---

Cloture Motion

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, this modification is a series of revisions relating to terrorism, and in a moment I will describe those provisions. The majority leader has indicated that he will file a cloture motion tonight in order to bring the bill to a close because we have been unable to get an agreement to vote on several of these terrorist-related amendments. I am prepared to file a cloture motion on this amendment and, therefore, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

The Presiding Officer: The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on pending amendment No. 312, as modified, to amendment No. 275 to Calendar No. 57, S. 4, a bill to make the United States more secure by implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to improve homeland security, and for other purposes.

John Cornyn, Jon Kyl, Mike Crapo, John Ensign, Saxby Chambliss, Judd Gregg, Richard Burr, Jim Bunning, Sam Brownback, Mitch McConnell, Craig Thomas, Tom Coburn, Wayne Allard, Jim DeMint, John Thune, Pat Roberts, Lindsey Graham.

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, just by way of explanation, this modified amendment aims to improve our national security in five areas. For the first time, it will make it a crime to recruit people to commit terrorist acts on American soil. For the first time, it would allow for the immediate deportation of suspected terrorists whose visas have been revoked for terrorism-related activities. For the first time, it would prevent the release of dangerous illegal immigrants whose home countries actually don't want them back. For the first time, it would make it a crime to reward the families of suicide bombers, and it would increase the penalty for those who torment the families of our service men and women by calling their families and falsely claiming that their loved ones have been killed in the field of battle. It contains five provisions that would make our homeland more secure by penalizing recruiters, deporting terrorist suspects, keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, and protecting the families of our troops.

Voting on this amendment will not slow down the bill. We are not interested in doing that. We will gladly agree to vitiate cloture in exchange for a unanimous consent vote on this amendment or, if cloture is invoked, we will agree to yield back the 30 hours of postcloture time in order to move ahead.

The war against terrorism requires that we adapt our methods to emerging threats, and that is precisely what these new and vital provisions would allow us to do.

Let me conclude by saying we believe these amendments are definitely related to the bill. We had hoped to be able to get an agreement to have this amendment considered. So far, that has not occurred, but we want to reiterate we have no desire to slow down the passage of the bill. That is why I felt compelled to file cloture at this time.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maine.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the Republican leader about trying to move forward with some votes. I do wish he had discussed his approach with the managers of this bill since he has taken us completely by surprise on the Senate floor, but I think he has raised an important issue, that our Members deserve to have votes on the important issues that are before us. If we are going to complete action on this bill by the end of the week, we need to start voting. We need to start disposing of these amendments, whether they are adopted or rejected or withdrawn. So I am sympathetic to the frustration of the Republican leader over this matter. We do need to move forward and have votes.

I do wish he had discussed his intentions with the managers of the bill.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Texas.

Mr. Cornyn: Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Maine, the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In response, I would point out that these amendments, which are now consolidated in this modification, actually have been pending now for some time but we have been unsuccessful in persuading the majority to give us an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on them.

The bill we are debating is entitled "A Bill to Make the United States More Secure By Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission to Fight the War on Terror More Effectively, to Improve Homeland Security, and for other purposes." I can't think of any amendment that would be more appropriate to accomplishing the stated goal of this particular legislation than the one I have pending now.

The distinguished Republican leader has summarized, I think very well, what is contained in this modification. But just so none of my colleagues are confused, these are not new matters. This modification simply represents a consolidation of several amendments that are pending on the floor and have been pending for some time, but which have been refused an opportunity to have a full and fair debate followed by an up-or-down vote by the majority.

We all know it has been more than 5 years since September 11. And, there remains some unfinished business that needs to be addressed by this legislation, and my amendment will do just that.

One of the things left to do is to target terrorist recruiting. The FBI and other agencies have made it clear that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations are intent on attacking our country again and are busy recruiting those who wish to join them. We know al-Qaida is a patient enemy, waiting years to attack--sometimes embedding into society and appearing to be a part of the regular population until, but at a time of their choosing, rising out of their sleeper cells to attack innocent civilians to accomplish their goals.

According to congressional testimony, terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are actively in the process of recruiting terrorists within the United States. So we are not just talking about a wholly foreign enemy that would attack us from abroad; we are talking about people being recruited to carry out terrorist attacks here in the United States. Of course their goal is to find individuals who do not fit the traditional terrorist model, who can operate freely in our country, and who are willing to engage in these heinous acts. Recruiting these type of individuals, those who blend easily into our society, provides al-Qaida an operational advantage.

This is not an academic discussion. Let me just use one example to demonstrate this reality. Intelligence materials related to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 plot, show that he was running terrorist cells within the United States. These documents show that al-Qaida's goal was to recruit U.S. citizens and other westerners so they could move freely within our country, so they would be unlikely to be identified and stopped at our border's edge or in our airports or land-based ports before they carry out their attacks. These terrorist recruiters have targeted mosques, prisons, and universities throughout the United States where they could identify and recruit people who might be sympathetic to their jihadist message and then persuade these individuals to join their organization.

Unbelievably, we currently have no statute in place that is designed to punish those who recruit people to commit terrorist acts. This amendment includes a provision that would remedy this serious gap in our law. It simply provides that it is against the law to recruit or, in the words of the amendment, "to employ, solicit, induce, command or cause" any person to commit an act of domestic terrorism, international terrorism, or a Federal crime of terrorism, and any person convicted of this would face serious punishment.

This amendment also provides that anyone committing this crime should be punished for up to 10 years in the Federal penitentiary. If a death results in connection with this crime, he or she can be punished by death or a term of years or for life; if serious bodily injury to any individual results, then a punishment of no less than 10 years or more than 25 years is available to the judge.

This is a commonsense measure, designed to fill a serious gap in our Criminal Code that, frankly, should not continue to exist more than 5 years after September 11. This fits exactly with the stated purpose of this legislation, and I hope our colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment.

Two other provisions in this amendment that again represent amendments that have been previously filed and are pending but which I have now included in this consolidated amendment. One includes a remedy to a problem created by a Supreme Court decision in 2001, the Zadvydas case, which held that dangerous criminal aliens must be released after an expiration of 6 months if there is no likelihood that their home country would take them back in the near future, even if their home country will not take them. This means that they have to be released into the general population of the United States, free to re-commit serious crimes.

In other words, what the Supreme Court said is that Congress had not specifically authorized the Department of Homeland Security to hold dangerous criminal aliens whose home country will not take them back for longer than 6 months pending their deportation or repatriation to their home country. This amendment remedies that decision. In fact, the Supreme Court invited the Congress to revisit this decision, since it is purely a statutory holding.

Specifically, this amendment would allow DHS to protect the American people from dangerous criminal aliens until their removal proceedings are completed. It allows the Department of Homeland Security to detain criminal aliens after a final order of removal and beyond the 90-day removal period if removal is likely to occur in the foreseeable future or for national security and public safety grounds. It preserves the right of the alien to seek review of continued detention through habeas proceedings after exhaustion of administrative remedies. And to be clear, my amendment does preserve the right of the affected alien to seek administrative and judicial review of these decisions. But, the amendment makes clear that it is intended to fill an important gap by authorizing DHS to protect the American people from the willy-nilly release of dangerous criminal aliens after 6 months. This situation has occurred and will continue to occur and it is important for Congress to step up and to fix this problem created by the interpretation of this statute in 2001 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The last element of this consolidated amendment that I want to mention has to do with material support for suicide bombers and other terrorists. We hear too often the difficulty in identifying and stopping suicide bombers before they can carry out their deadly attacks. One incentive to those who decide to carry out these attacks is financial rewards promised to the families of suicide bombers who are assured that their families will be paid and cared for after they commit their heinous acts. This provision would ban the payment of financial rewards or other material support to the families of suicide bombers such as Assad, a known terrorist who has enticed people to engage in these attacks, with a promise to pay their families up to $25,000, if my memory serves me correctly, as a reward. This provision would ban the payment of these types of financial rewards and dry up a real incentive used to induce or facilitate carrying out of a terrorist attack and send to prison those who do so.

I would add that this amendment also increases the punishments for those convicted of providing material support. The Department of Justice has told us that the material support statute is one of the most important anti-terror tools in their tool box, and it is only right and appropriate that we use this opportunity to strengthen the 9/ 11 bill with this important improvement to such an effective statute.

In conclusion, this amendment provides real anti-terror and anti- crime tools to the 9/11 bill and will ensure, as the preface of this bill states, that it will finish the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission and of the Nation, making us more secure, 5 years-plus since the dastardly attacks of 9/11.

I yield the floor.

Change of Vote

Mr. Coburn: Mr. President, on rollcall vote 62, I voted "yea", it was my intention to vote "nay". I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Obama): Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 345

Mr. Inouye: Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 345, which was submitted by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma. This amendment diverts funds that Congress has designated to be obligated before October 1 of this year through the Department of Commerce Interoperability Grant Program into a yet-to-be created Homeland Security grant program.

This amendment is offered at the same time the President is proposing to decrease funding for State and local preparedness grants and firefighter assistance grants from the enacted fiscal year 2007 levels by $1.2 billion.

To make matters worse, the amendment delays the obligation of $1 billion in interoperability grants by up to 3 years. In the President's 2008 budget proposal, the administration reduces State and local programs by $840 million and assistance to firefighter grants by $362 million.

The transfer of the $1 billion the Federal Communications Commission will raise as part of the digital television spectrum auction to the Department of Homeland Security will mask the technical decrease in the budget request. In the end, it means less money for the first responders, which I believe is bad for national security.

It is important to remember that as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress created the $1 billion fund in the Department of Commerce to support State and local first responders in their efforts to talk with one another in times of emergency. The interoperability subtitle in this act expands upon prior action taken in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and provides additional guidance to the Commerce Department.

The provision which I introduced with Senators Stevens, Kerry, Smith, and Snowe was reported out of the committee with unanimous support of the Members. The Commerce Department grant program is intended to jump- start the efforts of the administration to address a key 9/11 Commission concern--interoperability.

The Department of Homeland Security has been and continues to be too slow to act, and the Coburn amendment would only exacerbate the problem. If the Coburn amendment were to pass, it would first decrease grants to first responders this fiscal year by $700 million; eliminate the $100 million fund for strategic reserves of communications equipment, designed to be rapidly deployed in the event of a major disaster; and, third, eliminate the all-hazards approach that considers the likelihood of natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks that the Commerce Department would use making interoperability grants. Contrary to the Senator's assertion, the Commerce Department Interoperability Grant Program is complementary to and not duplicative of the DHS grant program.

First, the Department of Commerce will award all $1 billion in grants by September 30 of this year, while the DHS program as currently constructed is not authorized until fiscal year 2008, and is still subject to appropriations.

This money is needed now and should be in addition to the regular appropriation process, not awarded over the next 3 years as a substitute for appropriations funding. Second, the program allows the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to direct up to $100 million of these funds for the creation of State and Federal strategic technology reserves of communications equipment that can be readily deployed in the event that terrestrial networks fail in times of disaster.

Should this occur--it did occur in Katrina--there is no comparable program created in the DHS grant program. The strategic reserve program is a necessary initiative that has not been prioritized by the DHS to date.

Recently, an independent panel created by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin to review the impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications networks noted the impact that limited pre- positioning of communications equipment had in slowing the recovery process. As a result, the program will help to ensure that our focus on interoperability also considers the importance of communications redundancy and resiliency as well.

Third, in addition to minimum funding allocations, the Department of Commerce Interoperability Grant Program would further require that prioritization of those funds be based upon an all-hazards approach that recognizes the critical need for effective emergency communication and response to natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados, in addition to terrorist attacks.

While the DHS program being created would consider natural disasters as one of the many factors in awarding of grants, the Department of Commerce Interoperability Grant Program's all-hazards approach places a high priority on funding States based on the threats they face from natural catastrophes as well as terrorist attacks.

We have heard two contradicting arguments to support the elimination of the Department of Commerce grant program. The author claims both that the DHS is doing all of the administrative work for the Department of Commerce grant program, and that there is a risk of double-dipping because the DHS will not know who is receiving the Department of Commerce grants. Both claims cannot be right and, in fact, neither is true. The NTIA and the DHS have been working together for months to craft an agreement under which the two agencies will disburse the $1 billion raised from the DTV spectrum auction.

On February 16, 2007, the DHS and the NTIA entered into a memorandum of understanding covering the administration of the grant program. While the DHS will play a large role in administering the grants, the NTIA will work with the DHS to establish the grant procedures, which will ensure that an all-hazards approach is followed and that a strategic reserve equipment program is developed.

The interoperability subtitle further ensures that the grants funded are consistent with the Federal grant guidance established by the SAFECOM Program within the DHS. As a result, the DHS will be fully aware of who is getting grants and for what purposes. At the same time, the NTIA will maintain a leadership role in guiding the interoperability grant program. The NTIA has a long history of addressing interoperable communications issues, and it is vital that the administration help guide the DHS's work.

Since its creation, the NTIA has served as the principal telecommunications policy adviser to the Secretary of Commerce and the President and manages the Federal Government's use of the radio spectrum. According to Assistant Secretary Kneuer, the Administrator of the NTIA, the "intersection of telecommunications policy and spectrum management has been the key focus of the NTIA, including public safety communications and interoperability issues."

In this capacity, the NTIA has historically played an important role in assisting public safety personnel and improving communications interoperability and recognizing that effective solutions involve attention to issues of spectrum and government coordination as well as funding. Its work more than a decade ago in creating the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, formed by the FCC and the NTIA pursuant to Congress's direction, framed this issue in this way:

At the most basic level, radio-based voice communications allow dispatchers to direct mobile units to the scene of a crime and allow firefighters to coordinate and to warn each other of impending danger at fires. Radio systems are also vital for providing logistics and command support during major emergencies and disasters such as earthquakes, riots, or plane crashes… .

In an era where technology can bring news, current events, and entertainment such as the Olympics to the farthest reaches of the world, many police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical service personnel working in the same city cannot communicate with each other. Congested and fragmented spectral resources, inadequate funding for technology upgrades, and a wide variety of governmental and institutional obstacles result in a critical situation which, if not addressed expeditiously, will ultimately compromise the ability of Public Safety officials to protect life and property.

The Coburn amendment would disrupt the MOU, upset the work the NTIA and the DHS have undertaken, and delay the awarding of interoperability grants.

Finally, the NTIA's administration of the grant program will not only help to integrate the disparate elements that must be part of effective interoperability solutions but will also ensure greater program transparency and oversight. Given the myriad of different grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security, it is critical that these funds--specifically allocated by Congress to speed up our efforts to improve communications interoperability for first responders--not get lost in the shuffle of other disaster and nondisaster grants. As a result, the provisions not only devote the NTIA's attention to the success of this program but also require the inspector general of the Department of Commerce to annually review the administration of this program.

In sum, the Department of Commerce interoperability grant program improves the Nation's security. Senator Coburn's amendment would delay the awarding of needed interoperability grants and disrupts months of work by the NTIA and the DHS. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, since 2001, we have heard a growing cry from public safety officials that police, firefighters, and emergency medical response personnel throughout the country need help to achieve interoperability in today's communications world.

Sadly, this problem actually predated September 11. More than a decade ago, the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration formed the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to examine the communications needs of first responders and public safety officials. That report called for more spectrum, technological solutions, and more funding, and was filed 5 years to the day before the tragedy of 9/11. It called for those improvements to save lives on a daily basis. These solutions are not geared just for the huge disasters but are also geared for the everyday tragedies that can be avoided with better communications and better interoperability.

Thanks to the work of the last Congress, public safety stands ready to finally receive the help that the FCC and NTIA called for more than 10 years ago.

Last year, the Congress set a hard date for broadcasters to turn over 24 megahertz of spectrum to public safety for communications and interoperability. Right now, the FCC is examining proposals to maximize the broadband potential of that spectrum, which will bring great new services and capabilities to policemen, firefighters, and other emergency personnel. In addition, Congress created a $1 billion interoperability grant program with the funds that will be received from the auctioning off of the rest of the spectrum recovered from broadcasters. That program originated out of our Senate Commerce Committee. The Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together in this regard.

Additionally, at the very end of the Congress last year, we accelerated the granting of the awards as part of what was called the Call Home Act. Therefore, by law, the interoperability grants which are available must be awarded by September 30, 2007. Public safety has been waiting for a very long time for these funds, and they finally have a date-certain when the interoperability grants will be awarded.

Having worked with the FCC and the NTIA over the last decade, our Senate Commerce Committee has watched as the public safety communications market has evolved, and we have heard about a number of technological solutions that may address both near-term and long-term interoperability needs. Internet protocol systems can be used as bridges between otherwise incompatible communications systems now. Strategic technological reserves can be created to quickly replace infrastructure that is destroyed in large-scale disasters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated the need for portable wireless systems that are readily deployed when a disaster destroys the existing communications infrastructure. Standards development and dedicated interoperability channels facilitate planning and incident management between agencies.

All of these solutions can be achieved now and are provided for by the provisions of the Commerce Committee's interoperability provisions. Unfortunately, the amendment of my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, would delay all of these solutions. That would be unfortunate for public safety and very harmful to the public.

The Homeland Security Committee has created its own interoperability program that is separate from the Commerce $1 billion program. However, that program is a separate one. It is focused on the long term, after additional planning is done, and would still be several years away from even awarding grants, let alone implementing them.

It is time we finally deliver on our promises to the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Those around the country really believe us, and we believe we can deliver the technological reserves and interoperability communications that will help first responders now by moving forward with the $1 billion public safety grant program, administered by NTIA. We really should not wait any longer. We cannot plan indefinitely. It has been over 10 years, as I have said. These solutions take time to implement. We should move forward on these programs now. With the Commerce program, public safety will be able to move forward with real solutions and begin addressing the problems that have plagued our Nation's first responders for too long.

We are able to come across some really interesting innovations, too. Through the NTIA's program, it is possible to use communications concepts and bring about interoperability without a large expenditure for new equipment. This first $1 billion will stretch real far if it is used on the plans of the NTIA. If it is delayed--unfortunately, I think that is what the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma would do. It will really put us in the position where we cannot implement what has been done now.

These people--first responders--have been planning now for 3 years to get this money, and it is going to be paid out this year under the program we have already enacted into law.

I urge my friend from Oklahoma: Don't delay that $1 billion. I understand there may be some concerns about the $3 billion in this bill. Even that, though, is money that will be planned--it will be several years before it will be made available. The money we have, the $1 billion that is already provided by law, is available as soon as it comes in. I think it will go a long way to meeting the immediate needs of first responders.

So I hope the Senator will not really persevere with his amendment. I understand his concerns, and we share the concerns of the use of money. I do believe, if you study the technology now, it is possible to put together--we have one program where the National Guard has a mobile unit that is equipped with interoperability concepts that came about through software. Using the software on that vehicle, they can bring about interoperability with any system anyone uses in the first- responder era today.

If we move forward on those things we can do now, immediately, with interoperability--brought about through the use of technology--it will save us a lot of money in the long run. I believe this $1 billion will demonstrate we can do this, make this interoperability capability available to our first responders at a lot less money than other people believe. I think this $1 billion is needed, and it will go a long way.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. Coburn: Mr. President, first of all, let me compliment the chairman and ranking member for their foresight in making sure we have the capability to have interoperability, with the wisdom of taking spectrum and putting it specifically for that.

I want to answer several of the questions that have been raised because they are somewhat peculiar to me.

But before I do that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Coburn: Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I would also like to note that one of the members of your committee, who was instrumental in bringing this interoperability grant program to the floor, is also a cosponsor of my amendment, realizing we do not need both programs and that they need to be combined.

Now, what does DHS tell us about the present grant program? Here is what they tell us. And I say to the American public, you ask yourself if you want your Government to run this way. What they say is: We can meet the September 30 deadline, and we may be able to tell you who is going to get grants, but we are not going to be able to tell you, anywhere close, how much money they are going to get. So they can tell them who will get the grants because that is what the law says, but they will never have the capability, for several months thereafter, to know how much money they are going to get. So nobody is going to buy anything until the actual grants are going to be awarded.

Let's clear up the difference between the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security. No. 1, Homeland Security has the authority for interoperable communications. I do not care where this grant program is, quite frankly. I do not care if it is at Homeland Security or at Commerce. I do not care. But what I do know is, out of that $1 billion, the only thing the Department of Commerce is going to keep is $12 million with which to use to announce the grants. That is what they have told us. So $988 million out of that--the rest of that money--is going to go for grants, administered by, controlled by, run by Homeland Security.

So if the problem with my amendment is that the money isn't going to get out there to do it, Homeland Security has already said the money isn't going to get out there to do it. Commerce has already said the money isn't going to get out there to do it. We know who will get money, but the money won't get out there regardless of what they have said, because they just came to an understanding of the agreement 3 weeks ago on administering this money.

I think it is very wise what the chairman and ranking member have done in terms of allocating resources. As a matter of fact, I applaud them for that. I think it is wise to dedicate resources to certain things when we sell spectrum. I would tell my colleagues most Americans would say: You are going to give grant money, but you don't know how much you are going to give and you are not going to give it on the basis of competition in allocation of those resources because you have a date to meet that doesn't fit with fiscal responsibility. It doesn't fit with the best outcome or the ability to follow up to see what happened with the money. So we do have a date in the law by which they have to do it. But how are they going to do it, because the date in there is wrong. They are liable to give the wrong people too much money and the right people not enough, because we are telling them what they have to do.

The second thing--let me put up a chart. These programs are identical, even though you claim they are not. Let me show my colleagues how they are identical. Under the PSIC grant programs, they are State and regional planning; under the DHS program, they are State and regional planning. Under the system design and engineering, PSIC; same thing under DHS. System procurement and installation; same thing under DHS. Technical assistance, the same. Implementing a strategic technology reserve is the only difference, but guess where it is made up. "Other appropriate uses as determined by the administrator of FEMA." Do you think they are not going to put in that reserve there? They certainly are. They are going to do it.

So there is no difference in the grant programs whatsoever, other than the deadline, which isn't going to be followed anyway. Like I say, I don't care if this is at Homeland Security or Commerce, I would as soon it be at Commerce in terms of the spectrum.

But the fact is the American people shouldn't have to pay for the administration of two separate programs running parallel with two separate sets of requirements to Congress. We ought to get them together. We ought to figure out how we do it so we have one grant, and if, in fact, we need $4.3 billion. The problem is, we don't know how much money we need. We are throwing money at it.

The second question I would ask is if this program belongs at Commerce, why Commerce agreed to give 99.9 percent of it to FEMA and to the Department of Homeland Security. They don't think it belongs there.

The other point I would make in rebuttal to the Senator from Hawaii is this amendment doesn't decrease funding at all. This takes $3.3 billion and an amount greater than $1 billion and combines it so the same amount of money is there, except it is going to make the money be spent better. It is going to allow us the time to do it.

I agree we need to get money out to our primary responders. This isn't about trying to hold that up. I am not trying to do that. But the Department of Homeland Security has already said the money isn't going to go out by your day. There isn't one application right now at the Department of Homeland Security for this money. We all know how Washington works. They haven't even written the requirements for the grant applications yet, which will take another 90 to 120 days. So we have a laudable goal that is not going to be accomplished, and if it is going to be accomplished, it will be accomplished in a very inefficient and wasteful way, which the American people don't deserve.

I think this is a very good chance for us to talk about what is wrong with us in the Congress. We are working at cross purposes. We have one committee working here and one committee working here, rather than solving those problems for the best interests of our country. I want Hawaii to have everything it needs in terms of tsunami prevention, in terms of interoperability. I know there are special requirements in the State of Alaska because line of sight can't be used and much of our emergency frequencies require some of that. I believe we can take care of those problems and combine these grant programs in a way that the American taxpayer gets value, in a way where we can measure the accountability of what we do, in a way in which we can have transparency for the dollars we get in reauctioning the spectrum, and plus the other $3.4 billion that is going to come out in terms of appropriated funds for these other grant programs. The American people want that. They deserve that.

To me, this isn't about a turf battle of control. To me, this amendment is about common sense for the American public to combine two programs into one so we spend less money, and we don't duplicate things and we don't duplicate efforts.

I understand and appreciate very much the long service of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and their commitment to making sure these things are coming through. I am not trying to be a fly in the ointment to mess up what are very good-intended results, but I am a realist. The very things my colleagues have asked to happen in the Budget Act that was passed are not going to happen. Homeland Security has said that. So if those things aren't going to happen, and if the fears of what isn't going to happen can be allayed, can we not figure out a way to put these programs together where the American people get the best value, and also as a part of my amendment which says: Can we look to the private sector to not just give us interoperability in Hawaii among National Guard and first responders, but how about between California and Arizona, or Texas and Oklahoma, or Maryland and New York, if they need Maryland first responders there, which has not been addressed in any of the legislation that has been put forward. There is great technology out there. There are great companies out there that could do that.

Again, without desiring to interfere or upset, I believe the application of some pretty commonsense principles ought to be applied to these two grant programs. I am willing to discuss with the chairman and the ranking member how to do this a different way. I am raising it on the floor because I think the taxpayer is not getting good value, and I think we ought to talk about that.

The National Taxpayer Union endorses this amendment. The Citizens Against Government Waste endorses this amendment. Your very own committee member, who was one of the first people to say we should have auctioned spectrum for first responders, is a cosponsor of this amendment. So I am willing to defer to what the ranking member and the chairman of this committee want to do, but I think we ought to stick it out here until we can work a way for the American people to get better value, better clarity, better transparency, and better accountability for these funds.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I think the Senate should be sure of what the Coburn amendment does. In the first place, it repeals the section of the Call Home Act that was enacted in the last Congress that makes this $1 billion available to NTIA immediately upon receipt. Secondly, it says the payments that are made under that $1 billion allocation must be made under the terms of section 1809 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Then it has this section, subsection (c) on page 2 of the amendment, which limits the awards under that section to $300,000 in 2007, $350,000 in 2008, and $350,000 in 2009. Existing law makes that $1 billion available as of September 30 of this year.

So the Senator is not only changing the manner in which the money can be used as opposed to what we enacted in the last Congress, but he is putting limitations on the grants that can be made out of the $1 billion so that only $300 million is available this year--$300 million for the whole Nation to meet the immediate needs for interoperability.

We had before our committee the so-called siren call proposal to take over the whole of the spectrum and turn it over to a trust and let that trust sell some of this so they could make even more money available in the first year. We have spoken about that, and it is a no-brainer to do that. That would create a trust that is equivalent to compete with the FCC on the sale of the first spectrum and it would reduce the money that is coming in on the first sale, so we could get enough money to pay the $1 billion. But the $1 billion has been promised to these first responders as of September 30 under the memorandum of agreement between Homeland Security and the NTIA. It can be administered and it will be administered. It will be used for a whole series of things. But again, I emphasize, it can be used for software, for systems to make current systems interoperable without buying a whole bunch of new equipment, wherever it is made, whether it is made in Oklahoma or California. It is not going to be made in Hawaii or Alaska, I can tell you that.

But as a practical matter, what we are interested in is making every entity in the country that is involved with interoperability problems to be able to make an application for these grants immediately after September 30. The Senator from Oklahoma would limit that in this fiscal year to $300,000. By the way, none of it is even going to be available until September 30. So it is one of those things that is sort of difficult to understand. We can't have much available in fiscal year 2007. We can have money available this year, in the calendar year 2007, under the existing law.

I urge the Senate not to repeal existing law, to make this money available. It is in a memorandum of understanding between these two agencies. We are not trying to usurp the functions of Homeland Security. We are trying to meet the needs of communications. That is our job. We have done our job. The existing law will make $1 billion available as of September 30. I do not think it should be repealed.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

Mr. Inouye: Mr. President, listening very carefully to the statement of the Senator from Oklahoma, one might get the impression that this measure was submitted by the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii to benefit our two States. Hawaii and Alaska are not even mentioned in this amendment. What we want is a National Interoperability Grant Program. It may be of interest that the State of Hawaii is almost completely interoperable, but we want all other States to have that benefit. So this is not one of these earmarked measures, I can assure my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. Coburn: First, let me sincerely apologize to the Senator from Hawaii if he took my words to mean that. I did not mean that. I referred to his words in terms of tsunami. I have no inference whatsoever that this has any parochial interest of either the Senator from Hawaii or the Senator from Alaska. But it is interesting that the debate doesn't ever come back to the fact of whether we have two programs; it is all about the money. The fact is the money will not get out there. Homeland Security has already said that.

Now, the reason the $350 million--not thousand--was chosen is because at the same time this happened, you are going to have another $1 billion come through in--the fiscal year is going to be over this year on September 30 of 2007. The worst problem that happens in our Federal Government today is the indiscriminate, rushed issuing of grants, of throwing money at something, rather than a measured response of grants.

These aren't competitive grants, I would remind the people who are listening to this debate. There is no competition for this money. You don't have to compete by saying you have a greater need than somebody else or you have a greater risk than somebody else. This is money that is going to go out, period. It is not based on competition for the greatest need or the greatest risk.

The last thing we need to be doing is having a grant program that is rushed so we are not making sure the money is well spent. In the last 2 years we have discovered $200 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, or duplication in the discretionary budget of the Federal Government--$200 billion. We would have enough money to pay for the war, pay for expanding the military in this country, and cutting our deficit in half if we would do our job in terms of eliminating duplication, fraud, abuse, and waste.

What this amendment is about is let's don't waste any of this $1 billion these two gentlemen have so wisely put for one great purpose.

So that is my intention today, I assure the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii. We all know how homeland security works. We have seen all too well some of the failings and lack of efficiency and lack of responsiveness in that agency. To now assume the other side of that, that that is going to happen overnight because we have mandated by law--if it does, it will be a very poor choice of the use of this money.

I thank the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska for their debate on this issue. My goal was to have a debate about whether we should have two programs and whether we should waste money. It is not about the debate of whether we need to have 911 interoperability and the functionality that needs to be there in all the States. But we should look at the whole as well as the individual. I compliment them on finding a funding stream that doesn't add to our children's debt. Unfortunately, we have not done that in this bill with the other grants, which I think is a mistake.

My hope is we will be able to have a vote on this amendment before we go to cloture--or even after cloture--because it is germane, and we can defend the germaneness of this amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I intend to make a motion to table. I have discussed it with the leader. I think he would like to have that vote take place at 6:15. Would the majority floor staff confirm that.

Mr. Inouye: I think that would be appropriate.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, temporarily, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Ms. Landrieu: I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. Landrieu: While the Senator from Alaska is checking on the other amendment, I ask unanimous consent to speak on another amendment.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

Amendment No. 295

Ms. Landrieu: Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska is working out a vote on the amendment that was just discussed. I wished to come to the floor to talk about the Landrieu amendment that is pending on this bill and to also say I have been joined in this amendment by Senators Stevens, Lieberman, Kennedy, Obama, Martinez, and Vitter, and others may join as we push forward on this amendment to the underlying bill.

This amendment has to do with a waiver provision, to waive the 10- percent match that is normally required when a disaster strikes a community--and for good reason. We have required in the past for the local governments, based on their capacity to pay for part of the recovery, to put up anywhere from 25 percent to 10 percent. But on occasion, we have waived the 10-percent or the 25-percent requirement when it becomes apparent that the disaster is so overwhelming, the ability for these communities to repay is virtually impossible. That has been done over 38 times in the past. Most recently, it was done with Hurricane Andrew. That was a terrible storm. It doesn't look like it on this graph, but Hurricane Andrew, believe me, for the people in Homestead, FL, was the end of the world. Literally, their town was crushed.

Prior to Katrina and Rita, that storm was the costliest storm, causing $40 billion in damage to parts of Florida. Unfortunately for Florida, they have been hard hit ever since. But for discussion purposes, this is $139 per capita--a terrible storm but not a lot of money per capita. The World Trade Tower attack was a terrible tragedy in our Nation, which is why this bill is being discussed; the damage was $390 per capita. Mr. President, look and see what the Katrina and Rita double whammy and subsequent breaking of the levees cost per capita in Louisiana--$6,700. It is literally off the chart.

This has been part of the problem in Washington--not you, Mr. President, because you came down and Senator Lieberman came down and the Senator from Alaska came down and walked the neighborhoods, so you understand it. But this is literally off the chart--what is happening in terms of the amount of disaster recovery going on in Louisiana and Mississippi, along the gulf coast.

The Landrieu amendment seeks to waive the 10-percent match so that the billion dollars would then be available to go to infrastructure projects. But almost as important as the extra money that could be applied to the disaster recovery itself, 95 percent of the red tape would be eliminated because, under the current program, there are three or four different reviews, different regulations between HUD and FEMA. All of the administrative efforts we have made to date have been for naught because nothing has been waived. So the solution is this amendment.

I am going to ask this body to vote on this amendment, on this waiver. The amazing thing about this is that because the President has the option to do this now, there is no cost to this amendment; it scores at a zero. I know it is counterintuitive, but the score on this amendment is zero. There can be no point of order raised against it. It doesn't technically cost anything. Because of that and the obvious merits of the waiver, which were done in this case and done 38 other times, we are asking for it to be done for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for Mississippi and Louisiana, and also for Hurricane Wilma, which is caught up in this general disaster as well.

I thank those who have cosponsored this amendment with me. I thank Senator Stevens for being able to let me speak as he decides on votes for the pending amendment. I am going to ask the leadership to schedule a vote because it is most certainly justified and could be done administratively but has not been. Congress has a responsibility to act, to do what is right, fair and helpful and to eliminate the red tape in our communities, in my case, from St. Bernard Parish to Cameron Parish, from Biloxi and Pascagoula, all the way over to places in south Texas that are still hurting and deserve to have this waiver so they can spend money not on red tape but on roads, bridges, houses, and schools that need to be rebuilt so America's energy coast can get back to work.

Katrina and Rita were the first and third costliest disasters in American history, but Louisiana and other states impacted by these storms have not received a similar waiver.

Unfortunately for State and local governments in Louisiana, 10 percent translates into more than $1 billion dollars that must be sent back to Washington.

Louisiana has over 23,000 Project Worksheets pending, and Mississippi has over 10,000.

Some people have suggested that the States provide this matching funding on behalf of the local governments.

Let me explain why that will not work.

All of the State's money for assistance to local governments exists in the form of Community Development Block Grants.

FEMA's Public Assistance Program and HUD's CDBG Program have separate accounting requirements and separate environmental assessment requirements.

For the State to apply funding from this source for every single project would require approximately $20,000 per project. That translates into nearly half-a-billion dollars wasted on administrative paperwork.

The State has asked for a single set of standards, but FEMA would not agree to this.

The State has asked permission to provide a single payment to cover the 10 percent match, after adding its share of all the pending projects, but FEMA would not allow this either.

This Global Match would save thousands of man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Louisiana has not been able to cut through the red tape though, and has been told it must waste this money on duplicative bureaucratic procedures.

This money could be reinvested into housing, infrastructure, and economic development, in order to bring families, communities, and businesses back to life in the Gulf region.

Gulf coast States lost their tax base after properties were destroyed all over the region. The hurricanes claimed over 275,000 homes and 20,000 businesses.

Progress is being made but many challenges remain.

In communities where the damage was most severe, the struggle continues to rebuild economic infrastructure and restore vitality. Local governments have had to lay off thousands of employees, and pay those who remain with money they receive from Federal loans.

I would like to briefly talk about the situation in several of these communities.

Cameron Parish in Southwest Louisiana is home to 9,681 people.

It was the site of landfall for Hurricane Rita on September 24, 2005, and the eye of the storm passed directly over it.

Winds exceeding 110 miles per hour pounded the parish for more than 24 hours, and storm surges 15 to 20 feet high submerged it completely.

The Cameron Parish School Board has reported that 100 percent of its facilities need repairs, and 62 percent were totally destroyed.

Only two public buildings, the Parish courthouse and the District Attorney's office were left standing. Both are in need of extensive repairs.

Other buildings destroyed include: 5 fire stations, 4 community recreation centers, 4 public libraries, 3 parish maintenance barns, 2 parish multi-purpose buildings, "Courthouse Circle," Cameron Parish Police Jury Annex Building, Cameron Parish Sheriff's Department Investigative Office, The Cameron Parish Health Unit, Cameron Parish School Board Office, Cameron Parish Mosquito Control Barn, and the Waterworks district 10 office.

Katrina produced a category 5 surge and winds in excess of 125 miles per hour when it made landfall in St. Bernard Parish.

As the storm surge traveled across Lake Borgne and up the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, MRGO, it overtopped the levee along the northern edge of the urbanized area of St. Bernard Parish, and broke through the levee on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward.

Water from both levee breaks flooded most of the parish inside to depths of up to 14 feet. Flood waters remained for approximately 3 weeks.

Most structures outside the hurricane levee protection systems have been entirely destroyed and removed by the storm surge, estimated to be between 20 and 30 feet.

A flood-related breach of a nearby refinery's oil tank released about 1 million gallons of crude oil, further damaging approximately 1,800 homes and polluting area canals.

Fishing communities in the eastern areas of the parish were destroyed.

Less than a month after Katrina, an 8-foot storm surge from Hurricane Rita breached recently repaired levees, and again caused widespread flooding in the parish.

In all, 127 St. Bernard citizens died, about 68,000 people were displaced, and 100 percent of the parish housing stock, over 25,000 units, was either destroyed or damaged so severely that it became uninhabitable.

All parish businesses and government buildings, and most utility systems, were also destroyed. Damaged levees, decimated wetlands, and the still-open MRGO have left the parish vulnerable to future storms.

Prior to Katrina, there were approximately 25,123 occupied housing units in St. Bernard Parish, consisting mostly of single family homes and apartments.

After the storms, the entire housing stock of the parish was submerged under storm water, for nearly 3 weeks in many areas. Many homes in the parish are damaged beyond repair and may need to be demolished.

By the time the waters receded, more than 80 percent of the housing stock had been damaged.

It makes very little sense to require communities to put up this match in their current financial condition. Doing so will only serve to delay rebuilding across the region.

If we fail to act, we abandon Federal precedent, and we allow FEMA to continue wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on duplication and waste.

I remind my colleagues that these hurricanes caused the greatest natural disaster in the history of this country. I ask only that we offer the same treatment to victims along the Gulf coast that we have offered victims on 32 other occasion.

Unfortunately for the State and local governments in Louisiana, 10 percent translates into more than $1 billion that must be sent back to Washington. Louisiana has over 23,000 project worksheets pending, and Mississippi has over 10,000. Some people have suggested that the States provide this matching funding on behalf of the local governments. There are several reasons why that will not work.

All of the State's money for assistance to local governments exists in the form of Community Development Block Grants.

FEMA's Public Assistance Program and HUD's CDBG Program have separate accounting requirements, separate non-discrimination requirements, and separate environmental assessment requirements.

For the State to apply funding from CDBG for every single project, would require approximately $20,000 per project. That translates into nearly half-a-billion dollars wasted on administrative paperwork.

The State has asked for a single set of standards, but FEMA would not agree to this. The State has asked permission to provide a single payment to cover 10 percent match, after adding its share of all the pending projects, but FEMA would not allow this either. This Global Match would have saved thousands of man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars, Louisiana has not been able to cut through the red tape though, and has been told it must waste this money on duplicative bureaucratic procedures.

This money could be reinvested into housing, infrastructure, and economic development, in order to bring families, communities, and businesses back to life in the Gulf region. It makes very little sense to require communities to put up this match in their current financial condition. Doing so will only serve to delay rebuilding across the region. These hurricanes caused the greatest natural disaster in the history of this country.

This amendment offers the same treatment to victims along the Gulf coast, that we have offered disaster victims on 32 other occasions. If we fail to act, we will have abandoned federal precedent in the midst of our county's worst disaster, and we will allow FEMA to continue wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary duplication and waste.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President be printed in the Record.

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

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I make a motion to table the Coburn amendment No. 345 and ask unanimous consent that the vote commence at 6:15 this evening.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 299 to Amendment No. 275

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 299.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, and Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Inouye proposes an amendment numbered 299 to amendment No. 275.

Mr. Stevens: 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 authorize NTIA to borrow against anticipated receipts of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund to initiate migration to a national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and responding to all citizen activated emergency communications)

At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

TITLE XIV--911 MODERNIZATION

SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the "911 Modernization Act".

SEC. 1402. FUNDING FOR PROGRAM.

Section 3011 of Public Law 109-171 (47 U.S.C. 309 note) is amended--

(1) by striking "The" and inserting:

(a) In General.--The"; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

(b) Credit.--The Assistant Secretary may borrow from the Treasury, upon enactment of this provision, such sums as necessary, but not to exceed $43,500,000 to implement this section. The Assistant Secretary shall reimburse the Treasury, without interest, as funds are deposited into the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund.".

SEC. 1403. NTIA COORDINATION OF E-911 IMPLEMENTATION.

Section 158(b)(4) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the 911 Modernization Act, the Assistant Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly issue regulations updating the criteria to provide priority for public safety answering points not capable, as of the date of enactment of that Act, of receiving 911 calls.".

Mr. Stevens: This amendment has been cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Inouye, Smith, Snowe, and Hutchison.

Mr. President, 911 calls provide the first line of defense in the safety of our citizens and is critical to public safety personnel.

Technological advances now allow 911 calls to provide more information, such as the caller's location and telephone number. In too many parts of the country, the public safety community doesn't have the technology needed to receive location or other information. They need funding help to upgrade their equipment so this is possible.

Congress previously allocated $43.5 million as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for E-911 grants, so the 911 system can be upgraded. However, as it currently stands, the grants cannot be awarded until after the digital television proceedings are completed.

Our amendment would add the 911 Modernization Act, S. 93, to this bill, which passed unanimously out of the Commerce Committee several weeks ago.

This would allow the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to borrow $43.5 million from the Treasury to fund the Enhance 911 Act Grant Program in advance of the spectrum auction. Because these funds are only advanced, the CBO has informed us that this amendment does not score.

The National Emergency Number Association that focuses on 911 recently announced that more than 20 percent of the country doesn't have enhanced 911 capability. That 20 percent is in rural America and covers 50 percent of the counties of our country.

There is a matching fund requirement in the underlying law to ensure that this money is spent wisely by public safety entities that are committed to improve the 911 calling capability of the citizens. This means that local governments must match under the law, and this enables us to know there is local support for the activities that would be financed by this money.

The amendment has the support of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers International and the National Emergency Numbering Association. I will submit a letter from these two premier 911 public safety organizations for the Record. With this borrowing authority, the NTIA could get the money out to the public safety community now. The funds will be replaced, and enhanced 911 calls can begin saving lives in more of rural America. This is absolutely essential. Again, 50 percent of our counties do not have the ability to move forward unless this money is made available. Borrowing the money now, so it will be repaid out of the spectrum auction, is the best way to proceed.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I mentioned be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Ms. Landrieu: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer (Ms. Cantwell): Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record under "Morning Business.")

Ms. Landrieu: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Ms. Landrieu: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 295, as Modified

Ms. Landrieu: Madam President, I send to the desk a modification to my amendment.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I have no objection to the modification.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the amendment is so modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title XV, add the following:

SEC. ____. FEDERAL SHARE FOR ASSISTANCE RELATING TO HURRICANE KATRINA OF 2005 OR HURRICANE RITA OF 2005.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal share of any assistance provided under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) because of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 or Hurricane Wilma of 2005 shall be 100 percent.

(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to any assistance provided under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) on or after August 28, 2005.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, what is the pending business?

The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, a vote now occurs on the motion to table the Coburn amendment, No. 345.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The question is on agreeing to the motion.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. Lott: The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl).

The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 25, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg. - Tabling Amenement No. 345
YEAS--71
Akaka	Baucus	Bayh	Bennett	Bingaman
Bond	Boxer	Brown	Bunning	Byrd
Cantwell	Cardin	Carper	Casey	Clinton
Cochran	Conrad	Craig	Dodd	Domenici
Dorgan	Durbin	Feingold	Feinstein	Gregg
Hagel	Harkin	Hatch	Hutchison	Inouye
Kennedy	Kerry	Klobuchar	Kohl	Landrieu
Lautenberg	Leahy	Levin	Lieberman	Lincoln
Lott	McCaskill	Menendez	Mikulski	Murkowski
Murray	Nelson (FL)	Nelson (NE)	Obama	Pryor
Reed	Reid	Roberts	Rockefeller	Salazar
Sanders	Schumer	Shelby	Smith	Snowe
Specter	Stabenow	Stevens	Sununu	Tester
Vitter	Voinovich	Warner	Webb	Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--25
Alexander	Allard	Brownback	Burr	Chambliss
Coburn	Coleman	Collins	Corker	Cornyn
DeMint	Dole	Ensign	Enzi	Graham
Grassley	Inhofe	Isakson	Lugar	Martinez
McCain	McConnell	Sessions	Thomas	Thune
NOT VOTING--4
Biden	Crapo	Johnson	Kyl

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Durbin: Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

Mr. Grassley: Madam President, I rise to offer amendment No. 386.

Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I object. If I may explain with respect to the Senator from Iowa?

The Presiding Officer: The Senate will be in order.

The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has, in the normal course of Senate proceedings, asked unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to offer an amendment of his own. I am objecting to that. I want to explain why.

We now have 50 amendments pending. We have a group of amendments Senators Collins and I have agreed on and are willing to offer by consent, but at least two Senators are objecting to us doing that until there is an agreement to vote on amendments that they want a vote on.

We have a very important bill that has a sense of urgency to it, the 9/11 legislation. Therefore, as the manager of the bill on this side-- and, incidentally, I will add that cloture was filed, surprisingly, on four of the amendments. We have come to a point where the bill as reported out of our committee on a nonpartisan vote is ready to go. But these 50 amendments are stopping it from getting to a conference with the House.

Until we have an agreement across party lines as to how we are going to proceed, I am going to, respectfully, with no prejudice to my friend from Iowa, object to setting aside the pending amendment, which is the Stevens amendment, No. 299. That would be for anyone else who would want to offer an amendment at this time, until there is an agreement on how we are going to proceed to get this urgent bill passed, hopefully, by the end of the week.

The Presiding Officer: Objection is heard.

The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 386

Mr. Grassley: Madam President, I would like to offer another amendment to S. 4 that seeks to strengthen our Nation's homeland security by closing a loophole in our securities laws. My amendment would amend section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and would narrow an exemption from registration for certain investment advisers. There is a homeland security element to this fix because it can sometimes be important to know who is managing large sums of money for wealthy foreign investors. For example, it was recently reported that a Boston-based private equity firm, Overland Capital Group, Inc, is under investigation by the IRS and DOJ counterterrorism division. Such firms, which manage hundreds of millions of dollars for wealthy investors in total secrecy, ought to have to at least register with the SEC.

Currently, section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act provides a statutory exemption from registration for any investment adviser who had fewer than 15 clients in the preceding 12-month period and who does not hold himself out to the public as an investment adviser. This amendment would narrow this exemption, which is currently used by large, private pooled investment vehicles, commonly referred to as hedge funds. These hedge funds use this section of the securities laws to avoid registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission--SEC.

Much has been reported during the last few years regarding hedge funds and the market power they yield because of the large amounts of capital they invest. In fact, some estimates are that these pooled investment vehicles are trading nearly 30 percent of the daily trades in U.S. financial markets. The power this amount of volume has is not some passing fad, but instead represents a new element in our financial markets. Congress needs to ensure that we know who is running these large vehicles to ensure the security of those markets.

The failure of Amaranth and the increasing interest in hedge funds as investment vehicles for public pension money means that this is not just a high stakes game for the super rich. It affects regular investors. Indeed, it affects the markets as a whole. My recent oversight of the SEC has convinced me that the Commission and the Self- Regulatory Organizations--SROs--need much more information about the activities of hedge funds in order to protect the markets from institutional insider trading and other potential abuses. This is one small and simple step toward greater transparency--to require that hedge funds register and tell the regulators who they are. This is not a burden, but rather a simple, common sense requirement for organizations that wield hundreds of billions of dollars in market power every day. The SEC has already attempted to do this by regulation.

Congress needs to act because of a decision made last year by a Federal appeals court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2006, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a SEC administrative rule that required registration of hedge funds. This decision effectively ended all registration of hedge funds with the SEC.

My amendment would narrow the statutory exemption from registration and bring much needed transparency to hedge funds. The amendment would authorize the SEC to require investment advisers to register unless the adviser: No. 1, had $50 million or less in assets under management, No. 2, had fewer than 15 clients, No. 3, did not hold himself out to the public as an investment adviser, and No. 4, managed the assets of fewer than 15 investors, regardless of whether the investors participate directly or through a pooled investment vehicle, such as a hedge fund.

This amendment is a first step in ensuring that the SEC has the needed statutory authority to do what it attempted to do for the last 2 years. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as we work to protect investors large and small.

I am not surprised by the objection today. For the record, I want everyone to know that this morning when I said I intended to offer this amendment, my phones started ringing off the hook. Lots of powerful people don't want to see an amendment like this, but Americans want their Government to know who is running these funds.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maine.

Ms. Collins: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Casey): Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Inhofe: Mr. President, today, I wish to speak to my amendment No. 381 that seeks to improve the U.S.'s national security through increasing our ability to fuel our country from domestic resources.

Americans are familiar with the violence, terrorism, and instability in the Middle East. But forms of that instability are spreading around the world, including to our own backyard.

This chart by the Energy Information Agency summarizes some of the energy security hot spots around the world. Since September 2005 when this chart was made, U.S. security interests have gotten even worse in some regions. On February 26, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez nationalized U.S. oil interests--the motivation for the Soviet-style move was to improve Venezuelan strategic interests.

Adding insult to injury, while signing an agreement allowing Chinese companies to explore in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez stated that, "We have been producing and exporting oil for more than 100 years but they have been years of dependence on the United States. Now we are free and we make our resources available to the great country of China."

China has recognized that energy is a true security interest and has inked deals with Russia and OPEC, along with Castro's Cuba.

The fact is that our national security is linked with our energy security. Yet even if we were to stop importing oil from the Middle East tomorrow our national security interests would still be at risk.

And we are not alone.

European Union countries as a whole import 50 percent of their energy needs, a figure expected to rise to 70 percent by 2030. A significant and increasing volume of those imports come from Russia.

In December 2005, Russia decided to turn off the gas to Ukraine, affecting imports into Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, and Slovakia. A similar dispute between Russia and Belarus affected Germany's oil imports.

According to the Congressional Research Service, global energy demand is expected to rise by nearly 60 percent over the next 20 years.

In order to meet motorists' demands today and tomorrow and the global struggle for energy security, I am introducing the Domestic Fuels Security Act.

The Domestic Fuels Security Act lays out a coordinated plan to increase the production of critical clean transportation fuels for today and tomorrow in four significant ways.

First, the amendment provides a coordinated process whereby the Federal Government--at the option of a Governor and in consultation with local governments--would be required to assist the State in the permitting process for domestic fuels facilities. These would include coal-to-liquids plants, modern refineries, and biorefineries. And this voluntary, coordinated, from-the-grassroots-up process would do so without waiving any environmental law.

Second, the amendment would look to the future and conduct a full environmental review of fuel derived from coal.

The U.S. has 27 percent of the world's coal supply--the largest in the world--nearly 250 billion tons of recoverable reserves. It is critical that we learn to use what we have and do so in an environmentally responsible way.

Third, the amendment seeks to spur a viable coal-to-liquids industry in a comprehensive way. In order for a new fuels industry--to develop three components are required--upfront costs to design and build, a site to do it, and a market to sell the product.

The amendment provides loan guarantees and loans for the startup costs. It provides incentives to some of the most economically distressed communities--Indian tribes and those affected by BRAC--to consider locating a facility in their backyard through Economic Development Administration grants. Last, the amendment requires the Department of Defense to study the national security benefits of having a domestic coal-to-liquids, CTL, fuels industry to comprehensively assess a new market.

I have to give credit to my colleagues, Senators Bunning, Obama, Lugar, Pryor, Murkowski, Bond, Thomas, Craig, Martinez, Enzi, and Landrieu, who together had introduced a bill with similar language. I am hopeful that they will join me in moving this amendment.

We can all agree that increasing domestic energy security is a vital objective. Yet it also provides good jobs.

According to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, a CTL plant, with an output of 10,000 barrels per day, can support 200 direct jobs onsite, at least 150 jobs at the supporting coal mine, and 2,800 indirect jobs throughout the region. During construction, another 1,500 temporary jobs will be created.

Fourth, cellulosic biomass ethanol--renewable fuel from energy crops like switchgrass--is a popular concept but faces financial barriers. Recently, the Federal Government has released some initial money to help develop the industry, but more could be done.

In order to entice private sector investment, it is important for the collective fuels industry and motorists to know what our renewable resource base is, as well as traditional fuels. This amendment requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to convene a task force to assess how we should modernize our reserves--both traditional and renewable for cellulosic biomass ethanol feedstocks.

Energy security, job security, American security--please join me in passing the Domestic Fuels Security Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the chart to which I referred.

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

9/11 Health Issues

Mrs. Clinton: Mr. President, more than 5 years after the 9/11 attacks, the number of victims continues to rise because of the lasting health impacts experienced by far too many of those who selflessly responded to this disaster in 2001. On that day, and in the following months, thousands worked and lived by the Ground Zero site, amidst the dust, smog, and toxic mix of debris. And now we are seeing those workers, responders, and residents become sick from what they were exposed to on 9/11 and the following months. I believe we have a moral obligation to take care of those suffering from 9/11-related illnesses.

The work of Senator Harkin, Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, and all of their colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee has been invaluable in securing funding to address many of the health issues that have appeared following 9/11. In December 2001, we learned that hundreds of firefighters were on medical leave because of injuries related to 9/11 issues, and the Appropriations Committee responded by allocating $12 million for medical monitoring activities so that we could track and study the health impacts associated with the rescue and response efforts at the World Trade Center. Thousands of individuals signed up for this program, and in Congress, we worked to meet the demand by appropriating an additional $90 million to monitor other workers and volunteers who were at Ground Zero and Fresh Kills.

Through this work, we learned that many of those who were exposed are now experiencing significant health problems from this exposure--people who were in the prime of their life before 9/11 now suffering from asthma, sinusitis, reactive airway disease, and mental health issues. So in December 2005, I worked with Senator Harkin and other appropriators, as well as my colleagues in the New York Congressional Delegation, to secure an additional $75 million in funding that would for the first time provide Federal funding for treatment to help those who were disabled by these attacks get the care that they needed.

Sadly, we are once again running out of funding to take care of the heroes who never questioned their responsibility on 9/11 and are now paying a terrible price. While the President has proposed providing additional funding for treatment in the fiscal year 2008 budget, we must act sooner to provide sufficient funds to ensure treatments through the rest of the current fiscal year.

That is why I introduced an amendment to the 9/11 bill we are considering today to divert $3.6 million in funding--originally part of that $20 billion secured for New York in the wake of 9/11 that the administration proposed to cut in its fiscal year 2008 budget. At a time when treatment needs are so urgent, I believe that we need to ensure that dollars that were intended for 9/11 needs can be used to address the mounting health crisis that we are facing as a direct result of these attacks. I believe it is important to raise awareness of the fact that these programs--programs that are helping tens of thousands of first responders in New York and around the Nation--are in danger of having to turn patients away.

I am extremely grateful for what we have been able to accomplish with the support of Senator Harkin and other appropriators. They have shown that they consider it our national responsibility to care for those who did our country proud in the hours, days, weeks, and months following that horrific attack. I am also proud that I will be working with my colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, including Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and Harkin, to develop a lasting solution to address these health care needs. But while we are working on those solutions, we must ensure that these programs continue to operate.

Mr. Harkin: I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Clinton, for her kind remarks. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 took place nearly 1,000 miles from Iowa. But the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were really an attack on the heart of America. Iowans answered the call of service and came to the aid of those affected by these attacks. The Musco Lighting Company from Muscatine donated lighting equipment to assist the World Trade Center recovery efforts. Quad-Cities fire departments collected more than $75,000 for the Uniformed Fighter Association's 9/11 Disaster Relief Fund.

And just as Iowans and other Americans responded to the calls for help, I am proud that the Appropriations Committee has worked step by step with the New York delegation to address the many desperate needs that arose from 9/11. I was proud to work with Senator Clinton, Senator Byrd, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to secure $20 billion immediately after 9/11 to help both short and longer term recovery efforts at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA. The funding for tracking health outcomes is a particular concern to myself and Senator Specter. This funding has been used to monitor not only the brave responders and recovery workers who live in New York, but also all who responded from around the country, including more than 35 from Iowa.

I thank you for your leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with you on the upcoming emergency supplemental appropriations bill to maintain the current monitoring and treatment program for 9/11 responders and recovery workers.

Mrs. Clinton: I thank the Senator. On behalf of the thousands of firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, residents, students, and others who are suffering from 9/11-related illnesses, I look forward to working with you on the upcoming emergency supplemental appropriations legislation to ensure that those who are sick can receive the care they need. With this commitment, I will withdraw my amendment to this legislation.