[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9101-S9106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor at the end of the day 
to remind our colleagues that there will be two votes tomorrow morning. 
They will both be cloture votes. Those votes are ones we have cast 
before. This will be the third cloture vote on the drought and 
firefighting amendment that has been pending for weeks. It will be the 
second vote on homeland security.
  I am troubled by the rhetoric I hear off the floor with regard to 
Democratic efforts to slow this legislation down. I find it quite 
ironic that while there are some who suggest it is Democrats holding up 
this legislation and criticize us for doing so, it is the Democrats 
voting virtually with unanimity in support of cloture to end debate on 
both bills.
  This is the fourth week we will be on this legislation.
  I don't know what agendas are being played out. Some may think maybe 
the longer we wait to vote on these things, the more advantageous it is 
for one side or the other. There is a lot of work left to be done. I 
know the American people expect us to complete our work on homeland 
defense, and our farmers and ranchers and firefighters certainly expect 
us to have acted by now on the assistance they need so desperately.
  How cynical can it be for some to suggest, in the name of whatever, 
that we can hold up drought assistance, hold up firefighting 
assistance, hold up the extraordinary help this represents, in the name 
of whatever issue? I have said this before on the Senate floor, and I 
will say it again now. Just getting cloture on the Byrd amendment, 
which includes $5 billion or more in drought assistance, and almost a 
billion dollars in firefighter assistance--to get cloture on that 
amendment in no way precludes other amendments. It certainly doesn't 
preclude any Senator from offering the forest health amendment or 
anything else on the bill itself. It doesn't preclude that.
  So there is absolutely no reason Senators should oppose cloture on 
the drought and firefighters amendment--unless they are not serious 
about providing help in the first place. You have to wonder, after the 
third cloture vote, if people are truly serious about providing help; 
if they are serious when they say they want to provide some response to 
firefighters and drought victims in the agricultural areas of our 
country.
  You would have to believe if they were serious they would vote for 
cloture, they would send this amendment and this bill into conference, 
and we would get this job done. You would think that.
  All of the machinations and explanations and all of the excuses ring 
very hollow to ranchers and farmers and firefighters when they note 
that we are now in the third week of this filibuster from the other 
side, depriving these very people the sustenance they need to survive.
  Mr. President, there can be no explanation. So I hope the vote 
tomorrow will have a different result. I hope all these political 
strategies, as they play themselves out, have played their course. I 
hope we can say, on a bipartisan basis, that the time has come for us 
to send a clear message to ranchers and farmers and firefighters that 
we are going to get them that help. I hope we can do that.
  Tomorrow is our chance because I will tell you if we don't get 
cloture tomorrow, we send just the opposite message--that in politics 
we can say anything we want and not be held accountable. We can say we 
are for you, but we can always think of a reason we are not at the end 
of the day.
  There is a great deal of cynicism in ranch and farm country and the 
forests as we fight these fires right now. People are shaking their 
heads wondering what in Heaven's name could be holding up this help. I 
cannot explain it, and I don't think anybody else can satisfactorily. 
They can come to the floor and say they are not filibustering. They can 
come to the floor and say there are other issues that are more 
important. They can come to the floor and try to explain in a hundred 
different ways, but there is no explanation. There is no excuse. There 
is no way to look in the eyes of those farmers and ranchers or 
firefighters and say: Just wait another week, wait another month. You 
have waited long enough, but we are going to make you wait a little 
longer.
  You cannot do that.
  So tomorrow is a big test. Are we serious about drought assistance? 
Are we serious about firefighter assistance? Are we serious about 
getting this job done and sending the right message? We will know the 
answer by late morning.

  The same could be said about homeland security. As I noted, we have 
already had one cloture vote. I am told the amendment offered by our 
Republican friends is germane. So there really is no reason to vote for 
cloture and bring this bill to a close. We have so much more work to be 
done. A day doesn't go by when three or four colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle come to me and say: When are we getting out? When are we 
going to be able to go home?
  The answer to that rests, in part, on tomorrow. If we can support 
cloture and get this legislation passed, if we can move this agenda 
forward, with all the other things that have to be done, there is no 
reason we cannot meet our adjournment day.
  Mr. President, I just come to the floor to urge my colleagues not to 
fall into the trap--the rhetoric trap--of attempting to explain why you 
are for homeland security, why you are for drought assistance, why you 
are for firefighting assistance, why you are for completing our work on 
time--and then turning around and voting against cloture, voting 
against bringing this

[[Page S9102]]

debate to a close, after a month of legislative activity on the Senate 
floor.
  I will be watching. I know the American people will be watching. 
Tomorrow is a very big day. Tomorrow is a day when we will see who is 
sincere and who is not; who is prepared to bring help to those needy 
farmers and ranchers and firefighters, and who is not; who is prepared 
to answer the President who said just yesterday that the Senate needs 
to get its act together to pass homeland security. Tomorrow is our 
chance.
  So let's see whether we seize the moment and take that chance and do 
what we need to do to get the job done. I am sure on both sides of the 
aisle colleagues recognize the importance of doing just that. So we 
will have a chance to prove it tomorrow morning on the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to respond to the majority leader, I 
totally disagree with many of the statements that were made. There is 
no one on this side of the aisle filibustering the Interior or homeland 
security bills. No one. None. I know. We are willing to vote. I am 
embarrassed that we have spent 3 weeks on the Interior bill. Cloture is 
not filed on the Interior bill; cloture is filed on one amendment. Even 
if cloture was invoked, the amendments can still be offered. Senators 
have a right to offer amendments. I just mention that.
  If the majority leader wants to move forward on the bill, table the 
amendment. That is the way to do it. I know the majority leader knows 
that. I will table the amendment if that will help him. If I was 
managing the bill, I would try to move the bill. I used to be chairman 
of that subcommittee. It is embarrassing to me that the Senate has been 
on this and homeland security for now the fourth week. That is not the 
way to manage appropriations bills. I am embarrassed we haven't passed 
but three appropriations bills. I just mention that to my colleague.
  Having a cloture vote on the Interior bill is a total waste of time. 
Even if it is invoked, you can waste 3 days, and then the sponsors of 
the amendment can still offer the amendment to the bill. That is 
correct. Cloture on homeland security is a waste of time. I tell the 
majority leader that because it would deny the Senator from Texas and 
the Senator from Georgia the chance to offer the President's 
substitute. I know the leader knows we have enough votes to make sure 
they know they are going to get enough votes on the substitute.
  There is a tendency around here to file cloture thinking that will 
always expedite matters, but certainly it is not the case with the 
appropriations bills. It will not work, I am informing the majority 
leader.
  I am also saying, with regard to filing a cloture motion on homeland 
security, we are not going to let that deny the President the 
opportunity to offer his proposal. We can have all the cloture votes 
you want, but it does not move us any quicker to passing drought relief 
or additional money for firemen. It will not happen.
  If you want to dispose of that amendment, we can table it and find 
out where the votes are. The Senator from Idaho is entitled to have a 
vote on his amendment. There is money in it for fire. He is saying we 
should reform our processes in managing the forests. He has a right to 
do that.
  I know Senator Reid and I have managed bills in the past. Senators 
have offered amendments, and the ones we did not like, we would usually 
table, and if we were not successful, we would usually drop it in 
conference, but we would manage the bill. This bill is not being 
managed. Neither bill is being managed. So we are now on our fourth 
week on two bills when both should have been done in a relatively short 
period of time.
  I mention that to the majority leader. File all the cloture motions 
you want, but if you want to move forward on the bill, I think we 
should just vote on these amendments and we can be done.
  I mention that as friendly advice. I would like to see the Senate 
work and see the Senate work much better, but I did want to clarify--I 
have said this about four times--no one on the Republican side of the 
aisle is filibustering either of these two bills.
  I think it is in our best interest for the Senate and for the 
Congress to pass both bills. I am willing to work with the majority 
leader to do that. I offer a suggestion: If people do not like the 
Craig amendment, move to table it or come up with an alternative where 
we vote side by side on different alternatives.
  I had understood there was going to be a motion to table the Craig 
amendment, and then there was going to be a Bingaman amendment which is 
comparable. Ways can be worked out. Senator Craig is entitled to a vote 
on his amendment, and Senator Bingaman may be entitled to a vote on his 
amendment. We can dispose of that, finish the Interior bill, get it to 
conference, and hopefully work it out with the House.
  I also hope we can do that with the remainder of the other 
appropriations bills. It is embarrassing for me not to have passed more 
appropriations bills through the Senate, through the House, and to the 
President. He is entitled to have an opportunity to sign or veto 
appropriations bills, and we are not giving that to him.
  I make those comments and friendly suggestions to my friend. I do 
want to reemphasize that no one on the Republican side is filibustering 
either of these bills. I wanted to make sure that is clear. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the friendly 
advice from my friend and colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma. He is a 
student of the legislative process. He has every right to be 
embarrassed. If he wants to come to the floor to express how 
embarrassed he is, I certainly would not want to keep him from doing 
that, and I appreciate his candor.
  As to the appropriations bills, the House has sent us five. This is 
the fourth one that we have taken up. There are eight bills that are 
mired, that are languishing in the House of Representatives because the 
House Republican leadership cannot appear to find whatever wherewithal 
may be required to move the legislation forward. They have not sent 
them to the Senate so, obviously, we cannot bring them up. We are 
waiting patiently for additional legislative action on the part of the 
House. I am hopeful they will send it soon because they are the ones 
who should be embarrassed.
  I must say the Senator from Oklahoma is certainly within his rights 
to express himself and in characterizing these votes against cloture in 
any way he sees fit. That is the right of every Senator. I do not blame 
him for not wanting to be accused of filibustering this legislation, 
but I think anyone, just an objective observer would be hard pressed to 
say: We are not filibustering, but we are going to vote against 
cloture.
  What is cloture? Cloture is the means by which you bring an end to 
the debate on a particular bill or an amendment. That is what cloture 
is. I can read the rule. I can clearly, I am sure, share with my 
colleagues exactly what the rule says with regard to how one ends a 
filibuster, how one ends extended debate. How do you do that? You file 
cloture.
  When our Republican colleagues were in the majority, they used to 
fill the tree. They used to load up the amendment tree and then file 
cloture so that not only would they end debate, they would keep it from 
beginning. We would not even start the debate when our colleagues would 
come to the floor and not end it but prevent it.
  I have said I will not do that. We will have debates, but there comes 
a time, and I would say any objective observer would say at the end of 
4 weeks, that is a pretty good time. I mean, just to pick a number--4 
weeks of debate. We file cloture now for the third time on the Interior 
appropriations bill to end debate. That is what it will say tomorrow 
morning.
  We will support it. Our colleagues are going to oppose it, and then 
they are going to say: But we are not against ending debate; we are not 
filibustering.
  If you can convince anybody of that, you are a better speaker and a 
more persuasive person than I am. Bless your heart if you can do that. 
I am telling you, this is a filibuster, purely, simply, and without 
question. You vote against cloture for the third time, you

[[Page S9103]]

vote to filibuster; you vote not to end debate; you vote to extend, and 
the bottom line is--forget all the parliamentary procedural 
gobbledygook--you are telling ranchers, and farmers, and firefighters 
they are going to wait a lot longer. That is what you are telling them.
  Forget the filibuster. Just remember what it means to extend debate 
in this case. It means they wait longer. It means that regardless of 
whatever excuses you can come up with, you continue to deny these 
people the chance to get help. That is what it means, pure and simple. 
They understand that in South Dakota. I think they even understand that 
in Oklahoma. But regardless of whether they understand it in 
Washington, we will have the chance once more to demonstrate who is for 
getting that help and who is not. That is what that vote is tomorrow. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Republican leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from South 
Dakota because he got his people some help. He was able to pass an 
amendment that would allow them to clean up their forests and maybe 
prevent forest fires, but the rest of the people in the country did not 
get the so-called Daschle amendment. He was able to get it. I do not 
know how. It went through. We did not have a vote on it. We did not 
have a lot of discussion because a lot of us would have said it should 
have been national. So Senator Craig offered an amendment that said we 
want part of the reforms--not all the reforms--Senator Daschle was 
successful in getting to help South Dakota.
  We are saying, in forest management, because we have forest fires 
breaking out all across the country, we should be able to clean up some 
of the diseased and dead trees so we do not have kindling for further 
fires. That is the essence of the Craig amendment.
  We are entitled to a vote on that amendment. We did not get to vote 
on Senator Daschle's amendment. We did not get a vote on that. We are 
not even saying we should have that policy nationally, but we should 
have part of it to reduce the cause and incidents of forest fires.
  In the underlying bill, we have money for forest fires, and we have 
money for drought. Senator Craig says: Let's have improvement in forest 
management simultaneously. He has a right to offer that amendment. 
Cloture, as Senator Daschle is trying to invoke, would make it 
impossible for Senator Craig to offer that amendment on the 
firefighting money.
  Interestingly enough, it would not prevent him from offering it to 
the rest of the bill. Senator Daschle is not offering cloture on the 
bill. He is offering it on one amendment. I am tempted to say we agree 
to cloture; that would be fine with me. And then Senator Craig can 
offer the amendment to the bill. So cloture is getting us nowhere fast. 
We do not need this.
  I implore the majority leader: Let the Senate work. If you do not 
want the Craig amendment to pass, move to table it, and we move on. You 
roll with the punches. You win some, you lose some.
  Evidently, some people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not 
want to vote on the Craig amendment. I hope people understand that is 
what it is about. I am protecting the right of the minority to offer an 
amendment.
  I tell the majority, we are going to offer this amendment. Whether it 
is an amendment to Senator Byrd's amendment or someplace else on the 
bill, we are going to offer the amendment. We are not going to be 
denied the opportunity to offer an amendment. I have to protect my 
Members' rights, and I will do so aggressively.
  So I urge the majority leader to withdraw the cloture vote. If he 
wants to have cloture, he is not going to get it. We are going to 
insist on the right to offer amendments.
  The same thing would apply to homeland security. If cloture is 
invoked, then we do not even get to have a vote on the President's 
homeland security bill.
  Senator Gramm and Senator Miller have a bipartisan bill, which the 
President has worked on. They have agreed upon it, they have adjusted 
it, they have worked on it, and they are entitled to offer their 
amendment. If cloture is invoked on homeland security, they do not even 
get to offer that amendment. So cloture is a tool not just to shut off 
the debate, it is a tool used to deny Members the right to offer their 
amendments.
  This is the fourth week we have been on these two bills, and we have 
made very little progress. We have had very few votes because people do 
not want to vote? This side is willing to vote. We have been willing to 
vote on the Craig amendment for weeks. Let's vote. The way to bring a 
vote to a head if you cannot get somebody on this side ready to vote 
and that side is not ready to vote, you move to table it. That is a 
nondebatable motion. You get a vote. Let's find out where the votes 
are.
  If somebody does not want to vote, why are they in the Senate? We are 
delaying one bill for weeks because some people do not want to vote on 
one amendment. It is ridiculous. We used to manage these bills in ways 
that if a Senator did not like the amendment and got beat on the floor, 
he might drop it in conference, or try and change it. But to just say 
we are going to keep filing cloture, as if that is trying to bring a 
filibuster, there is no filibuster. If there is a filibuster, it is on 
the Democrat side; it is not on the Republican side. We are ready to 
vote. I have heard the sponsors of this amendment say we are ready to 
vote, we are ready to vote. So to say this is going to risk drought 
assistance and fire assistance does not fly. We are ready to vote. 
Let's vote up or down on the amendment. Let's vote today. Let's vote 
tomorrow. Let's vote the next day. How many weeks do we need to be on 
it?
  I am ready to win. I am ready to lose. We are exhausted on the 
debate, but we keep having it. This is about the fifth debate I have 
given, not on the substance but on cloture, because the majority keeps 
filing cloture. They are going to keep filing cloture. Why? It is to no 
avail.
  We are not going to get cloture and deny Senator Gramm and Senator 
Miller the opportunity to offer the President's substitute or the 
President's proposal for national homeland security. That is not going 
to work. Everybody knows that. It is not going to work.
  Why in the world would we adopt cloture and deny Senator Craig the 
amendment dealing with forest fire management? Senator Daschle was able 
to get in a management proposal that dealt with his forests. My 
compliments to him. I like people taking care of their States. I like 
people doing forest management in their States, working out agreements 
with environmentalists. Evidently, that happened in Senator Daschle's 
case so they can harvest some timber and get rid of some of the dead 
timber. That is great. Why can we not do that for the rest of the 
country? Are we not entitled to offer that amendment?

  I believe Senator Craig's amendment is scaled down in comparison to 
what Senator Daschle was able to do in South Dakota. My compliments to 
Senator Daschle for helping his State, but I think other people are 
entitled to offer amendments that would protect their States. Their 
States are burning. Their States are not just asking us to give them 
more money for fire assistance, but they want to change the policy so 
we do not have so many fires next year and the next year.
  They are entitled to offer that amendment, and if people disagree 
with that amendment, they are entitled to vote against it or they are 
entitled to table it. But to file what I think are frivolous cloture 
motions undermines the whole purpose of the Senate.
  I am a student of the Senate. I love the Senate. Cloture should be 
used rarely, when there is a real extended debate. We have not had an 
extended debate. We are ready to vote. So it is a method where some 
people are trying to use it to stop amendments that are not liked and 
on which they do not want to vote.
  Again, the Senator from Idaho, the Senators from the West, are 
entitled to say we want at least part of what the majority leader was 
able to do in his State. We are going to protect the rights of the 
minority to be able to offer amendments. We are going to protect the 
rights of Senator Gramm and Senator Miller to offer the President's 
proposal. Cloture on these two bills is not going to work. It would not 
work anyway.
  I am tempted to say let's give cloture and then offer the amendment 
tomorrow after we wait 30 hours; waste a

[[Page S9104]]

couple of days and then offer the amendment again. We can do that. 
Maybe we should do that. It might prove our point that cloture is not 
the way to go when filing amendments dealing with appropriations bills. 
It really does not let the Senate work. The Senate should work, but 
frankly the Senate is not working.
  Fingers can be pointed at the House of Representatives, but the 
reason why the House has not done more bills is because there has not 
been a budget. The House has passed a budget and the Senate has not 
passed a budget.
  When I say I am embarrassed for the Senate, I am embarrassed for the 
majority because they have not passed a budget. They did not even bring 
a budget resolution to the floor of the Senate. A budget does not take 
60 votes to pass. It takes 51 votes to pass in the Senate. For the 
first time since 1974, the majority did not bring a budget to the floor 
of the Senate. Because we do not have a budget, we do not have like 
figures between the House and the Senate. We do not have figures in the 
Senate because we have not passed it.
  So fingers can be pointed at the House and one can say the House has 
only passed so many appropriations bills, but they have passed more 
than the Senate has. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the 
Senate has to wait on the House to pass appropriations bills. That has 
been the tradition, but it is not mandatory. If the House is not doing 
its work, we should go ahead and pass our appropriations bills, period.
  I mentioned this to Chairman Byrd, and I hope we will do that. The 
Senate should pass appropriations bills. If the House has not passed 
them, let us pass them.
  The end of the fiscal year is next Monday. I cannot remember any time 
in my 22 years in the Senate that the Senate has done so little in the 
appropriations process with 1 week to go in the fiscal year. Shame on 
the Senate. People can point fingers at the President that he would not 
give us an extra $9 billion--really, I think the difference is closer 
to $13 billion. Between the Senate Democrats and the President of the 
United States, I believe it is about $13 billion. Why don't we pass 
everything we agree on or take the House figure and then if Senators 
want to pass another $9 billion, do that in a supplemental? We could do 
that.

  So we could pass the bulk of the $759 billion and then for the 
additional $9 billion or $12 billion, that could be put in a 
supplemental and the President could sign or veto it. At least then we 
would have done our job and we would be able to have appropriations for 
the bulk of the Federal Government.
  Right now we are not doing anything. We are not functioning. The 
Senate is becoming dysfunctional. To only pass three appropriations 
bills at this late stage is very irresponsible, and I do not get any 
comfort by having fingers pointed at the House or the White House. The 
Senate is the one that did not pass the budget, and the Senate has not 
passed its appropriations bills.
  We are an equal branch to the White House. So why don't we do our 
work? We are an equal division to the House of Representatives. If the 
House is not doing its work, let's do our work. It goes back to the 
budget because if we have a budget, we have similar levels to work 
from, and then, since the House and the Senate are working from the 
same levels, they have something to go to conference with and come up 
with suitable compromises.
  This should not be this difficult. I am flabbergasted this is our 
fourth week now on the Interior appropriations bill, a bill that has 
total spending of about $18 billion or $19 billion. The $18 billion is 
a very small amount in the total scheme of Federal appropriations, 
which is more like $760 billion. It should not take us 4 weeks to do 
that. If it is going to take us 4 weeks to do the Interior bill, we are 
never going to finish the larger bills.
  If the majority leader wants to have more cloture votes, that is 
fine, but I think the managers of the bill should come down to the 
floor and say it is time for us to move on. Let's either vote up or 
down on the amendments or let's move to table the amendments, finish 
these appropriations bills, and get our work done as we have the 
constitutional responsibility to get our work done.
  I yield the floor.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am not going to spend a lot of time 
responding to my friend, the assistant Republican leader. But I say, no 
matter what you call a filibuster, it is still a filibuster. We are 4 
weeks on two bills. Check the history of this body. How often do we 
spend 4 weeks on a bill? We do not unless there is a filibuster, and 
that is what we have here. The majority leader, Senator Daschle, is 
trying to stop debate so we can go ahead and finish these bills.
  The President has told everybody he wants homeland security, but he 
sure is acting strangely if he really wants this legislation passed. 
There is simply nothing to show the President really wants this bill. 
In fact, what this is showing is that on this issue, Iraq, and anything 
else he can do to keep away from domestic policy, he is doing it. We 
have a stumbling, staggering, faltering economy, and we should do 
something about it.
  We have in the dark holes of the other body, these conference 
committees, legislation that has been held up for months and months. 
There is terrorism insurance. Important? Of course it is. We have major 
construction projects--I will bet in Minneapolis and other places in 
Minnesota and in Las Vegas and other places--that are being held up 
because we don't have terrorism insurance. Why? They won't let us 
complete a bill. Election reform--we had another debacle in Florida--
still no election reform, held up in conference; bankruptcy reform, 
held up in conference with the House; Patients' Bill of Rights, held up 
in conference with the House; generic drugs, held up in the House.
  We haven't done our appropriations bills because they will not move 
them in the House. This is a filibuster. They are doing everything they 
can to keep away from the fact that the stock market is at its lowest 
in 6 years. The stock market drop is more than in the time of the Great 
Depression. There were 2 million unemployed persons in the last 2 
years--additional unemployed people. We had a huge surplus, in the 
trillions of dollars, a year ago at this time. We are now broke.
  So this is a filibuster. It is a filibuster. It is a filibuster.
  Mr. President, are we on the homeland security bill at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                  Amendments Nos. 4515, 4568, And 4565

  Mr. REID. At this time I ask unanimous consent it be in order to 
consider the following amendments: No. 4515, No. 4568, and No. 4565.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent these amendments be 
considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide funding for the construction of the Automated 
 Commercial Environment computer system and to ensure the continuation 
              of certain functions of the Customs Service)

       Section 131 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       (f) Continuation of Certain Functions of the Customs 
     Service.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Preservation of customs funds.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, no funds available to the United 
     States Customs Service or collected under paragraphs (1) 
     through (8) of section 13031(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(1) 
     through (8)) may be transferred for use by any other agency 
     or office in the Department.
       (B) Customs automation.--Section 13031(f) of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 
     U.S.C. 58c(f)) is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) amounts deposited into the Customs Commercial and 
     Homeland Security Automation Account under paragraph (5).'';
       (ii) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(other than the excess 
     fees determined by the Secretary under paragraph (5))''; and

[[Page S9105]]

       (iii) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) There is created within the general fund of the 
     Treasury a separate account that shall be known as the 
     `Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation 
     Account'. In each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 there 
     shall be deposited into the Account from fees collected under 
     subsection (a)(9)(A), $350,000,000.
       ``(B) There is authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation Account 
     for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005 such amounts as 
     are available in that Account for the development, 
     establishment, and implementation of the Automated Commercial 
     Environment computer system for the processing of merchandise 
     that is entered or released and for other purposes related to 
     the functions of the Department of Homeland Security. Amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph are authorized to 
     remain available until expended.
       ``(C) In adjusting the fee imposed by subsection (a)(9)(A) 
     for fiscal year 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     reduce the amount estimated to be collected in fiscal year 
     2006 by the amount by which total fees deposited to the 
     Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation Account 
     during fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 exceed total 
     appropriations from that Account.''.
       (2) Advisory committee on commercial operations of the 
     united states customs service.--Section 9503(c) of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-
     203; 19 U.S.C. 2071 note) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security'' after ``Secretary of the 
     Treasury'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security'' after ``Secretary 
     of the Treasury'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``and the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security'' after ``Secretary of the Treasury''; 
     and
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by inserting ``and the Under Secretary of Homeland 
     Security for Border and Transportation'' after ``for 
     Enforcement''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``jointly'' after ``shall preside''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 311(b) of the Customs 
     Border Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2).

    (Purpose: To provide that the review of transportation security 
  enhancements required by section 170 include motor carriers, motor 
 coaches, pipelines, highways, and hazardous materials transportation)

       Strike section 170 and insert the following:

     SEC. 170. REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS.

       (a) Review of Transportation Vulnerabilities and Federal 
     Transportation Security Efforts.--The Comptroller General 
     shall conduct a detailed, comprehensive study which shall--
       (1) review all available intelligence on terrorist threats 
     against aviation, seaport, rail, motor carrier, motor coach, 
     pipeline, highway, and transit facilities and equipment;
       (2) review all available information on vulnerabilities of 
     the aviation, seaport, rail, motor carrier, motor coach, 
     pipeline, highway, and transit modes of transportation to 
     terrorist attack; and
       (3) review the steps taken by public and private entities 
     since September 11, 2001, to improve aviation, seaport, rail, 
     motor carrier, motor coach, pipeline, highway, and transit 
     security to determine their effectiveness at protecting 
     passengers, freight (including hazardous materials), and 
     transportation infrastructure from terrorist attack.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) Content.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to Congress, the Secretary, and the Secretary of 
     Transportation a comprehensive report, without compromising 
     national security, containing--
       (A) the findings and conclusions from the reviews conducted 
     under subsection (a); and
       (B) proposed steps to improve any deficiencies found in 
     aviation, seaport, rail, motor carrier, motor coach, 
     pipeline, highway, and transit security, including, to the 
     extent possible, the cost of implementing the steps.
       (2) Format.--The Comptroller General may submit the report 
     in both classified and redacted format if the Comptroller 
     General determines that such action is appropriate or 
     necessary.
       (c) Response of the Secretary.--
       (1) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the report under this section is submitted to the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall provide to the President and 
     Congress--
       (A) the response of the Department to the recommendations 
     of the report; and
       (B) recommendations of the Department to further protect 
     passengers and transportation infrastructure from terrorist 
     attack.
       (2) Formats.--The Secretary may submit the report in both 
     classified and redacted formats if the Secretary determines 
     that such action is necessary or appropriate.
       (d) Reports Provided to Committees.--In furnishing the 
     report required by subsection (b), and the Secretary's 
     response and recommendations under subsection (c), to the 
     Congress, the Comptroller General and the Secretary, 
     respectively, shall ensure that the report, response, and 
     recommendations are transmitted to the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Senate Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works, and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
                                  ____


(Purpose: To make changes to the Office for State and Local Government 
                             Coordination)

       On page 103, strike line 17 and all that follows through 
     page 112, line 4, and insert the following:

     SEC. 137. OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office 
     of the Secretary the Office for State and Local Government 
     Coordination, to be headed by a director, which shall oversee 
     and coordinate departmental programs for and relationships 
     with State and local governments.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The Office established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) coordinate the activities of the Department relating to 
     State and local government;
       (2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by State 
     and local government to implement the national strategy for 
     combating terrorism;
       (3) provide State and local government with regular 
     information, research, and technical support to assist local 
     efforts at securing the homeland;
       (4) develop a process for receiving meaningful input from 
     State and local government to assist the development of the 
     Strategy and other homeland security activities; and
       (5) prepare an annual report, that contains--
       (A) a description of the State and local priorities in each 
     of the 50 States based on discovered needs of first responder 
     organizations, including law enforcement agencies, fire and 
     rescue agencies, medical providers, emergency service 
     providers, and relief agencies;
       (B) a needs assessment that identifies homeland security 
     functions in which the Federal role is duplicative of the 
     State or local role, and recommendations to decrease or 
     eliminate inefficiencies between the Federal Government and 
     State and local entities;
       (C) recommendations to Congress regarding the creation, 
     expansion, or elimination of any program to assist State and 
     local entities to carry out their respective functions under 
     the Department; and
       (D) proposals to increase the coordination of Department 
     priorities within each State and between the States.
       (c) Homeland Security Liaison Officers.--
       (1) Designation.--The Secretary shall designate in each 
     State and the District of Columbia not less than 1 employee 
     of the Department to serve as the Homeland Security Liaison 
     Officer in that State or District.
       (2) Duties.--Each Homeland Security Liaison Officer 
     designated under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) provide State and local government officials with 
     regular information, research, and technical support to 
     assist local efforts at securing the homeland;
       (B) provide coordination between the Department and State 
     and local first responders, including--
       (i) law enforcement agencies;
       (ii) fire and rescue agencies;
       (iii) medical providers;
       (iv) emergency service providers; and
       (v) relief agencies;
       (C) notify the Department of the State and local areas 
     requiring additional information, training, resources, and 
     security;
       (D) provide training, information, and education regarding 
     homeland security for State and local entities;
       (E) identify homeland security functions in which the 
     Federal role is duplicative of the State or local role, and 
     recommend ways to decrease or eliminate inefficiencies;
       (F) assist State and local entities in priority setting 
     based on discovered needs of first responder organizations, 
     including law enforcement agencies, fire and rescue agencies, 
     medical providers, emergency service providers, and relief 
     agencies;
       (G) assist the Department to identify and implement State 
     and local homeland security objectives in an efficient and 
     productive manner;
       (H) serve as a liaison to the Department in representing 
     State and local priorities and concerns regarding homeland 
     security;
       (I) consult with State and local government officials, 
     including emergency managers, to coordinate efforts and avoid 
     duplication; and
       (J) coordinate with Homeland Security Liaison Officers in 
     neighboring States to--
       (i) address shared vulnerabilities; and
       (ii) identify opportunities to achieve efficiencies through 
     interstate activities .
       (d) Federal Interagency Committee on First Responders and 
     State, Local, and Cross-Jurisdictional Issues.--
       (1) In general.--There is established an Interagency 
     Committee on First Responders and State, Local, and Cross-
     jurisdictional Issues (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Interagency Committee'', that shall--
       (A) ensure coordination, with respect to homeland security 
     functions, among the Federal agencies involved with--
       (i) State, local, and regional governments;
       (ii) State, local, and community-based law enforcement;
       (iii) fire and rescue operations; and

[[Page S9106]]

       (iv) medical and emergency relief services;
       (B) identify community-based law enforcement, fire and 
     rescue, and medical and emergency relief services needs;
       (C) recommend new or expanded grant programs to improve 
     community-based law enforcement, fire and rescue, and medical 
     and emergency relief services;
       (D) identify ways to streamline the process through which 
     Federal agencies support community-based law enforcement, 
     fire and rescue, and medical and emergency relief services; 
     and
       (E) assist in priority setting based on discovered needs.
       (2) Membership.--The Interagency Committee shall be 
     composed of--
       (A) a representative of the Office for State and Local 
     Government Coordination;
       (B) a representative of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services;
       (C) a representative of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention of the Department of Health and Human Services;
       (D) a representative of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency of the Department;
       (E) a representative of the United States Coast Guard of 
     the Department;
       (F) a representative of the Department of Defense;
       (G) a representative of the Office of Domestic Preparedness 
     of the Department;
       (H) a representative of the Directorate of Immigration 
     Affairs of the Department;
       (I) a representative of the Transportation Security Agency 
     of the Department;
       (J) a representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     of the Department of Justice; and
       (K) representatives of any other Federal agency identified 
     by the President as having a significant role in the purposes 
     of the Interagency Committee.
       (3) Administration.--The Department shall provide 
     administrative support to the Interagency Committee and the 
     Advisory Council, which shall include--
       (A) scheduling meetings;
       (B) preparing agenda;
       (C) maintaining minutes and records;
       (D) producing reports; and
       (E) reimbursing Advisory Council members.
       (4) Leadership.--The members of the Interagency Committee 
     shall select annually a chairperson.
       (5) Meetings.--The Interagency Committee shall meet--
       (A) at the call of the Secretary; or
       (B) not less frequently than once every 3 months.
       (e) Advisory Council for the Interagency Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established an Advisory 
     Council for the Interagency Committee (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Advisory Council'').
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--The Advisory Council shall be composed of 
     not more than 13 members, selected by the Interagency 
     Committee.
       (B) Duties.--The Advisory Council shall--
       (i) develop a plan to disseminate information on first 
     response best practices;
       (ii) identify and educate the Secretary on the latest 
     technological advances in the field of first response;
       (iii) identify probable emerging threats to first 
     responders;
       (iv) identify needed improvements to first response 
     techniques and training;
       (v) identify efficient means of communication and 
     coordination between first responders and Federal, State, and 
     local officials;
       (vi) identify areas in which the Department can assist 
     first responders; and
       (vii) evaluate the adequacy and timeliness of resources 
     being made available to local first responders.
       (C) Representation.--The Interagency Committee shall ensure 
     that the membership of the Advisory Council represents--
       (i) the law enforcement community;
       (ii) fire and rescue organizations;
       (iii) medical and emergency relief services; and
       (iv) both urban and rural communities.
       (3) Chairperson.--The Advisory Council shall select 
     annually a chairperson from among its members.
       (4) Compensation of members.--The members of the Advisory 
     Council shall serve without compensation, but shall be 
     eligible for reimbursement of necessary expenses connected 
     with their service to the Advisory Council.
       (5) Meetings.--The Advisory Council shall meet with the 
     Interagency Committee not less frequently than once every 3 
     months.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say to all those within the sound of 
my voice, this action has been cleared by both Senators Thompson and 
Lieberman, the two managers of this bill.

                          ____________________