise, we are going to end up with a patchwork. That is one thing I know this chairman and ranking member do not wish to have.
Ms. COLLINS. The Senator's point is well taken.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to answer the question of the Senator from Virginia, I believe it is consistent. I direct the Senator's attention to the very first sentence of this Statement of Administration Policy where it states: "The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 2845." That is the bill before us. That is the bill that is also known as the Collins-Lieberman bill.
Mr. WARNER. Without diminishing in any way that very encouraging sentence, if you go on to read the totality of this communication, there are expressly in here some reservations, but I will not get into that at this point in time.
I want to go back to these words, "full, effective, and meaningful budget authorities." We just had a debate on the Specter amendment, which I believe, with no disrespect to my good friend and colleague, is an extreme viewpoint on this, and I am hopeful the Senate will not adopt it, but we do come back to this pivotal question, and tomorrow I hope to bring forth some amendments. Now that I see the expressed language and the Senator assured me her bill tracks this, I have to have some clarification-at least I shall seek clarification-of what is the remaining role of the Secretary of Defense with regard to those portions; namely, these three combat agencies, together with DIA, what is the residual area of collaboration, jointness, in the preparation of the budget-preparation is part 1-and then the execution of the budget after it goes through the authorization and appropriations process and begins to come back to the several departments and agencies.
So let's talk about what the Senator believes this language-which is consistent, as she says, with the language in the bill-I presume the Senator's language would not be modified or changed by this-what is left to the Secretary of Defense in regard to the budget authority?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to respond to the question of the Senator from Virginia, our bill makes very clear that the budgets for the tactical intelligence programs remain under the authority of the Secretary of Defense. That is consistent with the position of the administration, and it is also consistent with the position of the 9/11 Commission.
What we are seeking to do is to put national intelligence assets-the budget for those programs-under the national intelligence director and, indeed, much of the budget for these agencies is currently within the National Intelligence Program, or what is now known as the NFIP, the National Foreign Intelligence Program, because as the Senator is well aware, these agencies are providing intelligence not just to the combatant commanders, the troops, DOD, but as one of the generals with whom we met told us, he talks far more often to the Director of the CIA than he does to the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I really think that is an important representation the Senator has made, but I do not read in this language of the communication from the White House the distinction that she draws between tactical and national. Can I refer the Senator again to this language?
Ms. COLLINS. If we look at the administration's legislative language they have sent up, they, too, exclude the tactical intelligence assets. I think what this language is intended to convey is, as one of our witnesses said-as many of our witnesses said-the worst thing we could do is to create a national intelligence director who did not have budget authority. That power of the purse is arguably the most important authority given to the NID, but no one, to my knowledge, has advocated giving the NID authority over the tactical intelligence in the Department of Defense.
Mr. WARNER. I draw the attention of the distinguished managers to the words "the Administration will oppose any amendments that would weaken the full budget authority. . . ." It is the word "full."
Ms. COLLINS. Yes, that the President has requested for the NID.
Mr. WARNER. To me "full" is the whole basket. It could be interpreted that way.
Ms. COLLINS. What I am telling the Senator is that if he looks at the language sent up by the administration, he will see-and if he looks at the language in our bill, he will see there has never been discussion in putting tactical intelligence-
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I acknowledge that, the JMIP and the TIARA in the language sent up. But it seems to me the writer of this could have been somewhat more explicit in the communication because this is an important communication to guide Senators desiring to establish their voting pattern in connection with the Senator's bill.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I, obviously, am not the author-
Mr. WARNER. I think I pressed the point far enough and I think the Senator from Maine has been very courteous in her responses. I just want to bring to the attention of colleagues, when this says "full," it is your understanding it did not include the JMIP, the TIARA, and those programs; is that correct?
Ms. COLLINS. That is correct, other than there may be some programs that are now part of the JMIP that are not principally for-and I see my colleague from Michigan joined us; we had a long debate in committee about this-that are not principally used for joint military purposes, but rather are national intelligence assets, and an example of that would be DIA.
Mr. WARNER. I am privileged to be in this colloquy with my friends. I would like to have the assurance of the ranking member of the committee that he concurs in the statements just made by our distinguished Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WARNER. Well, time will tell. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a copy of the administration-I think the Senator referred to it as a bill although it was never introduced-language they sent up which made a clear reference and distinction to what budget authority was given to the NID and what residual remains in the Secretary of Defense. Am I correct on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have no objection. I think that would be helpful.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Ms. COLLINS. I do not want to give the impression that our legislation tracks the administration's legislation in all respects, because it does not. What I was saying to the Chair and to the Senator from Virginia is there has never been support for bringing the tactical intelligence assets, bringing the budget for those programs under the national intelligence director's control. Our legislation specifically carves them out and keeps them under the control of the Pentagon. So I am a bit perplexed by this debate because nobody is proposing what the Senator seems to be fearing.
Mr. WARNER. I asked that if a construction of this language we received today is full budget authority, it could lead someone to the conclusion that everything was transferred.
Ms. COLLINS. The full budget authority, in my view, applies to the national intelligence assets.
Mr. WARNER. Good. And if they had inserted that in there, it would have been clearer, I hasten to add. We are not going to debate this further. In fairness, having raised this question, I think the Senator has brought considerable clarification. It may be the administration may be more forthcoming about what they precisely meant by the use of full budget authority in the use of this communication, but let me proceed in my questioning with regard to the residual authority of the Secretary of Defense over those budgets in the combat agencies, and I would like to add DIA, which is also a combat agency.
As the Senator says in her bill, those sections which are tactical are in the discretion of the Secretary in the preparation of the budget, and he would collaborate with the NID in preparing those sections. Now, on the national intelligence collection, I think the chairman agrees with me that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines utilize that in carrying out their tactical missions, although it classifies the NRO and the gathering in space as the national program. Am I correct? It does feed into the tactical portion?
Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. So, therefore, should not the Secretary of Defense have a voice-and I would like to see how we can describe that voice-in the compilation of that budget for the national program which in part supports the efforts of the forces in the tactical missions?
Ms. COLLINS. I would say to the Senator that the Secretary already does have a voice. There is a requirement that as the national intelligence director develops the budget to be recommended to the President, he must do it in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy for the part of the intelligence community that is under the Secretary of Energy's control, et cetera.
In addition, we create a new entity called the joint intelligence community council, which I think already has an acronym, on which the Secretary of Defense will serve, which serves as an advisory board to the national intelligence director.
I also point out to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that ultimately it is the President's call on the budget. These are recommendations made by the national intelligence director. It is the President who ultimately decides.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is very helpful. I wonder if the Senator's staff would provide for the RECORD at this point an
insertion of those references in the bill which supports the Senator's very important representation to the Senate just now, that the Senator feels he has the consultation role and such other roles as to assure the Secretary of Defense that he has a voice in the preparation of the budget.
Ms. COLLINS. Those provisions are extremely clear in the bill. I do not see how they can be ambiguous.
Mr. WARNER. I just wanted to have the pages annotated. I think my colleague witnessed several colleagues today saying it would be helpful if we could get a clearer understanding of some things, and I think the RECORD today could be of help to those who want to see in the Senator's bill precisely those sections which underpin the Senator's important representation. I ask if the Senator might consider putting that into the RECORD.
Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to put the provisions in the RECORD. I question why it is necessary when everybody has the bill available. It is on page 12, for example, lines 20 through 25, in describing what the national intelligence director shall do. It says:
Developing and presenting to the President an annual budget for the National Intelligence Program after consultation with the heads of agencies or elements, and the heads of their respective departments . . .
I do not see how it could be clearer.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was not challenging the language. I was simply trying to get a reference. The Senator provided it, and I thank the chairman.
If I could transition to the second part of this, the budget is prepared and approved by the President. It is then acted upon by the Congress by authorization and appropriation and it goes to the NID. Am I correct?
Ms. COLLINS. After Congress acts.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Ms. COLLINS. And the law is signed by the President.
Mr. WARNER. Right.
Ms. COLLINS. The appropriation is received by the NID for the national intelligence program.
Mr. WARNER. Right.
Ms. COLLINS. Not for what is known as TIARA or JMIP.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman. That portion of the budget then goes back to be administered by the Secretary of
Defense; is that clear?
Ms. COLLINS. Which portion?
Mr. WARNER. That nonnational portion.
Ms. COLLINS. Correct.
Mr. WARNER. It goes back to the Secretary of Defense. I thank the distinguished chairman on that point.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I apologize for interrupting the Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. No, I am done.
Ms. COLLINS. The leaders have been waiting for Senator Lieberman and me since 5:30 for a meeting and they have
summoned us again. I did not want to walk off the floor without explaining to my distinguished colleagues the fact that we have already kept our leaders waiting for more than 20 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, if I could make a preliminary statement, and then I will be glad to yield. As a matter of fact, I will yield the
floor. If you seek the floor, I am going to yield it momentarily.
Mr. ROBERTS. I was going to ask a question of the distinguished floor manager. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his courtesy.
It is my understanding we are not going to vote on the Specter amendment as of this evening; is that right?
Ms. COLLINS. I am sorry, I couldn't hear the Senator.
Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding we are not going to vote on the Specter amendment as of this evening; is that correct?
Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct. The vote will occur tomorrow.
Mr. ROBERTS. Do we have an idea approximately what time tomorrow morning?
Ms. COLLINS. We do not. We have not been able to determine how many people still want to speak on the amendment. We
are trying to accommodate those who do wish to speak.
Mr. ROBERTS. One Senator who is asking you some questions now would like to speak, and I would like to have 20 to 25
minutes, if that would be all right, speaking as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. If I could have an understanding? I know you will work very hard and I know there has been a lot spoken tonight; I understand that. But I would like to speak in favor of the Specter amendment, if in fact that could be arranged, or have that understanding with the Senator.
Ms. COLLINS. I would certainly welcome that. Perhaps we can try with the help of the floor staff to order the series of speakers. We will make sure the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee is protected in that regard.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent also that I be given 5 minutes in opposition to the Specter amendment tomorrow morning, and if I am not here because of the full committee meeting we have at Armed Services, that my statement be made part of the record at that time.
Ms. COLLINS. We hope the Senator will be here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kansas is waiting. I need to make a couple of very brief
announcements, with the Senator's indulgence.
AMENDMENT NO. 3731 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3705
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have two amendments that have been cleared on both sides. Both of these amendments are
second-degree amendments to my underlying amendment No. 3705 regarding Homeland Security grants. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Inhofe-Jeffords second-degree amendment No. 3731, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3731) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure the participation of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Threat-Based
Homeland Security Grant Program grant-making process for nonlaw enforcement related grants)
In section 406 of the amendment, redesignate subsections (i) and (j) as subsections (j) and (k), respectively.
In section 406 of the amendment, insert after subsection (h) the following:
(i) PARTICIPATION OF UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE.-
(1) PARTICIPATION.-The Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response shall participate in the
grantmaking process for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program for nonlaw enforcement-related grants in order to ensure that preparedness grants where appropriate, are consistent, and are not in conflict, with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(2) REPORTS.-The Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an annual report that describes-
(A) the status of the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program; and
(B) the impact of that program on programs authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
AMENDMENT NO. 3732 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3705
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Levin second-degree amendment No. 3732, which is at the desk, now be considered and agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3732) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To give the Secretary of Homeland Security greater flexibility in allocating funds for discretionary grants to local governments)
On page 36, strike lines 3 through 21, and insert the following:
SEC. 409. CERTIFICATION RELATIVE TO THE SCREENING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES.
(a) DEFINED TERM.-In this section, the term "municipal solid waste" includes sludge (as defined in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903)).
(b) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security shall submit a report to Congress that-
(1) indicates whether the methodologies and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for and detect the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in municipal solid waste are as effective as the methodologies and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering into the United States by commercial motor vehicle transport; and
(2) if the methodologies and technologies used to screen solid waste are less effective than those used to screen other commercial items, identifies the actions that the Bureau will take to achieve the same level of effectiveness in the screening of solid waste, including the need for additional screening technologies.
© IMPACT ON COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.-If the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection fails to fully implement the actions described in subsection (b)(2) before the earlier of 6 months after the date on which the report is due under subsection (b) or 6 months after the date on which such report is submitted, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deny entry into the United States of any commercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 31101(1) of title 49, United States Code) carrying municipal solid waste until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the methodologies and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for and detect the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in such waste are as effective as the methodologies and technologies used by the Bureau to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering into the United States by commercial motor vehicle transport.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.-Notwithstanding section 341, this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I hope we can continue to work on the underlying amendment with the goal of having a vote on it shortly. I also want to announce to all of my colleagues that we do intend to vote on Senator Specter's amendment tomorrow. I recognize there are a few Senators who have not been heard on it who desire to be heard, but we do intend to conclude the debate and vote on Senator Specter's amendment tomorrow.
I thank the Chair.