Judd Gregg: “the Senator from Delaware makes a strong and effective case for the need of stronger rail security. He puts it in the…”

“the Senator from Delaware makes a strong and effective case for the need of stronger rail security. He puts it in the context of what is happening in other nations, what has happened in England or what happened yesterday in India. There is no question-- and the most recent instance that was potentially here in the United States involving New York. There can be no question but that rail is a threatened infrastructure and a target of opportunity. The problem with his amendment is, as he knows, we are constricted by certain rules that we have in allocation. We funded rail security at more than we funded last year--not a lot more and certainly nowhere near what the Senator from Delaware has asked for. But we have used up all the allocation to take care of what we consider to be appropriate needs that have to be addressed--threat issues, mass destruction, border security, and things we have already discussed. His amendment, as it is structured, would add $1 billion on top of what we have received as an annual allocation, which means that it would break other allocations, exceed the agreed-to number, and that is something we can't do. As much as I recognize the legitimacy of many of the points he makes, I think it is, however, important to put in context what is happening in rail. The number in this bill--and we have about $187 million for rail security--is not the only commitment to rail.…”