[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9748-S9788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2555, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2004, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1318, to appropriate $20,000,000 to the 
     Office for Domestic Preparedness to be used for grants to 
     urban areas with large tourist populations.

  Mr. REID. 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is it necessary to lay aside an amendment 
that is pending so that I can offer an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9749]]

                           Amendment No. 1328

(Purpose: To require reports on protecting commercial aircraft from the 
               threat of shoulder-fired missile systems)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 1328.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a 
     report that--
       (1) details that progress made in developing 
     countermeasures for commercial aircraft against shoulder-
     fired missile systems, including cost and time schedules for 
     developing and deploying such countermeasures, and
       (2) in classified form and in conjunction with airports in 
     category X and category one, an assessment of the 
     vulnerability of such airports from the threat of shoulder-
     fired missile systems and the interim measures being taken to 
     address the threat.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this amendment is very important 
in making sure we stay ahead of the threat that the FBI has identified 
as being very real to our people. I am going to show you what the FBI 
said about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles.
  The FBI said that:

       . . . given al-Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target the 
     U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made 
     MANPAD systems, and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led 
     military forces in Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in 
     the United States should remain alert to potential use of 
     MANPADS--

  Those are shoulder-fired missiles--

     against U.S. aircraft.

  First, I want to say how grateful I am to the committee, both Senator 
Cochran and Senator Byrd, for really taking the first stand in favor of 
moving forward on missile defense systems that could be placed on our 
commercial aircraft to protect them from these shoulder-fired missiles. 
This is a major breakthrough.
  When I stood on this Senate floor several months ago, I lost a couple 
of very close votes on this issue, and then won a vote, but this is the 
first substantial amount of money we are going to have. I think it is 
crucial.
  Senator Schumer and I have led the fight on this issue in the Senate, 
and Congressman Israel and Congressman Mica, in a bipartisan way, over 
on the House side. So the first thing I want to say is thank you very 
much to the committee for getting us started.
  I hope we will see the technology now blossom forth because we 
already have this technology on our military aircraft. We have this 
technology on Air Force One. And I think the American traveling public 
deserves no less protection.
  What this amendment does--while applauding the fact that we have the 
money--is to make sure we are given a report by March 1, 2004, on the 
progress of developing and deploying such countermeasures so we stay on 
top of this issue.
  We also ask--and this is very important because it is going to take 
time for our aircraft to be retrofitted with these systems--for a 
report, which would be classified and available to colleagues, on what 
our major airports are doing in the interim before we have these 
systems placed on aircraft.
  I also thank Secretary Ridge because at the point in time when I 
talked to him about this matter--again, it was just after we had lost a 
very close vote here--I have to say, he recognizes this threat and he 
took the position that we should move forward. So I want to make sure 
that thank you is in the Record.
  I will never forget having a press conference, a bipartisan press 
conference, on this issue with Congressman Mica, who said after he had 
a classified briefing on this matter, he had a hard time sleeping at 
night.
  Now, here is the reason: Shoulder-fired missiles--such as the SA-7 
and Stinger missile--are available on the black market for as little as 
a few thousand dollars.
  I want to go to a picture showing, first of all, the way these 
shoulder-fired missiles look. You can see from the picture they are 
very small. They weigh 30 pounds. It does not take a very strong person 
to be able to lift 30 pounds, and to put that 30 pounds on their 
shoulder. Most can be used with very little training. And they just 
take minutes to fire. They can go up about 12,000 feet into the air. 
They basically are heat-seeking missiles and are terribly destructive. 
We know that for sure.

  We know that more than 20 terrorist groups are in possession of these 
weapons, including al-Qaida. And we know that al-Qaida has shown a 
willingness to use these weapons as weapons of terror.
  Al-Qaida is suspected of targeting U.S. military aircraft in Saudi 
Arabia last May with an SA-7 missile. Saudi authorities found an empty 
launch tube near an air base used by American aircraft.
  We also know there was an apparent attack on one of our military 
aircraft over in Iraq. The good news there is that our C-130s are 
equipped with defense measures. We also know this was an unsuccessful 
attack.
  So putting it all together, and putting it together with the fact 
that al-Qaida attempted to bring down an Israeli airliner in Kenya--and 
we also believe that Israeli airliners are protected with defense 
systems--it was not successful--but putting all the pieces together, 
the attack on an Israeli commercial aircraft, the successful attacks 
which killed about several hundred people--I will go through that. 
Since 1978, 35 attempts to shoot down civilian aircraft by shoulder-
fired missiles and a catastrophic loss of 24 planes and 640 deaths.
  We are not talking about some remote threat. We are talking about a 
real threat, a real threat that has been played out. The FBI is telling 
us it is a real threat. Today I am happy to say this committee has 
recognized that, and for the first time. That is the good news. But we 
want to stay on top of this and make sure these funds are well spent 
and well used and that the proper systems are developed.
  I want to mention that military transport and refueling aircraft, in 
addition to the C-130 I mentioned, the C-17, KC-135, and KC-10 are some 
of the models that employ countermeasures that could be used for 
commercial aircraft. The military has conducted thousands of hours of 
flight testing on countermeasure technology, including live fire 
testing. We know the systems work. We need to start putting these 
systems on our commercial planes as soon as possible.
  We all know we have to stay ahead of this terrorist threat. We all 
know there are cells of terrorists in our country. We all know that 
homeland security is crucial. Many of us believe it does not have a 
high enough priority in this administration, and we will have many 
amendments.
  This amendment, I am pleased to say, has been signed off on both 
sides of the aisle because I think everyone agrees that the $60 million 
has to be spent well and we need to move forward.
  I would like to read part of a letter from Ed Adams, chairman of 
Navigant, one of the leading travel management companies in the United 
States. He says:

       The travel industry is painfully aware of what a successful 
     attack of using a shoulder-fired missile on a commercial 
     airliner could do to the confidence of the traveling public. 
     It is a situation we would prefer not even to imagine, but we 
     must understand the reality of such an event if we intend to 
     prevent it.
       The blow to the economy in general, and the travel and 
     tourism sector, in particular, combined with the loss of 
     human lives would be staggering. These costs would certainly 
     outweigh the expense of the precautionary measures you are 
     recommending today to make sure that our commercial planes 
     are safe from such a terrorist act.

  We clearly see that what we are doing here is not only the right 
thing to do to protect the lives of our people but also to protect, 
frankly, the life of our economy, which is not in good shape, which is 
very rocky, which cannot sustain such an incident.
  I, again, thank Senators Cochran and Byrd for including these funds, 
and I know that they both signed off on this amendment, which again 
will simply say, we want a report that lets us know how we are moving 
forward to be able to retrofit these planes with the appropriate kinds 
of measures and also a report--and this is very important--on the 
interim steps that major airports are taking.

[[Page S9750]]

  I went to one airport. I won't name it. I stood on the top of a roof 
of a garage there. There was no security anywhere around. I looked up. 
The planes were landing. Honest to God, I could have almost touched 
those planes. And this is an example of a roof area, A, that should 
have been patrolled or, B, should be closed. It only makes sense. How 
can we protect every inch of our airports and everybody? It is very 
difficult. But we certainly could take steps that make sense, 
precautionary steps that are really commonsense steps.
  My thanks again. I wonder if I could ask Senator Cochran if he would 
be willing to have a voice vote on the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Has the Senator completed her remarks?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have completed my remarks. I wonder if we could just 
accept the amendment. Then I have one more amendment I would like to 
speak about 6 or 7 minutes on, and then we could lay that one aside.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would like to make some remarks in connection with 
this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Wonderful.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from New Hampshire would also like to make 
some remarks.
  Mrs. BOXER. Sure, wonderful.
  Mr. COCHRAN. But not if the Senator has not completed her statement.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have completed my statement. I didn't know if the 
Senator wanted to move along. I would be happy to yield the floor at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on the subject of antimissile devices for 
commercial aircraft, the Senate should be advised that the statement of 
managers on the supplemental that was passed earlier this year directed 
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of 
Homeland Security to prepare a program plan for the development of an 
antimissile device for commercial aircraft. In response to that 
directive, the Department of Homeland Security has developed a program 
plan.
  On May 22, 2003, this plan was submitted by the Under Secretary for 
Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to the 
Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that plan be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Program Plan for the Development of an Antimissile Device for 
                          Commercial Aircraft


                              introduction

       The House Report accompanying Public Law 108-11, which was 
     signed by the President on April 16th, 2003, directed the 
     Undersecretary for Science and Technology of the Department 
     of Homeland Security to prepare a program plan for the 
     development of an antimissile device for commercial aircraft. 
     The plan should identify the process for delivery and 
     certification of a prototype and the proposed cost and 
     schedule for such an activity. The report should be provided 
     to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of 
     enactment of this Act.
       A review of available technologies conducted by the White 
     House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in 
     coordination with the Homeland Security Council, identified 
     an on-board jammer (directed infrared countermeasure, or 
     DIRCM), as the most promising of the technologies they had 
     reviewed. It is the intention of the Department of Homeland 
     Security to explore this option while being open to other 
     potential concepts that may not have surfaced or been fully 
     explored by the OSTP study.
       The DIRCM concept has been under development for some time 
     by the Department of Defense for protection of military and 
     other government aircraft. In addition, there is a small 
     market for business jets. There are currently two known 
     contractors engaged in DIRCM development: Northrop-Grumman, 
     and BAE.
       There are several issues associated with the DIRCM concept, 
     as well as with other potential antimissile concepts, that 
     the Department of Homeland Security proposes to explore in 
     the program plan described below; these include:
       System cost, including component, integration, and 
     certification;
       Airframe & avionics integration and FAA certification 
     issues;
       Performance against the current and emerging threat;
       Reliability and failure rate;
       Maintenance, including built-in testing, handling, and 
     special ground support equipment needs;
       Operating and support costs;
       Concept of operations, including air crew involvement, go/
     no-go doctrine, and airport operational procedures.
       In addition, a Broad Agency Announcement released May 16 by 
     the Department of Homeland Security under the auspices of the 
     Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) explicitly requests 
     proposals for options for protection of aircraft from the 
     man-portable missile threat. Given the program plan described 
     below, it is envisioned that the TSWG solicitation will 
     likely lead to awards for concept development, thereby 
     requiring significant research and development.


                              program plan

     Strategy
       The strategy for research, development, test and evaluation 
     of an antimissile device for commercial aircraft is to issue 
     a solicitation for a Systems Development and Demonstration 
     program, with potential awards to one or more contractors. 
     Prior study has indicated that the DIRCM concept is the most 
     likely path for providing good performance against the 
     current and emerging threats while potentially satisfying 
     operational constraints. One or two contracts will be awarded 
     for system development and demonstration of a DIRCM. However, 
     the solicitation would also allow responses for concepts 
     other than DIRCM, with a single award contemplated should an 
     alternative likely to meet performance, operational, and cost 
     constraints be offered.
       Each contractor would have to design, develop, demonstrate, 
     and deliver 2 units for demonstrating system performance 
     (with emphasis on operational suitability and cost). For the 
     DIRCM concept, system design and fabrication for both the 
     countermeasure system (common for all aircraft types) and the 
     canoe (an aerodynamic conformal pod peculiar to the aircraft 
     type) would have to be completed. Other concepts would be 
     required to complete similar activities. Integration onto 
     only one aircraft type would be required in the SD&D phase. 
     To understand the potential operating and support (O&S) 
     procedures and costs, a detailed O&S plan would be a major 
     part of the contract deliverables. Various Test & Evaluation 
     (T&E) activities will also be required to include as 
     appropriate wind tunnel, reliability, tracking accuracy, 
     hardware-in-the-loop and live fire testing and operational 
     suitability (e.g. environmental testing and maintainability 
     to include built-in testing, handling, and special ground 
     support equipment). A parallel FAA certification effort, 
     coinciding with the SD&D phase would also occur.
       The program would be developed and managed in consultation 
     with the airline industry, pilots, airport operators, 
     aircraft developers, and relevant Federal agencies.
     Program cost/schedule
       Fiscal year 2003 plans are to create a special government 
     staff office to manage the effort, with an initial task of 
     preparing a solicitation to industry for research, 
     development, test and evaluation of an antimissile device; 
     this effort will be managed within the Science and Technology 
     Directorate (S&T) of the Department.
       Fiscal year 2004 activities will be to award contracts to 
     develop system costs; analyze aircraft integration issues; 
     and through modeling and simulation assess performance 
     against the current and emerging MANPAD threat. Contractors 
     will be asked to develop an operations and support plan that 
     details the maintenance and logistical support requirements 
     for the system they are developing, and an analysis of the 
     recurring operating and support costs. Contractors and the 
     government will work with the community to develop viable 
     operational concepts for the use of the system. Finally, if 
     analyses indicate cost effectiveness and operational 
     suitability, development of a prototype for each viable 
     concept may be initiated to prove out the analyses. S&T would 
     not seek additional or supplemental funding for this effort.
       Contingent on the analytic, design and developmental 
     efforts conducted in fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005 
     activities could include the completion of the test articles 
     and their integration onto a single airframe type, along with 
     hardware in the loop and live fire testing to validate 
     performance assumptions.
       Costs quoted below are informed by contractor estimates for 
     the DIRCM RDT&E phase, along with estimates provided by 
     Department of Defense representatives to the OSTP study. 
     Further development of program RDT&E costs will be conducted 
     by the system program office during FY03.

  Mr. COCHRAN. What the Department has agreed to undertake is to bring 
together the best information from the private sector, our experience 
in the defense area for military defense against anti-aircraft 
missiles, and to come up with a rational approach to making such 
antimissile devices available to the commercial airline industry.
  We have provided in the committee report $72 million for critical 
infrastructure protection to utilize information and scientific 
advances that have been made to deal with evolving threats to protect 
infrastructure security. Of this amount, $60 million is allocated for 
systems development of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft. 
This is provided and printed on page 62 of our committee report.

[[Page S9751]]

  These funds will be available to carry out the work contemplated in 
the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California. In her 
amendment, she asks for another report to be submitted to the Congress 
by the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than March 1, 2004, to 
report on the progress made in developing these countermeasures for 
commercial aircraft. We have no objection to including this provision 
in the bill. We expect that we are going to have reports made 
periodically. We have hearings to review the activities of the 
Department, and this is certainly going to be a subject that we are 
going to follow closely.
  It is because the Congress has made a strong point of emphasizing the 
importance of deploying these defensive measures as soon as possible 
that the Department has now undertaken a specific plan and approach to 
doing this in a rational way. The Senate may remember that some wanted 
to require the Department to make available immediately missile defense 
systems to be put on commercial airlines. We found that was not 
workable. The Congress did not insist on that point. In fact, 
amendments on that were defeated when they were offered earlier in this 
body.
  But this is a program now--and the Senator from California has been a 
leader in bringing attention, keeping the pressure on--to see that we 
do this in a rational and an immediate way, with some sense of urgency. 
We have also noticed in the amendment, which we appreciate, that the 
Senator calls on a classified report to be made available to the 
Congress as well, assessing the vulnerability of certain airports, the 
largest airports in our country, from the threat of shoulder-fired 
missile systems and the measures being taken to address that threat. We 
likewise have no quarrel with that part of the amendment and are 
prepared to recommend the Senate accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I believe one of the most challenging 
tasks put before the Department of Homeland Security, and before the 
appropriators were allocating funds for the Department of Homeland 
Security, is to understand evolving technologies and to take steps to 
use those technologies to keep the public safe. I think that is a 
difficult task because, whether we are looking at homeland security, or 
information technology, or any other area, we are never sure exactly 
where technological developments are going to take us. It is always 
difficult to understand the best and most cost-effective ways to use 
technologies--in this case, to keep the public safe.
  I commend the members of the subcommittee and Chairman Cochran for 
the work they have done throughout the process on their bill but in 
this area in particular--to take the steps necessary to bring 
technologies into place in a way that will keep the public safer. The 
process that they used, as well, I think is commendable. They worked 
with the Department of Homeland Security, with the Under Secretary for 
Science and Technology, to develop a program plan for looking at the 
current state of technology to deal with the potential threat of 
surface-to-air missiles, and then to allocate funds to further study 
and evaluate, develop systems and adapt the technology for the 
potential use on commercial aircraft. They have appropriated a 
significant amount of funding, up to $60 million. Again, for that I 
commend the committee.
  They have really taken the steps necessary that will allow us to best 
understand how this technology might be deployed. It is very difficult 
to predict what the nature of all the threats to our commercial 
aircraft industry might be. There is no question, perimeter security at 
our Nation's airports has improved dramatically since September 11, and 
that has helped reduce any potential threat from shoulder-fired 
missiles. But we want our Department of Homeland Security to be 
responsive, to take the steps necessary to adapt and to use this 
technology, if possible, to protect commercial aircraft. I think that 
is exactly what they have done.
  I appreciate the work by the Senator from California to highlight 
this issue in the amendment she has offered, which will be accepted by 
the subcommittee to make sure Congress is well informed as to the 
progress of this development effort and this research effort.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the committee on this 
issue. I thank them for their funding, and I am happy to support the 
amendment of the Senator from California.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, to complete the record on this issue, I 
am going to read into the Record the statement of managers from the 
conference report, dated April 12, 2003, making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2003. In that statement of managers, 
the conferees said:

       The conferees direct the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology to prepare a program plan for the development of 
     an antimissile device for commercial aircraft. The plan 
     should identify the process for delivery and certification of 
     a prototype and the proposed cost and schedule for such an 
     activity. The report should be provided to the Committees on 
     Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act.

  As I mentioned in my earlier statement, we are pleased that the 
report was made available. We have now submitted that for printing in 
the Record to complete the statement that should be made in the Record 
to accompany this amendment.
  I know of no one who objects to this amendment. I think we can adopt 
it on a voice vote.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we are ready to proceed to a 
voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator 
from California.
  The amendment (No. 1328) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the committee very much. I cannot 
tell you how much I look forward to the day that the Department has 
agreed on a particular system, and that we can begin the installation 
of the system I think will send a very good message to the flying 
public. We will stay on top of this until we see it through.


                           Amendment No. 1331

    (Purpose: To investigate the expenses caused by Secret Service 
                              activities)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a second amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1331:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.  .

       Not later than March 1, 2004, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall issue a classified report to Congress on the 
     security costs incurred by State and local government law 
     enforcement personnel in each state in complying with 
     requests and requirements of the United States Secret Service 
     to provide protective services and transportation for foreign 
     and domestic officials.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know that each of us wants to do 
everything we can to help our first responders--the men and women who 
are called to duty as a result of a Federal action. Well, one of the 
areas where our local people have just been left out to dry all through 
of the years--this is not a partisan issue, whether in a Democratic 
administration or a Republican one--is that they have to pay the costs 
of security details when a leader comes into the State, be it a 
domestic leader like the President, a Presidential candidate, the Vice 
President, or their families, or a foreign dignitary.
  It is really critical, it seems to me, particularly in light of the 
rough economic times that our States are seeing,

[[Page S9752]]

that we begin to address this issue. I was a little stunned when I got 
into this after a constituent talked to me about this. I was stunned to 
learn that there is really no place in the Federal Government where we 
have this information.
  The Secret Service does its job brilliantly. They don't worry about 
the cost to the local people. They call up the local people and say 
that a Cabinet Secretary is coming, or a foreign dignitary, or the 
President, or a candidate, and this is what they need. They need A to Z 
and they lay it out. Guess what. The cost is borne by our local 
agencies at home.
  So simply, my amendment requests a report from the Department of 
Homeland Security on expenses incurred by local police as a result of 
Secret Service requirements.
  We all know, when there is an orange alert, what happens in our 
hometowns, because we also know when there is an orange alert--that 
means a heightened state of alert--if there is a problem, people don't 
call the President or the Senate or the House; they call 911. We know 
that is what happens.
  Right now, even in this bill, as far as it goes, I don't think it 
goes far enough to help our people. Here is a whole other matter that 
we have never really looked at. As we see that our police departments 
and fire departments are facing layoffs, it seems to me that we need to 
do something to help them. As a first step to do that in an area that 
has never been looked at, I think we ought to look at what happens to 
the various agencies.
  I have a very detailed letter from the California Highway Patrol. 
They detailed all the expenses that they had from 2002 to 2003. I am 
not going to go into every detail of every hour, and I am not going to 
put that in the Record because Senator Cochran informed me, through his 
staff, that the Secret Service doesn't want this to be public 
information. I find it very odd, frankly. I don't think it should be a 
classified issue. But if the Secret Service says they need it 
classified, so it shall be. However, I will tell you that the aggregate 
cost in that 1 year just for the California Highway Patrol, in 69 
different details they were ordered to do, was $700,000. That may not 
seem like a lot by the standards we face here, but I can assure my 
colleagues, in my State, every dollar now makes a difference. Sometimes 
these agencies may get reimbursed, but they usually do not, and the 
burdens of these requests are adding up. They add up in additional 
overtime and transportation costs that these agencies cannot afford.

  We want to know: How big is this number? I think it would be very 
important for every one of our States because every one of our States 
hosts these dignitaries and we want to do what is right, and we will do 
what is right, but let's find out because we do care about these 
unfunded mandates, what it is costing our people.
  I am not in any way being critical of the Secret Service. They are 
doing their job, and they do it extremely well, but they are not acting 
alone in these cases. They are calling local police. Simply put, we 
want to find out the costs and the burdens on our States. I have no 
idea what it would be. I just have this one letter that details one 
area of costs, and, I might say, it is an off election year. In this 
election year coming up, we are not only going to have the President, 
his entourage, his family, and the Vice President, but we are going to 
have the Democratic nominee and his or her entourage, I have to say, 
and family. These are major costs. It is not fair to our people not to 
try to reimburse them for these costs.
  Again, this amendment will start the ball rolling. In some ways, I 
wanted to write an amendment that just said our local people should be 
reimbursed right now for all the expenses they face when Secret Service 
says to them: You must provide these many cars and these many police 
and this much protection. But I wanted to lay the groundwork for 
everyone because, as I say, I think when we get the report back, every 
one of us will be impacted because at least most of the States are 
receiving these calls from Secret Service all the time. In my case, for 
just one agency, it is $700,000 for 1 year, 69 details.
  I am very pleased both Senators Cochran and Byrd have agreed to have 
this amendment. We made a couple of changes at the request of Senator 
Cochran to keep these numbers classified. Again, I have problems with 
understanding why the aggregate number has to be kept classified. I do 
not see what anyone learns if they find out an aggregate number. We 
have an aggregate number for the Secret Service, so I do not know why 
we cannot have an aggregate number of what the costs are to our States. 
But that is a fight for another day. We do not have to pursue that at 
all today. Today, I am very pleased we will take the first steps toward 
getting this information.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and ask that the 
amendment be laid aside. At the time Senator Cochran thinks is 
appropriate, I will be happy to have a vote on it at that time. Is it 
appropriate, Mr. President, that I ask for the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I, frankly, think this amendment is 
unnecessary and unnecessarily burdensome on the Secret Service, but I 
am not going to vote against it and the Senator insists on a vote on 
the amendment. I am going to vote for it and suggest all Senators vote 
for it. We have suggested, and the Senator has agreed, to modify her 
amendment to require the Secret Service to issue a classified report to 
Congress on security costs incurred by State and local government law 
enforcement personnel in complying with requests and requirements of 
the U.S. Secret Service to provide protective services and 
transportation for foreign and domestic officials.
  The amendment, first off, is to have a report, a public report in the 
aggregate of all of these expenses. There were concerns--and I share 
those concerns--about the fact that potential terrorists or those who 
might be planning to do harm to the public officials who are protected 
by the Secret Service and the families of public officials, such as the 
President of the United States and his family, and visiting foreign 
government officials who come to our country on official business, are 
afforded protection, and those who are accompanying them.
  The Secret Service is the primary Federal agency that has this 
responsibility. What this amendment first sought to do was to require a 
report of the aggregate costs associated with protection of officials, 
including State and local law enforcement officials who cooperate with 
the Secret Service to help ensure the success of the protection 
mission.
  I am not sure how the Secret Service is going to compile all of this 
information, but they, I am sure, will undertake to do it if we adopt 
this amendment and say they ought to do it. All they can do is ask for 
State and local governments to submit to them the information that is 
requested in this amendment and then compile it, give it in a 
classified report to the Congress, and it would be made available in 
that form to all Senators.
  I am hopeful the Senate can proceed to a vote on the amendment. I 
have not checked with the leadership to see whether or not there is any 
objection to proceeding to a vote right now. I have no objection to it. 
I do not know of any objection, but we will check with the leadership 
to be sure we can proceed. If not, we can set, by agreement, a time for 
a vote later in the day. Until we get that advice, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I withdraw my suggestion for the quorum 
call if the Senator wants to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I wanted to thank Senator Cochran for 
his support, although not enormous support, but support for this 
amendment. Senator Cochran, I want to address your comments, and I 
thank you for your support, although I say not the most enthusiastic, 
but nonetheless I am very appreciative.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is not enthusiastic at all. I said I disagree with 
the amendment, and I think it is unnecessary. But I am willing to go 
ahead and adopt

[[Page S9753]]

it and urge the Secret Service to try to comply with it.
  Mrs. BOXER. What I said was your support was not enthusiastic, but I 
appreciate it nonetheless. I wanted to answer your point that you were 
worried about how to collect this information. I want to tell you that 
our States have very clearly documented----
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order. The Senator 
should direct her comments to the Chair, not to other Senators. I think 
that is the procedure in the Senate.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that, Mr. President. I wanted to mention 
to Senator Cochran, because he made some criticism of how we would get 
these numbers, that it was very easy for the highway patrol in my State 
to compile the numbers because all of our States are in a budget crunch 
and they all have to document the numbers in their States.
  So all the Secret Service has to do, or Department of Homeland 
Defense, is to simply ask our States for these numbers. I can assure 
the Senator from Mississippi that our States are reeling, they are 
hurting, and it would be very simple for them to do this.
  I have not placed this letter into the Record because of the concerns 
of the Senator that these numbers should be classified. I do not agree 
with that, but I respect it. So I am not going to place this in the 
Record.
  The bottom line is it would be very simple for our States to document 
these numbers, and I hope I am proven right. I will discuss this with 
the Department of Homeland Security because clearly the purpose of my 
amendment is not to cause anybody any extra trouble. It is simply to be 
fair to our States, our police departments, and our first responders.
  Again, I want to thank Senators Byrd and Cochran for agreeing to this 
amendment. The reason I want to have a record vote on it is clear. This 
is the first time we will ever be asking that this be documented. So I 
wanted to have a solid vote on it so it would not get lost in the 
shuffle. I have no need to speak any further. I am most appreciative 
that both of these amendments appear likely to be agreed to.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer 
amendment be set aside. We are advised that there is a ceremony that 
will be taking place momentarily in the Rotunda. The leadership of the 
Senate will be involved in that and maybe other Senators as well. The 
Senator from Washington has an amendment she would like to offer, and I 
think we could entertain her amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1327

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1327.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase funding for emergency management performance 
                                grants)

       On page 65, line 9, strike ``$165,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$265,000,000''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first, I commend the managers of the 
homeland security appropriations bill for doing an excellent job of 
trying to put together a bill under very difficult circumstances where 
we have a budget resolution that really does limit our ability, I 
believe, to make sure we have in place good security for all of our 
constituents, no matter where they live in this country.
  Everywhere I travel, people have different concerns, whether it is 
their seaports, trains, borders, infrastructure that easily could be a 
target of terror. The managers of this budget have worked hard to put 
together a package, but today I offer an amendment because I believe 
everything we are trying to do in this bill to improve homeland 
security will be undermined if our local communities do not have solid 
emergency response plans.
  Let me say that again because it is so important. Everything we are 
trying to do in this bill to improve homeland security will be 
undermined if our local communities do not have solid emergency 
response plans.
  When a disaster strikes in one of our communities, we know the phone 
will ring at the desk of some local emergency manager, and when that 
phone call comes in, if there is not a plan that is ready to go to deal 
with that emergency, we are in trouble. Even if we are able to provide 
all of the equipment and training that our first responders need, if 
there is not an effective plan at the local level to coordinate a 
disaster response, then we have all failed to protect our citizens.
  I introduce an amendment to ensure that the emergency planners in 
virtually every county and every community in America will have the 
tools they need to lead our response to a terrorist attack or other 
disaster. My amendment will provide $100 million for emergency 
management planning grants, and it has broad support. My amendment has 
been endorsed by the Council of State Governments, the National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National 
Emergency Management Association, and the International Association of 
Emergency Managers. Those endorsements say a lot. Those endorsements 
mean our leaders at the city, county, and State levels all recognize 
the need for this amendment.
  Those endorsements say the emergency managers who work to protect all 
of our communities are asking support for this amendment.
  One of the least talked about but most important parts of our 
response to a disaster takes place outside of the public view. In every 
county and major city in this country, there is an emergency response 
coordinator who works behind the scenes preparing for the worst. They 
determine what the needs are in our local communities. They develop 
plans so if there is a tornado or a natural disaster, there is a game 
plan for everyone to follow. Those plans coordinate the work of many 
different agencies and organizations and they really are the backbone 
of our emergency response.
  In one community, the emergency coordinator might be the fire chief. 
It might be the sheriff. In another community there might be a 
dedicated person who handles emergency planning exclusively. No matter 
what their title is, they perform a very critical job. They make sure 
we have an effective coordinated plan to prepare for and respond to in 
an emergency.
  For decades, they worked hard to prepare for natural disasters, 
developing plans to respond to tornados, earthquakes, floods, and 
winter storms. Today, they have a massive new responsibility to deal 
with. Today, they have to develop plans to respond to manmade disasters 
and plans to respond to terrorist attacks. They have to come up with 
strategies for handling scenarios that we would never have imagined 
just a few years ago.

  Our local emergency planners have a massive new responsibility, but 
they do not have the funding to carry it out. This is not an area where 
we can afford to skimp or to cut corners. If, God forbid, there is a 
smallpox outbreak somewhere in our country, the phone is going to ring 
at the desk of the local emergency coordinator. When he or she picks up 
the phone, either they have a plan to respond to smallpox or they do 
not. There are no two ways about it.
  If, Heaven forbid, a dirty bomb goes off somewhere in our country, 
either there is a game plan to follow on the shelf, tested, ready to 
go, or there is not. I want to make sure when that phone call comes, we 
are prepared, wherever we live in this country. Right now, we have a 
very long way to go. Trust me, my colleagues do not want

[[Page S9754]]

their emergency planner in their community to have to choose between 
preparing for a natural disaster or preparing and planning for a 
terrorist attack. They need to plan for both.
  My amendment would give them the resources they need to meet these 
new homeland security threats. Simply put, our communities have to 
build a brand new capability from scratch and they need Federal help.
  Turning to the specifics of my amendment, my amendment would provide 
an additional $100 million to the existing emergency management 
performance grants. These are the grants that allow our emergency 
managers to meet the needs in their local communities. I want to note 
that funding for these grants has been stagnant for about a decade. The 
underlying bill does provide some funding for these grants, but it is 
certainly not enough to allow our communities to create this new 
capability from scratch. In fact, in March of 2002, a survey conducted 
by the National Emergency Management Association identified a $200 
million shortfall for the EMPG Program that has continued to grow.
  Emergency planning grants have been around for about 10 years, and 
they are now the backbone of our emergency response system. They are 
funded on a 50/50 formula. Half the funding comes from our local level 
and half the funding comes from us at the Federal level. These grants 
fund the local emergency management offices that build our State and 
local emergency capability, and they provide the foundation for our 
first responders.
  In Washington State, without these grants many of our smaller and 
rural communities would not have had the resources to develop their 
emergency response plans. So these grants have been critical in helping 
our communities prepare over the years. Today, these grants are the 
best vehicle to meet the new challenges because they are flexible.
  Emergency management planning grants are flexible, allowing local 
coordinators, those people on the ground, to use them where they will 
do the most good for their community.
  Emergency managers can use these grants for local planning, first 
responder training, emergency preparedness exercises, personnel, 
operational activities, equipment, early warning systems, public 
information education, mutual aid, and other preparedness response and 
recovery activities. All of these options are available to local people 
on the ground, local emergency managers under this grant program.
  Some people may claim we can combine this grant program with others 
and that dedicated funding does not really matter. But that is not 
true. If we combine this with other grant programs, we will force 
emergency planning and coordination to compete with equipment and other 
important priorities. We should be helping communities meet all of 
these needs, not pitting one against another so communities come up 
short. Our local communities need both equipment and planning, and we 
need to fund both. The emergency management planning grant is the right 
tool to empower the emergency planners in your community to meet their 
local needs.
  Since September 11, we have asked the local emergency managers in 
every county in America to develop new coordinated plans to respond to 
terrorist attacks. We have asked them to take on this critical 
responsibility, but we have not provided the funding they need. My 
amendment will provide an additional $100 million in flexible grants to 
meet the needs from coast to coast.
  If our communities do not have solid emergency response plans, then 
they are really not prepared for a disaster. That is a price we cannot 
afford to pay. Our ability to respond to a terrorist attack or other 
disaster is only as good as the emergency response plans in our local 
communities. If we buy all the equipment but never develop the plans, 
we are not safe. If we send our firefighters to training but we never 
coordinate our response to an attack, we are not safe. We do not want 
our communities to have to choose between preparing for tornadoes or 
preparing for a smallpox attack. We are asking them to prepare for 
everything. They need the funding to do that.
  This amendment has been endorsed by the Council of State Governments, 
the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, 
the National Emergency Management Association, and the International 
Association of Emergency Managers.
  If there is a terrorist attack on our country again, the phone is 
going to ring at the desk of some local emergency manager. One of two 
things will happen: Either they will have a solid emergency plan for 
that disaster, know what to do, know what decisions to make; or they 
will not and Americans will pay the price.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so one day when that 
desperate phone call comes, the person who answers that phone, wherever 
they are, will be ready to lead an effective response. Each of us has 
the power to make sure our communities in our States are ready.
  I urge all colleagues to support the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in connection with the Senator's 
amendment, the President's budget as submitted to the Congress proposed 
eliminating the emergency management performance grants program. This 
was a program that had been administered by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. It is a program that provides funds to States to 
help prepare to deal with responses that have to be made at the local 
level to disasters that occur.
  The reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security folded into 
this new Department the agency previously referred to as the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. It is now part of Homeland Security.
  This emergency performance grants program was recommended for 
cancellation by the administration's budget. They recommended combining 
it with a State and local grant program within the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness. Our committee looked at that and decided this program was 
an important program to the States and it should be continued in 
effect. So we have funded it as a program that is administered by the 
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.
  The amendment the Senator is offering does not complain about what 
the committee has done with respect to their recognition of this 
program as an important program for assistance. The only thing her 
amendment complains about is the level of funding. Since it was 
disestablished, in effect, in the budget, there was no funding for that 
activity. We put $165 million in it to continue the assistance program 
and improve the level of support that the Federal Government gives to 
States for this purpose.
  Her amendment basically says: That is not enough money; we should 
have added $100 million more. Her suggestion is, instead of $165 
million, this program ought to be funded at $265 million.
  The problem is, there is no offset recommended in the Senator's 
amendment. Therefore, the amendment would violate the Budget Act. It 
would put us over the allocation that the committee has under the 
Budget Act. Therefore, at the appropriate time it will be my intention 
to make a point of order against the amendment for that purpose and for 
that reason.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for offering this amendment.
  First, I compliment the able Senator for the great work she does on 
the Appropriations Committee. She has been a stalwart in the 
Appropriations Committee from the beginning of her career. In so doing, 
she follows in the steps of two great Senators from Washington with 
whom I served many years ago: Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson. 
Magnuson served on the Appropriations Committee just as Patty Murray 
serves on that committee. Those were very forceful Senators, very 
active Senators.
  I knew Magnuson well, he being on the Appropriations Committee, as I 
say. But I knew Scoop Jackson even better. He was my supporter from the 
beginning of my career as a Senator who was involved in the leadership, 
first as Secretary of the Democratic Conference and then as Democratic 
whip and then as the leader. Scoop Jackson was always there. I should 
say in passing that the best whip the Senate ever had was the Senator 
who exceeds Robert Byrd, and that Senator

[[Page S9755]]

is Harry Reid. He and I were alike in this respect: He is always on the 
floor. So was I, always on the floor.
  But Patty Murray is a supporter on the Appropriations Committee. She 
works hard. She is a Senator who certainly attends to her 
responsibilities with respect to her State, and she is also a Senator 
who has a national viewpoint. I think she exceeds all of us on my side 
of the aisle with respect to our work on the transportation matters, 
and I compliment her for that. She is following in that train of 
activity when she supports this amendment which she has brought to the 
attention of the Senate. I thank her for offering the amendment.

  The administration proposed to consolidate the Emergency Management 
Grant Program into a single first responder program. She has spoken to 
this already. So has the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who 
manages this bill today from that side of the aisle. He, likewise, 
mentioned this in opposing the amendment. So the proposal of the 
administration is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
Emergency Management Grant Program.
  I am not saying that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi 
misunderstands it. He understands it well and he provided for it in the 
committee. I compliment him for that. But the Emergency Management 
Grant Program is the one Federal program that gives States resources to 
plan for what is called ``all hazards'' emergency management planning. 
That is exceedingly important. We must plan for responding to a 
terrorist attack but that does not mean we should lose the capability 
to plan for floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters.
  I am very keenly aware of this, being from the Mountain State of West 
Virginia, where those clouds hover over the high mountains and where 
the steep hills enable storms to flow rapidly down those sharp 
mountainsides into the valleys, often narrow valleys, and create 
extremely dangerous hazards for the people who have to live in those 
valleys and others who have to travel through those valleys and into 
those valleys to work.
  I strongly support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from 
Washington. This is a proven program and I thank Chairman Cochran for 
agreeing to keep this as a separate program in the committee bill. This 
amendment would provide $100 million in addition to the funding in the 
committee bill.
  I, again, compliment the distinguished Senator from Washington for 
her excellent work on the committee on behalf of her State and on 
behalf of the Nation, and I compliment her on offering this amendment 
today. I strongly support it. As I say, it means a great deal to the 
people of my State, to their safety and their welfare. I hope all 
Senators will support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are prepared to suggest to the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada, if we could get consent, we would 
ask that votes on the Boxer amendment or in relation to the Murray 
amendment occur at 12 noon today. We are hoping we can get consent. I 
think it would be good for us to do that. We could vote on one 
amendment and then I think a motion to waive the point of order that I 
made would be the vote that we would have on the Murray amendment.
  If the Senator would consider this: I ask unanimous consent that at 
12 noon today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer 
amendment, No. 1331, to be followed by an immediate vote in relation to 
the Murray amendment, No. 1327, provided further that there be 2 
minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote and that no 
second degrees be in order to the amendments prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have checked this with Senator Byrd. He 
has no objection. Therefore we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator and I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia as well.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1331

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
evenly divided prior to a vote on the Boxer amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I start by thanking the chairman and 
ranking member for their support of this amendment.
  Basically, we have a wonderful Secret Service unit in our Federal 
Government. They are very professional and they do a wonderful job in 
protecting our dignitaries, both foreign and domestic--whether it is a 
President, Vice President, a Presidential candidate, the Vice 
President, their families, or the head of a foreign power. It is 
absolutely a fact that they are the best there is.
  A lesser known fact is that when those dignitaries visit our States--
Arkansas, California, Missouri--our law enforcement personnel are asked 
to help the Secret Service and, of course, they do it. But they don't 
get reimbursed for the cost of doing that. This is beginning to sting 
our people at home.
  My amendment will simply let us know the extent of the problem. I 
have a letter from the California Highway Patrol, and they tell me that 
last year they spent over $700,000.
  I hope we will have a unanimous vote on this. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as I said when the amendment was 
proffered by the Senator from California, we were pleased that she had 
agreed to make some changes in the amendment and that we would accept 
the amendment if those changes were included. She asked for the yeas 
and nays on the amendment.
  I have further said that I thought the amendment was unnecessary and 
I don't know how the Secret Service is going to comply with the terms 
of the directive in the amendment. That is up to them. It seems to me 
they can make an effort to obtain the information sought by this 
amendment, which is the operating costs of the State and local law 
enforcement officials who are asked to cooperate with the Secret 
Service when they provide protection for visiting foreign government 
officials, or the President and his family, or for others whom they are 
obligated under the law to protect.
  They were worried that if they made this available in an unclassified 
form, it might put in jeopardy some of the very people they were trying 
to protect because they would disclose the steps they were taking to 
assure their protection. I am sympathetic with that observation. That 
is why we urged the Senator to make this a classified report. But it 
would be available to Senators.
  I have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd

[[Page S9756]]


     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Hatch
     Kyl
     Lott
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Lieberman
       
  The amendment (No. 1331) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1327

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided prior to 
the vote on the Murray amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the amendment before the Senate simply 
adds $100 million for emergency management planning grants. The 
President's proposal under homeland security combined these grants with 
other programs. The Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the 
committee, rightfully separated this back out to where it was.
  Unfortunately, the funding for this has remained static for the last 
decade. Since September 11, every county, every city across this 
country has had an additional responsibility in planning not just for a 
tornado or earthquake or national disaster but to have an emergency 
plan in case of a terrorist attack--very different planning, very 
different understanding, very different concerns. It is critical we 
help our local communities have a plan in place so when a call goes to 
a desk after a terrorist attack, people have a plan in front of them 
and know what to do and there is not pandemonium.
  This amendment simply adds $100 million. By the way, the people 
across the country in emergency management say they are $200 million 
short in this area. We simply add $100 million for our planners across 
this country to be prepared for a terrorist attack.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the Murray amendment 
provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the pertinent sections of 
that Act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act on the Murray amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Lieberman
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Maine wishes to speak for 
10 minutes on the bill. Following her statement, Senator Dayton will be 
ready to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Democratic assistant leader 
for his assistance in this matter.
  Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which will help us to better 
protect communities across America.
  I congratulate Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran for putting together 
a bill that fairly balances the many responsibilities of the Department 
of Homeland Security. I also thank Senator Stevens for his leadership 
in bringing this legislation to the Senate floor.
  This legislation, I believe, will give Secretary Ridge, State and 
local officials, and first responders the tools they need to build a 
more effective homeland security structure.
  Protecting this vast and diverse Nation is an enormous task, but our 
people--from Washington, DC, to the small border communities in 
northern Maine--have the skills, ingenuity, and the spirit to get the 
job done.
  On March 1 of this year, the foundation for this new structure was 
laid as 22 separate Federal agencies and Departments were merged into 
the new Department of Homeland Security.
  Creating a new Department is, however, just a start. Each State has 
its own security challenges, and every community has its own needs. My 
home State of Maine must protect a long and remote stretch of our 
northern border. Our enormous coastline is lined with small harbors, 
three deep-water cargo ports--one of which is the largest tonnage port 
in all of New England--and two ports that regularly welcome passengers 
from around the world. We have two international airports in Maine, one 
of which played a most unwelcome role in the events of September 11.
  This legislation will provide more than $29 billion in fiscal year 
2004 to fund the Federal Government security efforts and to help each 
of our States meet its particular needs. It includes $8.2 billion to 
protect our Nation's borders, including funding for an additional 600 
border agents and the development of innovative new security 
technologies.
  I am pleased that under the leadership of Senator Cochran the 
Appropriations Committee has provided more than $60 million for the 
Container Security Initiative. I know from a hearing held by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, that this partnership 
between the Department of Homeland Security and our shipping industry 
to target high-risk containers will help to better protect our ports 
from terrorist attacks.
  The legislation also provides more than $5 billion for the 
Transportation

[[Page S9757]]

Security Administration, including $1.8 billion for passenger screening 
and $150 million for port security grants. These grants provide 
important security upgrades to help protect an industry that is 
absolutely vital for our economic prosperity.
  I am pleased that Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd have 
agreed to many of the suggestions I have forwarded to them for 
upgrading our Nation's Coast Guard. This legislation provides $6.8 
billion for Coast Guard operations, including $702 million for the 
Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which is vital to helping the 
Coast Guard carry out its traditional missions even as it meets its new 
and enhanced responsibilities for homeland security.

  This legislation also maintains our commitment to America's first 
responders--our police officers, our firefighters, our emergency 
medical personnel--who are on the front lines of the war against 
terrorism.
  As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have made 
helping first responders a top priority. The needs of our first 
responders are as varied as the communities they protect. If there is a 
local emergency, citizens do not call Washington, they call 911. It is 
our first responders who are truly on the front lines in protecting our 
communities and in responding to any sort of terrorist attack.
  The $3.6 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness, including 
$1.75 billion for State and local homeland security grants and $750 
million for fire grants, is vital to the success of our first 
responders. These programs will provide them with better communications 
equipment, more firetrucks, and more exercises in training to do what 
they do best--prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other 
emergencies.
  But appropriating the funds, while essential, does not complete the 
job. We must also get these funds where they are needed quickly and 
efficiently. I have spoken to officials from communities around the 
State of Maine, to the mayor of Baltimore, and to officials throughout 
the Nation about the existing grant programs to assist our first 
responders. They are grateful for the grants, but frustrated by the 
bureaucracy, the time-consuming, complicated, and rigid application 
process, and the mountain of paperwork.
  After holding several hearings on this topic in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I introduced, with a number of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 
2003. This legislation would provide a steady ongoing stream of funding 
to each and every State. It will simplify the grant process. It will 
promote flexibility in the use of homeland security funds so they can 
be targeted to the greatest need. I urge the Senate to pass this 
legislation which has been reported unanimously by the committee. This 
will help us streamline and strengthen the way we provide assistance to 
those on the front lines.
  Finally, I add my strong support for the $3.6 billion included in 
this legislation for the Emergency Preparedness and Response 
Directorate, including $2 billion for disaster relief and $153 million 
for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program.
  As with any appropriations bill, one can argue about funding levels 
or that a certain program deserves more money than another. That is 
also true with this legislation. For example, I would like to have seen 
more funding for first responders and port security. But given the 
constraints on the Federal budget, I believe the managers of this bill, 
the chairman and ranking member, have done an extraordinary job. This 
legislation spends homeland security dollars in an effective, efficient 
manner. By providing more training and equipment to our first 
responders, more equipment and funding to secure our ports, and 
additional resources to protect our borders, this legislation gets the 
maximum benefit out of the Federal budget, out of the Federal resources 
available with the constraints under which we are operating.
  Again, I congratulate the chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking 
member for putting together an excellent piece of legislation that 
fairly addresses the diverse needs of our States and communities. I 
urge quick passage of the legislation so that the Department of 
Homeland Security and those throughout our homeland can continue to 
work together more effectively on the crucial tasks that lie ahead as 
we seek to better secure our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from Maine for her leadership as chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee in helping shape the legislation that created this new 
Department and in monitoring its activities and keeping up with how 
they are going about managing their responsibilities.
  Legislation has already been reported out of that committee, for 
example, that deals with such issues as formulas for dividing money 
among agencies and sharing money with State and local governments. 
These are very important challenges the committee faces because they 
are the committee of jurisdiction of homeland security. We are just 
simply providing the funds and trying to allocate it within the terms 
of a budget resolution, trying to maintain an awareness of the 
importance of holding down the deficit, being responsible, making sure 
the funds we invest in these activities are used wisely and efficiently 
and effectively. We want them to really count. We want to be sure we 
are upgrading the quality of our capability of responding to national 
emergencies, manmade and natural disasters as well.
  It is a big challenge. There is no end to the list of ways we could 
spend more money in trying to do that. We are guided by the legal 
authorities laid out by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We 
appreciate so much the guidance and leadership of the distinguished 
Senator from Maine in this effort. I commend her very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee for his generous and kind comments. He has 
been wonderful to work with on this issue, as every other. We are very 
fortunate to have him leading this essential subcommittee.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. DAYTON. Mr. 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. 1336

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 1336.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1336.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for procurements in 
                 contravention of the Buy American Act)

       On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 616. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended for the 
     procurement of any articles, materials, or supplies in 
     contravention of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment reaffirms that all money 
appropriated under this bill will be spent in conformity with the Buy 
American Act. It is an amendment which passed the House and will be 
included in that bill.
  As my colleagues know, the Buy American Act was established in 1933 
and has been in force since then, with only two substantive amendments 
during that entire 70 years. It is an economic stimulus legislation. It 
is meant to encourage the purchase of goods made by Americans in 
America, using American materials and labor.
  I cannot think of a more suitable time for this to be honored than 
now, with over 3.1 million jobs lost in the private sector of the U.S. 
economy since this administration took office. I will repeat that 
staggering number.

[[Page S9758]]

Over 3.1 million Americans have lost their jobs in the private sector 
of our economy since January 2001.
  So it is entirely appropriate that we use public dollars that are 
being appropriated for essential public purposes such as homeland 
security but that we also add a perfectly legitimate public purpose, 
which is to generate as many jobs as possible through the expenditure 
of those funds in the United States of America.
  There are exceptions in the existing Buy American Act to permit the 
purchase of goods or services if these conditions apply. The head of 
the procuring agency, in this case Secretary Ridge, could waive these 
requirements if he determines they are inconsistent with the public 
interest, which means he has broad latitude and discretion to determine 
that, for any legitimate reason, this act should not apply to a 
particular purchase.
  Second, if it is unreasonable in cost. If the domestic product is of 
an unreasonable cost, then a foreign product can be purchased.
  Articles that are purchased for use outside of the United States, or 
articles that are procured for military bases, leased from foreign 
governments, are not covered under the act, or if they are not produced 
or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably 
available commercial quantities or of satisfactory quality.
  There is latitude to assure that none of the intent of this 
appropriation, which the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
the Senator from Mississippi, and his colleagues have assured, that 
would require any compromise with the intent of providing the maximum 
possible protection to our fellow citizens. But it does say that, when 
possible, we will be consistent with that intent if we are also trying 
to provide American jobs.
  Why is this necessary if it is already in law? This administration 
has demonstrated that it is not particularly a fan of this particular 
act. The Secretary of Defense in the Defense authorization bill--the 
Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member--was successful in 
getting the application of that act significantly weakened as it 
applies to the Department of Defense and the military branches. I do 
not want to see that happen with the Department of Homeland Security. 
This is an opportunity for Congress to make it very clear that this act 
will be enforced; that we expect it to be followed; that we want it to 
be utilized wherever possible because we want to put Americans back to 
work.
  I know in my home State of Minnesota, the greatest imperative for the 
well-being of our citizens, as well as the recovery of the Minnesota 
economy and the budget crisis our State is going through, comes down to 
jobs--jobs, jobs, and jobs; American jobs; good paying, hopefully 
benefit-providing, pension-providing American jobs. That is what this 
amendment reinforces. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this provision is carried in the Treasury 
appropriations bill in the section on general provisions. Even though 
this amendment is not necessary to be on the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, I have no objection to it being carried 
on this bill as well. So we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his acceptance of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1336.
  The amendment (No. 1336) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DAYTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. 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. 1341

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1341.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To provide funds to increase maritime security)

       On page 49, line 2, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$450,000,000''.
       On page 66, line 9, strike ``$823,700,000,'' and insert 
     ``$523,700,000,''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be delighted to read the amendment: On page 49, 
line 2, strike ``$150 million'' and insert ``$450 million''; and on 
page 66, line 9, strike ``$823,700,000'' and insert ``$523,700,000.''
  What happens on page 49? We add $300 million to the port security 
provision to which everyone has attested that they support. When we 
asked Secretary Ridge about more money, in that they had not proposed 
anything in this particular Homeland Security bill, he said, well, that 
is in the critical infrastructure section. So that is where we take it 
from as an offset on page 66, line 9, strike the $823,700,000 and 
reduce it by $300 million.
  This ought to be an easy amendment for everyone to support in that, 
No. 1, we all voted for way more money when we passed the authorization 
for port security the year before last. We had 100 votes, all 
Republicans and all Democrats. And then we had the urgent 
supplemental--incidentally, that authorized $4.2 billion. We are not 
talking in those terms at all.
  Actually, the Coast Guard surveyed 47-some major ports--there are 362 
ports and 5,000 facilities--but there are 47 port areas with which we 
really are concerned. In those port areas are some 500 different 
facilities. So at that particular time, we said to the Commandant of 
the Coast Guard, give us a study and find out exactly what is needed. 
He came up with a $7 billion figure at that particular time.
  So we are not at the $7 billion that has already been requested and 
found needed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, not the $4.2 billion 
authorized at the time we passed port security legislation and we 
actually provided $1.2 billion. We had an amendment for $1.2 billion. 
It was defeated in the urgent supplemental, but when we looked at the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, the administration did not 
request anything under port security. When asked about it, they said 
that is in the critical facilities section, and that is why we take 
from the $823 million this necessary $300 million.
  Why do I say it is necessary? Right to the point, the interim rule 
requires the submission of security plans by December of this year. I 
will limit my comments to the 47 port areas and not the 5,000. This is 
required by all 5,000, but like first responders I think we will all be 
around for quite some time before we get the first responders outfitted 
as they should be. But here we know of the threat, and of the 47 port 
areas, they are without any approved plan within 1 year from July 1. 
And they must have the plans submitted in 6 months' time because by 
next July 1, if they have not been approved, under the bill the Coast 
Guard has the authority to close the port.
  What has happened is the ports have all gotten together. The captain 
of the port under the Coast Guard is the responsible official. He has 
had to get the Immigration Service. He has had to get the Customs 
Service. He has had to get the Drug Enforcement Service. He has had to 
get local law enforcement. He has had to get the local public 
facilities, port facilities. He has had to get the private port 
facilities. This young officer out of the Coast Guard has had to 
correlate it all, working together to get a master plan for the 
security of that port area, and submit it by the end of this year--
within 6 months time.

  When he submits it, of course, the Coast Guard itself has to approve 
or disapprove the plans coming in from all over, from 362, but 
particularly these 47 ports, and they have to begin to implement them.
  In terms of a major port in Houston, TX, Long Beach, CA, Seattle, WA,

[[Page S9759]]

Philadelphia, PA, we are talking sense now, we are not talking 
politics, if we think we need a little bit more in our area for port 
facilities. I am in pretty good shape where I am in Charleston, SC. 
Since they closed the Navy yard there, I suspect al-Qaida would be 
looking for a more ripe target. They would be looking at Philadelphia, 
for instance.
  What could happen? We know Osama bin Laden, according to Lloyd's of 
London, has control of some 20 vessels. He actually owns some 10 
vessels and he has control of an additional 10. So he has control of 
some 20 regular vessels, what you might call rust buckets. It was one 
of these that went into a port in Kenya 3 years.
  What happened was that particular ship docked at the port in Kenya. 
The terrorist crews jumped off, went and blew up the American Embassy 
in Nairobi, and went over into Tanzania and Dar Es Salaam and blew up 
that embassy, got back on the ship and boarded, and we have not been 
able to find them since.
  That tells me--and I used to represent the ports in South Carolina--
what we have is not just the ship but we have ship crews available to 
al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden can easily get three to four. He does not 
have to send them to flight school in Arizona or send them down to 
Florida. He has them. They are experienced tanker crews. These three or 
four experienced tanker crews could work their way into a good Exxon or 
Texaco or Unocol or other oil company, a Chevron tanker, come with that 
Shell tanker into the port of Philadelphia, up the Delaware River, and 
just before they reach port, the three or four could throw the captain 
over, take control of the ship, and ram it right into the tank farm, 
and blow it up.
  Booz Allen Hamilton did a study; and if there was a major terrorist 
act at the ports, we would have to close down the eastern seaboard. The 
stock market would have to close. We are talking serious business. And 
here it is that we, as a public body, have set the responsibility with 
the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, and the 
Homeland Security Department. We have said come up with plans and have 
them ready and approved by this time next year, but at least submit 
them and have them gone over with, starting in December of this year. 
That money is needed--not the $4.2 billion authorized. I don't know of 
any more critical thing.
  I worked on Homeland Security with our distinguished chairman, 
Senator Cochran. Actually, I had the U.S. entry and exit program. That 
was under my Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. I am totally 
familiar with the FBI, the Immigration Service, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, and many of these particular customs. But this 
particular port thing is real because it is mammoth and it is a way to 
close down the economy for a year to 2 years on the east coast. There 
is no question. Go into Houston, TX, and you have ruined the south. We 
would have to start rationing. Go into Long Beach, CA, and you have 
closed down the west coast area.

  I worked with all the committee members as best I could. I said there 
is no other place to find funds, other than what Secretary Ridge 
himself indicated when we asked why they didn't submit an amount for 
port security itself. He said it already is in the critical 
infrastructure facilities program. So we take that money out of there, 
and we get it an offset. Of course, working on the committee, that 
really takes us to some need that is denied in any other area. We can 
increase that amount. We will be working with an increased amount, 
hopefully, when we get to conference on Homeland Security.
  As the distinguished chairman and ranking member know, we must have 
more money in Homeland Security. We must have more money in our little 
Commerce, Justice, State bill that has been cut $910 million, way below 
last year. We could not go into conference with our House friends and 
formulate a bill and take care of the FBI and all of the other 
agencies. Just yesterday, the FBI was increased in this year, $410 
million on the House side. I believe if you proposed that amendment in 
the next 10 minutes on the floor of the Senate, it would receive an 
almost unanimous vote. We do not want to cut from the FBI that is 
enforcing laws against crime.
  FBI Director Mueller is doing an excellent job fashioning domestic 
intelligence efforts. We never wanted to have that in America, 
particularly after the McCarthy days and the House un-American 
Activities Committee. We said, learn and study and make absolutely 
certain that we are not spying on each other and having a domestic 
intelligence service. Now, with the war on terrorism, we need it. That 
has to be funded.
  This is for just a modest request of the billions and billions 
included for fighting the war on terror. The former Commandant of the 
Coast Guard and now the head of the Transportation Security 
Administration, Admiral Loy, is doing an outstanding job.
  We had a debate within the committee to try to get a sufficient 
amount just for the transponder tower. An airplane cannot approach the 
coastline of the United States of America without us identifying it. We 
cannot do that with respect to shipping. We are trying our best to use 
some overhead satellites, but we need to put up the towers.
  Once the towers are there, then we can require the vessels themselves 
to install the transponders.
  As of this moment, we have to get these plans and we have to get them 
moving. The communities are moving. They are ready, willing, and able. 
They are submitting some of these plans already at the Coast Guard 
office in the Transportation Security Administration. But we do not 
have the money to follow through. This is an unfunded mandate of our 
own that we want to at least set aside this particular amount, not to 
solve all of the ports problems by any manner or means, not to solve 
all the docking facilities' problems. That would be impossible. You 
could not spend that amount of money in 1 year's time. But at least we 
will need these funds in fiscal year 2004 to follow through to get port 
security in America. The fiscal year begins in a couple of months time, 
on October 1. It is critical.
  I yield the floor and I am glad to respond to any questions or 
comments anyone has.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina has raised an interesting question with the amendment that he 
has offered. He proposes to add $300 million for the Port Security 
Grant Program administered by the Transportation Security 
Administration and to take that money from another part of the bill--
$300 million from the Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
Protection Directorate. This is the Directorate that has the 
responsibility to conduct assessments of critical infrastructure to 
protect cyber-security in that structure, and to provide the ability to 
deal with the Threat Alert Advisory System.
  The total provided in the bill for Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection would be reduced from $823.7 million to 
$523.7 million. I am advised that this would deal a severe blow to the 
Department of Homeland Security efforts to provide the assets needed to 
protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.
  Let me also observe that this was an amount that was included in the 
amendment we dealt with yesterday offered by the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, although in the amendment offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia, he would have increased port security 
grants by $460 million.
  The amendment of the Senator from South Carolina proposes to increase 
it by only $300 million.
  But let me put in context what a substantial increase that is and 
what a difficult time the Transportation Security Administration would 
have in wisely and thoughtfully disbursing those grants to ports 
throughout the United States.
  Let me illustrate that by suggesting that we already have $100 
million in the bill for next year's spending. But we already 
appropriated $365 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Of the $365 
million already provided by Congress to the administration for these 
purposes, only $260 million has been obligated by the administration.
  So we have a proposal to add $300 million on top of an account where 
we have $105 million that is unobligated.

[[Page S9760]]

How much we can spend is a question we can ask, but we must also ask 
how much we can spend wisely in a coherent and thoughtful way.
  If you are a port director out there and the word goes out that the 
Transportation Security Administration now has over $400 million to 
spend for these grants, you better get a grant application in. If you 
get it in quickly, you will probably get it approved whether you need 
it or not, or whether it is a good request or a thoughtful request.
  I am not suggesting anyone would send in something like that, but the 
whole point is if we create an atmosphere where there is a rush to 
Washington for the money and there is more money up there than they can 
spend and the word goes out across the country to that effect, we are 
not contributing to national security or to homeland security; we are 
contributing to the disarray that this agency would be in in trying to 
deal with the applications in a thoughtful and careful way.
  I am hopeful the Senate will look very carefully at this proposal. I 
suggest it should be rejected. I don't think we are going to measure 
the success of this bill with whether or not we spend as much as we 
possibly can but whether we have spent what we need to spend this next 
fiscal year. Of course, more money is going to be needed later. You 
can't do it all in 1 year. They haven't been able to spend the money we 
appropriated last year.

  Think about that. Now we are going to add $300 million more to a $150 
million account.
  I just think this is piling money. It is going to create a big pile 
of money and maybe create a false impression of security. Appropriating 
the money is not going to improve our security. It is the things we do 
with the money and how it is spent according to a national plan.
  I am hopeful we can monitor as we go along how the administration is 
spending the money. It would be good to know from the Transportation 
Security Administration why they haven't been able to get the money out 
that we previously appropriated. What is the reason for that? It would 
be good for us to be able to describe that now. Maybe somebody from the 
Transportation Security Administration can call us and tell us why they 
haven't spent it. That may help us put this amendment in context.
  But I am hopeful we will help ensure before we appropriate an amount 
like this that the Transportation Security Administration is able to 
make the assessments and judge the quality of the grant applications 
that it receives to be sure the money is being disbursed where it needs 
to be disbursed as a matter of national security priority.
  I don't think we have the capacity in the Congress to decide the 
priorities among the different ports. Obviously, some port directors 
have suggested they need more money than they are getting--that the 
money that is available is not enough.
  I am sure the reason behind this amendment is the impression somebody 
created.
  But I am not sure we have the information available to us right now 
that is convincing enough to take $300 million away from infrastructure 
assessment and analysis and shift it from one Directorate to another 
Directorate. We may be undermining a very essential part of the effort 
of planning and assessing priorities and establishing priorities if we 
move $300 million from one account to the one suggested.
  I am not sure we can say or we have the evidence that we are now 
retargeting the money in a way that is consistent with our overall 
national plan. The administration says they don't want this amendment 
approved. They do not want the $300 million shifted in the way that the 
Senator from South Carolina suggests.
  I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I am not the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. I don't spend all day every day working 
to discharge the responsibilities that Secretary Ridge has, that those 
who work with him have, and the heads of the Directorates who have been 
given the power and the responsibility to manage the authorized 
activities that we put into law when we created this new Department. We 
have a lot of other things to do.
  I am on five subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. We have 
to deal with the Interior Department's funding. We have the Department 
of Agriculture.
  My friend from South Carolina has served as chairman of the State, 
Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee. There are a lot of 
other areas that you have to become familiar with and concentrate your 
attention on to discharge your own responsibilities as a member of this 
committee. The Homeland Security Subcommittee is just one of 14 
different subcommittees that we have in the Appropriations Committee.
  The point I am making is that we have to give credit to the 
administration and those people who have been appointed by the 
President and selected by Secretary Ridge to help them carry out these 
responsibilities in developing a national plan, assigning priorities in 
submitting a budget request, and defending it in hearings before our 
committee.
  I think we have done a reasonably good job of trying to assess how we 
divide the money that has been allocated to our subcommittee. Everybody 
wants more money. There is no doubt about that. I haven't had a single 
request saying don't give us the amount of money we asked for in the 
budget resolution. The impression you get from everybody is that they 
could use more money. But how much more?

  Mr. President, $300 million is a lot more for this one agency, this 
one administration entity, the Transportation Security Administration, 
over and above what we put in the bill, and more than they have been 
able to spend in the last fiscal year. The fiscal year is almost up. We 
are well into the year 2003 and they have over $100 million they have 
not obligated.
  Let's give them $150 million for this next year. We will monitor 
carefully the use of those funds. We will monitor the needs that are 
submitted in the form of grant applications from around the country. We 
will ask them to give us a report as to why they are choosing some 
applications for approval and funding over others, what are the 
criteria.
  But to come in now and say, we know better than what they are doing, 
we know better than what they are suggesting, we know better than what 
the administration is asking for, to the tune of $300 million for this 
one agency, I think is too much, is going to hurt one agency to try to 
help another. And we just do not have the facts to support it.
  So with great reluctance, I urge the Senate to vote against this 
amendment. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina. He is one of my best friends. I have 
admired him a long time. I know he has approached this in a thoughtful 
way, and it hurts me to say I just think he is wrong and I believe we 
ought to defeat the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I appreciate the complimentary remarks 
but you can't any better describe the Senator's resistance and 
objection to the amendment other than as fanciful. He goes off into all 
of the committees. It is very interesting to hear him in opposition to 
this amendment say that we have five subcommittees. Each of us have 
five subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing 
new about that. Yes, that is what it is, the appropriations for the 
entire Government.
  Here is some $29 to $30 billion we are expending for homeland 
security. I am talking about one particular section where they have 
facilities-based critical infrastructure. When asked, Secretary Ridge 
said: Well, that's the way it is. We are going to take care of it. We 
are going to take care of it. But when we received the budget, it was 
not taken care of.
  I am not guessing with figures. The $300 million is just a minuscule 
part of the $1.7 billion request sitting on Admiral Loy's desk. I wish 
he would call up and get his staff to work and find out the facts.
  We started off with $1.2 billion, and the ports came in reuqesting 
$1.7 billion. Well, it takes the Coast Guard and it takes the 
Transportation Security Administration some time to look over, in 
detail, these particular submissions of $1.7 billion. This amendment is 
just to get it started with $300 million.

[[Page S9761]]

  To say that we would create an atmosphere of waste, that we would 
contribute to disarray, that we may be undermining the process--come 
on. What nonsense is that? Here we worked on this thing in a bipartisan 
fashion. We had 100 Senators--all Republicans and all Democrats--
approve $1.2 billion. The Coast Guard itself comes in and says, in 
order to meet the request, the needs for port security, it is going to 
be at least $7 billion.

  They have on their desk, as I speak, $1.7 billion in requests. And he 
says, we don't have the information and that this might contribute to 
disarray. Come on. Disarray? It contributes to security. He said it 
would be undermining the process and contribute to insecurity. I never 
have heard such an argument in my life, when we have the actual facts 
and we minimized the request that we know is absolutely needed.
  They can vote it down. We are not the Mother Superior Security around 
here. But I do have a conscience about this issue because I worked with 
all sides of the aisle. I worked intimately with Admiral Loy. I work 
now with Admiral Collins of the Coast Guard. I have been to the ports. 
We have had, under the leadership of Senator Breaux of Louisiana, field 
hearings to all of these particular ports and everything else.
  We don't really begin to get true security but this is just the 
minimal requirement to get the process out and working. He says they 
are wisely, thoughtfully disbursing. That is exactly what we are doing, 
trying to get the disbursement of the funds there. They are hanging 
back because they can't get the studies made, and everything else, and 
can't go out and examine the ports, and what have you. They don't have 
all of the personnel. They don't even have the towers up for the 
transponders.
  You could talk for the rest of the afternoon about the needs of the 
Coast Guard. They are the best agency we have in the Government for the 
money we spend. I can tell you that right now. The Coast Guard is 
outstanding. They have said: Our appraisal now is for at least $7 
billion. And that was last year at this time. They have requests on 
their desks for $1.7 billion and all we are asking for is $300 million.
  We hear how we all have five subcommittees and every subcommittee 
wants more money, and this is just asking for more money because we 
have a subcommittee. Come on. That is not responsive at all.
  I hope the Members will act in the security of the ports of the 
United States and approve this particular amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Mr. Hollings.
  The Coast Guard estimate on the first year cost of implementing the 
port security standards was $1.1 billion. That was the Coast Guard 
estimate: $1.1 billion. Let me say again, that was the Coast Guard 
estimate.
  Let's see how much we provided.
  Previously appropriated: $365 million; the committee bill, $150 
million; the Hollings amendment, $300 million--making a total of $815 
million. So $815 million, even including the amount in the 
distinguished Senator's amendment, is still well short of the $1.1 
billion that the Coast Guard estimated would be the first year cost.
  I note that the Department received over $1 billion of applications. 
So the Department can spend this money. It can spend this money well. 
The only reason that the Department has not spent all of the money that 
was approved by Congress last year is that the administration refused 
to spend the money. They did not get their act together and agree to 
spend the money until Congress directed them to do so in the April 
supplemental.
  We are talking about national defense here. We are talking about 
defense of the homeland. We are talking about homeland security. That 
is the most important part of national defense: defense of the 
homeland. Oh, we spend $1 billion a day for national defense, not 
including homeland security--$1 billion a day, a total of $368 billion 
for this next fiscal year. That is $1 for every minute--I am looking at 
my watch--that is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. I 
have already been speaking for a minute. It takes me 5 minutes to say, 
``Good morning, how do you do?'' But $1 per minute for every minute 
since Jesus Christ was born.

  We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq. We invaded a sovereign state 
without being provoked to do so. That sovereign state did not attack 
us. But under the preemption doctrine of the Bush administration, we 
attacked, we invaded a sovereign state that had not provoked us, that 
had not attacked us and was not and never has been, never has 
constituted an imminent threat to the security of the United States.
  I voted against that resolution on October 11 of last year. I am 
proud I did so. I don't back up one centimeter in the statements I made 
at that time when I said that contrary to what the Bush administration 
was saying, contrary to what the President of the United States was 
saying, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the security of 
the United States. It didn't then. It doesn't now. And it hasn't at any 
point in between. I said it then. I say it again. Yet we are spending 
$1 billion a week in Iraq. We ought not to have been there. We ought 
not to have sent our people over there. But we can save that for 
another day.
  I am a minuteman when it comes to discussing that subject. If I had 
been living in 1775, I would have been one of the members of Captain 
Parker's minutemen who assembled on the green of Lexington. No, we had 
no business sending half of the combat-ready brigades in our Army, half 
of the total number of brigades. We have 33 brigades; half of them, 16, 
are in Iraq. And then we talk about spending money here to protect our 
ports, and it is too much money to spend? No.
  I compliment the Senator from South Carolina on his amendment. We are 
getting men killed over there daily, on the average of one a day in 
Iraq. How long, how long are we going to continue to spend $1 billion a 
week in Iraq? How long are we going to see the body bags of American 
men and women coming back from Iraq, a war that we should not have 
fought? There was no reason to fight that war.
  Now, with respect to the amendment, the Coast Guard has estimated 
that it will cost the ports $5.4 billion during the next decade to 
implement Maritime Transportation Security Act standards, including 
$1.1 billion this year. Yet the President did not request one dime for 
port security. This amendment would increase port security grant 
funding from the $150 million contained in the bill by $300 million. 
This would provide a total of $450 million for this program.
  As I noted yesterday on my amendment, the Commandant of the Coast 
Guard testified before the House authorizing committee, on June 3, 
2003, about the implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act legislation. He said:

       The regulatory impact on the Maritime industry will be 
     significant, and the time line for implementing the new 
     robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short.

  However, the administration, while aggressively supporting Federal 
security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight 
spending requests to include a single penny for port security grants, 
even though 95 percent of all non-North American U.S. trade enters our 
361 ports around the Nation. This year, the Transportation Security 
Administration received over $1 billion of applications from the ports 
for limited funding that was approved by Congress last year. There 
clearly is a demand from the ports for help to harden physical security 
to reduce the Nation's well-documented seaport vulnerability.
  The Hollings amendment addresses what many experts view as the 
greatest vulnerability in the Nation's defenses here at home. During 
the Senate Appropriations Committee's Homeland Security hearings last 
year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports are 
the only part of an international boundary in which the Federal 
Government invests no money in terms of security.
  ``Most ports,'' said Stephen Flynn, ``the best you can get is a 
chain-link fence with maybe, maybe some barbed wire.'' That was Stephen 
Flynn testifying before our Appropriations Committee in April a year 
ago.

[[Page S9762]]

  Who is Stephen Flynn? Well, let's see. Stephen Flynn was testifying 
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Stephen Flynn is a 
senior fellow, a Ph.D. senior fellow, national security studies, 
Council on Foreign Relations. He said he had just retired from the 
Coast Guard after 20 years of service the previous March 15. And he had 
assumed the position as the Jeane Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for 
National Security with the Council on Foreign Relations.
  He concluded his testimony by saying this, calling attention to the 
need for security at our ports:
  This is a problem of the very first order. This is not a low politics 
issue. This is a problem that should not just be keeping me awake at 
night. This should be one that the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and certainly the 
President of the United States should be deeply concerned about because 
what we are talking about is the sustainability of global commerce and 
those on-ramps and off-ramps at our ports, and they do not have 
security right now.
  So there you are. It should not only be keeping these eminent 
personages awake at night, it should be keeping us Senators awake at 
night. And it may do so at some point. I hope not.
  Madam President, I laud the distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
on his amendment and on his statement in support of the amendment. He 
is not a Johnny-come-lately on this matter. He is the ranking Member of 
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and on 
our Appropriations Committee he is a man of great seniority and 
experience. He has been chairman and is now ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. So he lacks nothing when it 
comes to experience. He is from a State that has great seaports. He has 
been talking about this particular matter for many months. So I salute 
him and I again compliment and thank him. I support his amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to express my strong support for 
Senator Hollings's amendment to strengthen security at the Nation's 
seaports.
  Improved seaport security is an absolutely essential part of homeland 
security. Many of the Nation's ports are woefully insecure and are 
located in or near densely populated urban areas. A weapon of mass 
destruction could be delivered by a cargo ship and unleashed on tens of 
thousands of Americans before authorities could react.
  Such an attack would also be trouble for the economy. A major 
incident at one of the Nation's largest seaports could have a dramatic 
impact on the flow of goods in and out of the country, which could in 
turn weaken the already soft economy.
  Florida's 14 deepwater seaports handle roughly $47.6 billion of 
water-borne commerce each year. That figure represents almost two-
thirds of the State's international trade in 2002. Florida's seaports 
handle roughly 115 million tons of international and domestic 
commodities as different as cars, apparel, steel, bananas, petroleum, 
and computer products.
  Most of these goods pass into the country uninspected, because the 
Nation's ports lack the manpower and technology needed to inspect every 
container. In fact, only 1 to 2 percent of all cargo coming into this 
country is inspected. That is unacceptable.
  What can we do to solve this problem?
  The Coast Guard estimates the total costs of implementing security at 
state-owned and private seaport facilities will exceed $7 billion over 
the next 10 years. We should acknowledge the Coast Guard's expertise by 
allocating a significant portion of the $7 billion they recommend is 
necessary to tackle this problem. And we need to commit to providing 
the remainder in a timely manner.
  In short, we can't address the port security problem soon enough. The 
$262 million already allocated by DHS is a modest start, but the 
committee's fiscal year 2004 commitment is not sufficient. 
Shortchanging our ports this year will only slow the process of 
upgrading the Nation's port security enhancements over the long term.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record prior 
to the vote on the Hollings port security amendment to H.R. 2555.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the statement has been made by the 
chairman that the administration opposes this. I wonder. I will go 
right to the text of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on 
Iraq. A few comments are necessary when you say the administration was 
saying various things to get us into the war in Iraq. Now we find out 
not just one swallow makes a spring, but one 13-word sentence got us 
into the war. We heard that in 45 minutes Iraq could launch a chemical 
attack. We heard about the aluminum tubes.
  We had the distinguished Secretary of State at the U.N. with photos 
pointing out that there they are, can't you see? You knew he was a 
judicious and careful witness up there. You had--well, of all things, 
not just the yellowcake from Niger in Africa, you had the Vice 
President of the United States, Dick Cheney, say just days before the 
attack in Iraq that they had indeed reconstituted nuclear. And I worked 
with the Presiding Officer in Transportation, which I will get to in a 
minute, when she was Secretary of Transportation.
  But getting right to this particular point, I didn't have any fear 
about any imminent attack on the United States or maybe an imminent 
attack in the Mideast, on our friend Israel. Israel doesn't have time 
to play games. If you have ever been there--the numerous times I have 
been there, with an air alert, within minutes the planes alerted in 
Israel are found over Jordan, or over the Mediterranean, or over Syria. 
They are gone. They have left the country. The country is in a sense, a 
sort of aircraft carrier. So they cannot play around with conferences.
  There isn't any question on the credibility of the so-called 
statements that the administration said, the administration requested, 
the administration demanded, the administration vetoed. I think the 
poor President has a hard time getting along with his staff on the 
information he gets. First he said the Director of the CIA was 
responsible; he had him apologize. Now he says a White House national 
security staffer is responsible; he had him apologize. We will pick up 
the morning paper and find it was somebody else. But he put the picture 
on his own White House Internet site of him going over every line, word 
for word, in the State of the Union, with his own hands. I wish I had 
that in my pocket. I would submit it for the Record so everyone could 
see it.
  So don't give me this about the administration. The best of the 
administration wants this. The head of the Transportation Security 
Administration cleaned that agency up, frankly, after we instituted it. 
We had a rather inept administrator there at first, and I speak in 
praise of Admiral Loy, because he came over from retirement as 
commandant of the Coast Guard. I have been with him on hearings and on 
field trips. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia pointed 
out, there is over a billion-some in requests by him. This would only 
get us a little of what he needs.
  Who speaks for the administration on homeland security? Not those 
amateurs in the White House who, in tomorrow's paper, will apologize 
for whatever they said, or whatever they forgot, or whatever they 
didn't know. We know. We have studied this thing. We tried and we got, 
in a bipartisan fashion, 100 senatorial votes, Republican and Democrat, 
$4.2 billion. Since that time, Admiral Loy said the need is going to 
exceed $7 billion. Since that time, on his desk are requests for $1.7 
billion. Obviously, he is not going to respond to every one of the 
requests. He requested $1.2 billion. These are facts.
  So when the distinguished chairman says you have to wisely, 
thoughtfully disburse, that is exactly what we are doing--wisely, 
thoughtfully, and in a minimal fashion, as we are not getting what 
factually has been requested. So I dissent from the expression that we 
don't have the information. I resist the idea that this particular 
amendment may undermine the process and contribute to the insecurity, 
when we backed up with needs and everything else around here. I have 
been working since 9/11 on trying to provide for the

[[Page S9763]]

particular needs of the ports--and these are the major needs of the 
major ports.
  When you talk about a member of a subcommittee and every member wants 
more money for their subcommittee, this is not that at all. This is 
something we worked on in the Transportation Committee.
  As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, when she was the 
Secretary of Transportation, we worked in a bipartisan fashion on the 
Reagan National Airport. We did a lot of good things.
  I have worked in a bipartisan fashion. I have not worked around here 
on port security because we just think, since I am a member of a 
subcommittee, I want to put in an amendment and get a little bit more 
money. We are behind the curve on port security in this country, and I 
am worried about it, in all candor.
  This is a minimal amendment. I know the staff, and everyone else, 
including the Department, want more. They have said so and have 
requested more. I have requested $300 million to be added to the 
amounts.
  I hope folks will in a bipartisan fashion support this amendment so 
we can get the Transportation Security Administration and Admiral Loy 
and the Coast Guard some financial support to get these funds 
administered and disbursed and get security in the ports of America. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, there has been much made about the 
suggestion from the Coast Guard that we should have over $1 billion 
available for port security activity. Let me point out that in fiscal 
years 2003 and 2004, several other agencies of the Department of 
Homeland Security, other than the Transportation Security 
Administration, have been provided funds that are to be used for port 
security activities. The Coast Guard itself has been provided up to 
$888 million in 2003, and it is provided $1.201 billion in this bill.
  The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has been provided $170 
million for increased personnel at maritime points of entry, and $33 
million is available in this bill for all ports of entry, including 
seaports, for the container security initiative. All have been funded 
in a total amount, if we add it up over 2003 and 2004, of $3.29 billion 
available for the security of our Nation's ports.
  We are doing our best to allocate the funds to those agencies within 
the Department that can help us secure our maritime ports. I hope the 
Senate will agree with us, but it is now time for the Senate to work 
its will.
  I move to table the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, and 
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. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

       
     Kerry
       
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am flattered. Although I love New York, I have never 
been told I come from anywhere south of Washington, DC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I apologize to North Carolina.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I was trying to be nice, Mr. President, but I guess that 
does not pay around here these days.


                           Amendment No. 1343

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1343.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the funds for research and development related to 
            transportation security, and for other purposes)

       On page 49, beginning on line 14, strike all through line 
     19 and insert the following:
       For necessary expenses for research and development related 
     to transportation security, $200,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided 
     under this heading, $45,000,000 shall be available for the 
     research and development of explosive detection devices: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading $70,000,000 shall be available for the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to award grants under section 70107(i) 
     of title 46, United States Code, to national laboratories, 
     private nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher 
     education, and other entities for the support of research and 
     development of technologies that can be used to secure the 
     ports of the United States.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will listen to this 
because maybe we can get this accepted without a vote. As many in the 
Chamber know, as does certainly the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, 
to me one of the greatest holes, one of the greatest weaknesses we face 
as we try to defend our homeland is we are not doing enough to prevent 
the smuggling of a nuclear weapon into this country. Our greatest 
nightmare would be that some evil group of people get ahold of a 
nuclear weapon and put it in a container in a ship and send it to our 
shores. The devastation that would ensue would be enormous. 
Unfortunately, there is very little to prevent that from happening now.
  We are trying to tighten our general cargo system, but it is not 
enough in terms of preventing a nuclear weapon from coming into this 
country.
  I sought experts shortly after 9/11 and said, How do we prevent this 
from happening? They said, There is good news and bad news. The good 
news is nuclear devices are detectable because they emit something 
called gamma rays, which pass through everything. The bad news is the 
only practical detection devices right now are Geiger counters and the 
Geiger counter has to be held 2 or 3 feet from the object.
  You can't go on every container and put a Geiger counter near each 
crate. It will bring commerce to a standstill. But, they said, the 
cyclotrons at Brookhaven National Lab and Argonne, our national energy 
labs, detect radiation 60, 70, 80 feet away. The trouble is, the 
devices are not practical. They are delicate, they cannot be bounced 
around, and they are large. But, they said, it should not be too 
difficult to practicalize these devices and then place them on every 
crane that loads or unloads a container. It would emit a noise if, God 
forbid, a nuclear weapon were on board that container, and we could 
stop it.
  Everyone agrees this is a good thing to do. The problem is finding 
the resources to get it done. So last year the Senate voted for $150 
million to do this.

[[Page S9764]]

But when we got back from the conference, I think $10 million was left 
in, which was not close to enough.
  I have proposed in this amendment that we add another $70 million to 
general homeland security research, solely for the purpose of 
developing these nuclear detection devices. But if my good friend from 
Mississippi thinks we do not want to add any money into the bill, I 
would be satisfied with earmarking $70 million of the existing research 
funds for this very purpose. Although it would take money away from 
other research, it would not increase the overall amount.
  I cannot imagine research that is more needed. As I mentioned, I 
would be happy to substitute the second amendment which does not raise 
the overall price and earmarks the money.
  All I can say is. God forbid a nuclear device is smuggled into this 
country; it would be our worst nightmare. The fact we can do something 
about it and the fact we are not doing enough about it to me is a 
dereliction of our duty, of our responsibility to make our citizens 
safe. I want to be able to say to my constituents--I think every Member 
here does--that every container entering this country has no nuclear 
weapon in it. By developing technologies like passive detectors, we can 
make sure that happens. There is not a question as to whether this is 
feasible. It is not just spending the money and putting it down a black 
hole. The $10 million that was allocated last year, even though this 
House voted for $150 million, is too little. The $70 million--I would 
rather have it be higher, but the bottom line is this. Terrorists know 
our weaknesses. Right now, let's hope none of them has a nuclear 
weapon. But, if, God forbid, they did--if, God forbid, they did, they 
could bring it into this country through one of our ports and have a 
darn good chance, an all-too-high chance of succeeding.

  So I say to my colleagues, there may be no amendment to this bill 
more important than this one to the future safety of our citizens, our 
beautiful and wonderful 280 million Americans; maybe no amendment that 
we vote on this year. This is a quiet issue. It has not garnered that 
much attention. But it is a vital issue. This should show whether 
Government can work. Because this is what we should be doing.
  I hope my friend from Mississippi will accept this amendment. I would 
rather not call a vote on it. As I said, I would be willing to 
substitute for this the offset. But we cannot delay any further. Every 
year we delay makes it more likely that this horrible situation could 
occur.
  I do not want to be in a ``what if'' mode. What if, God forbid--God 
forbid--a nuclear weapon were exploded in this country? And what if the 
next morning we said to ourselves: Why didn't we do something about it 
when we knew we could?
  With that, I will relinquish the floor and hope my colleague from 
Mississippi and others could work something out here so we could come 
to a compromise and get this amendment accepted in the legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from New 
York to be sure I understood what he was suggesting. He said if I 
didn't agree to one thing he would offer another thing and I am not 
sure what he sent to the desk and that is why I decided to go look. 
From what I understand, the Senator has offered an amendment that 
would--well, the reading of this seems to add $70 million, or earmark 
$70 million from the amount made available for research and development 
to the Secretary of Homeland Security, to award grants to national 
laboratories, private and nonprivate organizations, institutions of 
higher education, and other entities for the support of research and 
development of technologies that can be used to secure the ports of the 
United States.
  What he then talked about was a technology he would require to be 
developed with funds in this amendment to detect nuclear explosive 
devices that were attempted to be brought into ports or brought into 
the United States.
  The point is, we already have in the bill $55.2 million for a 
technology center which conducts the research and engages in the work 
that leads to the development of such protective devices.
  I am confused by what the Senator said he is trying to do and what he 
sent to the desk. I have to be honest.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. They are not all the same thing. That is my point.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have taken the first amendment and added $70 million 
in general homeland security research. But it requires the research to 
go into port security. The language is not specific. I can make it 
specific. It was intended to be for the research into these devices. We 
can get together and make it specific. I don't know why we didn't. We 
probably should have. But it just earmarks it for port security as 
opposed to general security.
  The second amendment, which I haven't sent to the desk, doesn't 
increase the overall amount for research and development. But this one 
does. This would increase it by $70 million. It is not taken from the 
rest. But the other one earmarks $70 million of the existing $130 
million for this very purpose.
  If the problem is making the language more specific, I am willing to 
do that.
  I am not familiar. I ask my colleague a question: Where does the $55 
million that he is refers to go? As I understand it, there is $10 
million we passed last year. But I would be happy to look at that. I 
have no pride of authorship. I just want to get these devices done.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his 
statement, I would be happy to continue. The committee is recommending 
in the appropriations bill $130.2 million for research and development. 
The way that is broken down even further as explained in our committee 
report on page 31, $55.2 million goes to a Technological Center for 
Research and Development. That is where the kind of work the Senator is 
talking about is done. An additional $45 million goes to the next 
generation of explosive device systems. The third category of funding 
is $30 million which goes to an air cargo pilot program.
  The point is the Senator is coming in and adding $70 million to this 
account without an offset. That is going to violate the Budget Act. 
Because we have been unable to accept any amendments that are drafted 
like that, I would be constrained to make a point of order because the 
amendment would violate the Budget Act. That would be my intention if 
the Senator insisted on this amendment. If the motion to waive the 
Budget Act fails, the Senator can offer his alternative.
  I do not know how else to proceed to consider the other amendment 
unless we deal with this one first. I just wanted to make that point.
  Work is being done now. I am advised that work is being done now on 
the kind of research that would lead to, we hope, eventual deployment 
of the kind of system about which the Senator is talking. But we are 
unable to earmark that kind of money in this bill without eliminating 
funding for other research activities which are also underway.
  We can't do everything at once. There is just not enough money. That 
is the rationale for having to make some choices and to allocate the 
funds as the committee has chosen to do in this bill.
  If the amendment the Senator is offering does violate the Budget Act, 
I am going to have to make a point of order. And the Senator can move 
to waive it. The Senator can move to waive it, if he so chooses. He has 
that right.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have yielded the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I first make a point. Yes, there is $55 
million for this, but none of that has to be used for nuclear security 
devices. There is no allocation for any research to be done for this 
very important part of research.
  I have to say, with all due respect, that there are lots of different 
kinds of research which will be done that don't guarantee any. Last 
year, we put $10 million in for this, but the Senate voted for $150 
million.
  But I ask my colleague a question: First, where is this institute? I 
am not even familiar with it.

[[Page S9765]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the 
technological center is in Atlantic City, NJ.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Second, I ask my colleague if we were not to violate the 
Budget Act but, say, allocate $70 million or some sum within the $130 
million for research that should specifically go for nuclear detection 
devices, would my friend from Mississippi be willing to support 
something like that?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would not. I am not going to tell an 
agency of this Homeland Security Department how to do research or where 
to put the priorities for research. Some of the information about 
detection of these devices I am sure is classified. I am not going to 
get into the business of having a public debate over exactly how much 
is being spent on that. We have asked the directorate if funds are 
being used to conduct this research, and they say that the research is 
being done. But, frankly, I don't have a dollar figure that I can tell 
you as to the exact amount which would be spent in this next calendar 
year on this subject. But it is less than $5.2 million. We know that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. There is $10 million we allocated last year for this. 
The Senate voted for $150 million. There was no subcommittee at that 
point on homeland security. Senator Stevens supported it. But when it 
came back from conference, it only had $10 million in it.
  I think my colleague would understand that this kind of research 
should not be done in some new institute. There are experts who have 
done this already at our national energy research laboratories. They 
can detect radiation. It is just that the device has to be practical, 
and it is not right now. That is why we need this specific quick 
allocation.
  But if my colleague from Mississippi doesn't want to allocate any 
specific money for this purpose, whether we violate the Budget Act or 
not, I guess there is no compromise we can reach.
  I would be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. First, I commend the Senator for this very thoughtful 
and very important amendment. I wondered whether the Senator was aware 
that though we have a research facility in Atlantic City in my State, 
it is primarily focused on aviation. While they do explosive research, 
I believe the Senator would agree that this is more intent on examining 
the result of nuclear explosives--the kind of detonation that would 
really wipe out a whole port or a major facility.
  Is that what the Senator wants to establish--that it is port specific 
and maritime specific and that we ought to get on with it to protect 
our ports?

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for that point.
  I say to my friend from Mississippi that it is probably likely that 
none of the $55 million of this specific institute, which I am sure is 
doing a very good job on air research, will do this. Then I say to my 
colleague--I say to everybody here--to not put any money into this when 
this is the greatest danger we face is a dereliction of our 
responsibility. I am willing to offset. I am willing to work. But the 
$55 million that is in this institute is not going to go to the kind of 
research we are talking about. Even if they were to give the money to 
this institute to do it, it would have to reinvent the wheel when our 
existing research laboratories can do this.
  Last year, we had sort of a consensus that we had to do something, 
but in conference we lost the dollars. We are taking a step backward 
here. This is what everyone worried about after 9/11--that we would 
become complacent. From all of the moneys in the budget, we can't find 
$70 million to do research to deal with perhaps the greatest danger 
that faces us. That is wrong. That is something we, hopefully, will 
never regret. But we may.
  I say to my colleague from Mississippi that this Atlantic City 
research center, as my friend Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey said, 
is part of the FAA. That has nothing to do with the research we are 
talking about. It does a good job.
  I ask my colleague, where is this research going to be done?
  I say to all of my colleagues, if we don't do this amendment, and we 
say it is because of the Budget Act, my goodness, we just passed $350 
billion in tax cuts without even talking about the Budget Act. And we 
can't spend $70 million to make our homeland secure from the greatest 
danger that would face us--greater than biological weapons, greater 
than chemical weapons? What is the matter with us?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If there was a manifest that said ``nuclear weapon on 
its way,'' could you imagine something like that? We have all these 
containers. These are hidden boxes. You don't know what kind of cargo 
is in them. To me, it is one of the more susceptible areas for a 
terrorist attack of major magnitude. Thus, I ask the Senator, do you 
know from what part of the budget the $70 million you are proposing be 
used, which is out of $29 billion and is a very small fraction when you 
consider the risks that might ensue?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understand that is where the Senator is going with 
this amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for the question. Obviously, this 
is a real problem. Obviously, we should be doing something about it. 
And somehow, because the committee, in its wisdom, said $55 million for 
this and $40 million for this and $10 million for this, and we can't 
break the Budget Act, we should ignore this problem. Why the heck do we 
have amendments on the floor? No one objects to the substance, it is 
just finding room for it.
  I would just, once again, say to my colleagues, I plead with you; 
this is not a political issue for me at all; this is about the safety 
of America. Let us find some way to find some money.
  I am not saying the committee should be omniscient and should have 
thought of everything. This is one area on which I have spent a lot of 
time. I can assure every one of my colleagues that the money could be 
well spent. Every expert says it can be done. And every expert who 
looks at our budget says it is not being done now or is being done at 
such a slow pace that we are almost inviting people to harm us.
  So I am disappointed--I have to tell you, I am disappointed, whether 
we violate the Budget Act or not, because I am willing to go either 
way--that we cannot find one thin dime more for this vital research.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in addition to the research account that 
the Senator seeks to amend with the amendment he submitted and which is 
at the desk, the Department of Homeland Security is engaged in a wide 
range of broad-based research activity under the auspices of the 
Science and Technology Directorate.
  The Transportation Security Administration funding is affected by the 
amendment at the desk. There is a lot of other research that is being 
done relating to radiological and nuclear countermeasures. I am 
convinced that much of what is being done in terms of developing new 
ways of dealing with the problem the Senator describes is being done 
under the auspices of the Science and Technology Directorate.
  Here are some examples of the work that has been funded over the last 
3 years and is being funded again this year in this bill: sensor 
research and development. This is for radiological and nuclear 
countermeasures. In 2003, there was $10 million appropriated and 
enacted; $40 million reprogrammed for this account in fiscal year 2003. 
Mr. President, $71 million is contained in the Senate bill for sensor 
R&D. So over that 3-year period--$10 million, $40 million, $71 
million--you have $121 million that has been appropriated for sensor 
R&D.
  Also, there are other accounts, such as detection systems product 
improvement, demonstrations, remediation and consequence management--a 
wide range of other activities. The total for radiological and nuclear 
countermeasures for this year alone, in the bill we have presented, is 
$131 million. In 2003, the total was $75 million. So we have almost 
doubled the amount for the science and technology research that is 
being done in this particular area. So this isn't the only account that 
is available.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am not aware, in all the research my friend from 
Mississippi read off, that any is being done

[[Page S9766]]

for the specific thing I talked about, which is to develop not just a 
nuclear sensor somewhere but nuclear sensors that can go on cranes when 
they load and unload containers.
  Every expert who looks at how they would do a nuclear device here, 
how they would explode one going into this country--it is very hard to 
do it on a plane; they are heavy; they can't do it on a truck very 
easily--you do it in the big containers that come through the ports.
  I don't see anything, from what the Senator has read off, to show 
this is being done. I would be happy to delay for a bit. We could do 
some research and call Homeland Security and see if they are doing 
this. Just to read off a number of accounts and say there is research 
being done, and maybe some of it is being done in the area I am talking 
about--which I know everyone thinks is important--isn't good enough 
because this is so important.
  So I ask the Senator, does he know of any specific funds that will 
definitely--not maybe but definitely--go to the research we are talking 
about; namely, nuclear detection devices to prevent nuclear weapons 
from being smuggled in, in a container?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection is another agency that is involved in the research and 
development of detection and monitoring equipment and devices, 
particularly at ports. Port radiation detection and monitoring is 
funded in this bill that is before the Senate in the amount of $90 
million. Mr. President, $119 million is provided in the bill for 
critical equipment at ports of entry, including seaports.
  The point is, I am happy to join the Senator in an inquiry of the 
Department of Homeland Security to try to get an answer that is 
specific to his question. But I am not prepared to rewrite this bill on 
the suspicion the Senator has that not enough research is being done on 
this particular issue.
  I think we are doing research on this point, and not at just one 
center or not at just one research facility. I mentioned the 
technological center in Atlantic City, NJ. They are doing work in this 
area that is funded in this particular account. That is why I described 
it, because it is funded in this $55.2 million account for research and 
development. And that is what that is. That is under the auspices of 
the Transportation Security Administration.
  But these other agencies, these other directorates are also involved 
in research over a wide range of activities to more fully and more 
capably protect our homeland. That is the purpose of the Department. 
That is why we appropriated these large sums of money, and we will 
continue to do so.
  So I am hopeful the Senate will trust the committee to divide the 
funds among the competent directorates and administrators of this new 
Department and to maintain oversight, as we customarily have done, and 
will do, to be sure they are spending the money wisely.
  If the Senator would take my word for it, I would be glad to follow 
up and monitor the use of these funds to be sure we are doing research 
for the development of the types of protective devices the Senator 
described. I think we should be able to do that. I am confident we are 
doing research in that area. But all I can do is tell you that. I am 
not in charge of it. There are people who are competent and well 
qualified who are doing that work. So I am going to resist the 
Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, to save the Senator trouble, I make a 
point of order that the amendment of the Senator violates the Budget 
Act. The amendment of the Senator from New York provides spending in 
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, I make a point of order against 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the amendment?
  At the moment there is not a sufficient second on the amendment.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move that the Budget Act be waived and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Is there further debate on the motion to waive?
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the motion to waive the Budget Act in connection with the Schumer 
amendment occur at a time to be decided in consultation between the two 
leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I came to Washington in 1982 as a Member of 
Congress. That class of Democrats in the House of Representatives was 
one of the largest we had in the history of the country, second or 
third largest class ever. A number of my colleagues in that class are 
now Members of the Senate, including the senior Senator from Illinois, 
Mr. Durbin. Senator Durbin and I have been friends now for 21 years. He 
was an outstanding Member of the House of Representatives. He did many 
things so well.
  One of the means set up for Members of the House of Representatives 
to express themselves is what they call 1-minute speeches. Every 
morning Senators can speak for up to 1 minute on any subject they want. 
Senator Durbin gave some really classic 1-minute speeches. One that 
people will always remember was one dealing with baseball bats, 
Louisville sluggers. It was a dramatic speech and interesting, funny.
  People may not always agree with what Senator Durbin says on the 
Senate floor but I have always believed and always will believe that he 
is a man of the highest caliber as far as integrity goes. I have served 
in government for many years. There is no one I would put above Senator 
Durbin for basic morality.
  Having said that, what I want to do this afternoon for just a short 
period of time is defend not only Senator Durbin, the senior Senator 
from Illinois, who is, in my opinion, an exemplary Senator, exemplary 
in the fact that he is someone who speaks out for issues he believes 
in, speaks out against issues he does not believe in, and he does it 
very well. He is a hard worker. He covers his State extremely well.
  I never believed that someone could replace the great Paul Simon, a 
person with whom I served. He was lieutenant governor of Illinois; I 
was lieutenant governor of Nevada. We served in the House and Senate 
together, a person who we all cared about a great deal, a great deal of 
affection for Paul Simon because of his tremendous abilities and his 
being a person of great sensitivity.
  I have to say that as good as Paul Simon was, Dick Durbin is as good 
as Paul Simon. I rise today not only to defend the senior Senator from 
Illinois but I think to defend every Member of this body. Yesterday the 
Senator from Illinois took the floor of this Chamber to address 
allegations that have been made about him by others. Unknown people 
have been spreading rumors and innuendos that Senator Durbin, a member 
of the very prestigious and important Intelligence Committee, No. 1, 
disclosed classified information; that is, the name of an individual in 
the NSC or disclosed sites in Iraq. Of course, that is simply not true. 
Everyone knows it is not true.
  When it was shown that there was absolutely no basis to it factually, 
then people started saying: Well, even though the matters discussed in 
the very important Intelligence Committee are not secret, when a matter 
is discussed in the Intelligence Committee is not secret, you still 
can't talk about it outside the Intelligence Committee hearing room. I 
think having said that, it pretty well determines that that is an 
impossible standard to uphold.
  Senator Durbin didn't leak this information. There is no question 
about

[[Page S9767]]

that. I, as every Member serving in the Senate, take an oath upon 
assuming this office to uphold the Constitution. Every Senator takes 
that responsibility very seriously. Senator Durbin takes that 
responsibility very seriously. It is part of our job, as we represent 
the citizens of 50 different States, 270 million people. We are 
Senators from our respective States but we are also United States 
Senators. We discuss issues and debate differences of opinion. That is 
what makes this country so great. But also what makes this country so 
unique is the understanding that the common good of our country is more 
important than the political differences, the realization that we all 
respect one another enough to tell the truth even when we disagree on 
an issue.
  No one should ever suggest that Senator Durbin doesn't always tell 
the truth. I believe this very sincerely and very certainly. I again 
repeat, underscore, and underline the integrity of this friend that I 
have had for 21 years who has served this country extremely well as a 
Member of Congress for that entire time. So I don't want to speculate 
as to why someone would be spreading rumors to the contrary.
  Senator Durbin has political opinions, and he is very willing to 
discuss them. I hope that someone who disagrees with his political 
opinions would not spread rumors that are without any fact. If anyone 
has any evidence to the contrary, let them come forward.
  But during the time this issue has been fermenting and people have 
been leaking information, it simply is without foundation. There has 
been no factual evidence coming forward. We cannot have sneak attacks 
on the character of a Member of the Senate. They should stop 
immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1344

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1344.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a report to Congress on the Homeland Security 
                Advisory System, and for other purposes)

       On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit a report in unclassified form to Congress on the 
     Homeland Security Advisory System, which shall include--
       (1) an assessment of how the system is fulfilling its 
     missions to--
       (A) provide a national framework for Federal, State, and 
     local governments, private industry and the public to gauge 
     threat levels;
       (B) establish the integration of factors for assignment of 
     threat conditions;
       (C) unify the system of public announcements, allowing 
     government officials and citizens to communicate the nature 
     and degree of terrorist threats; and
       (D) provide a tool for combating terrorism by deterring 
     terrorist activity, notifying law enforcement and State and 
     local government officials of threats, informing the public 
     about government preparations, and providing such officials 
     and the public with information necessary to respond to the 
     threat;
       (2) the average daily cost of elevating the Homeland 
     Security Advisory System by 1 threat level;
       (3) an evaluation by the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security of the responses to each of 
     the suggested protective measures to be taken at each threat 
     level; and
       (4) a review of efforts taken by the Department of Homeland 
     Security to refine the Homeland Security Advisory System, and 
     the progress of tailoring the system so that threat alerts 
     are issued on a regional basis rather than nationally.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with this amendment to the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, I want to see if we can improve in some 
measure the terrorist threat warning system that we have in place and 
make sure that it is working as it is intended.
  I believe the current homeland security advisory system--the colorful 
tiered alert system--does little to reassure the public they are safer 
as a result of these warnings. Based on reports I get from first 
responders in my State and experts throughout the country, I believe 
this advisory system must be reevaluated and improved.
  The amendment simply calls for a report from the Department of 
Homeland Security within 90 days of the passage of this bill evaluating 
how effective the terror advisory system is in meeting its goals. We 
are all familiar with this program. There are five levels, ranging from 
low risk to severe risk. You can see on the chart this color-
coordinated presentation. The Department has color coded each risk 
level to make it easy to understand.
  However, I don't believe this color war against terrorists is 
working. On four instances over the past year, Secretary Ridge has 
raised the threat level from yellow, elevated risk, to orange, high 
risk of terror attacks, based on increased terrorist chatter or other 
intelligence information. Aside from these instances in which the 
threat level was at orange, the system has been evaluated at the 
elevated yellow status since its inception in March 2002.
  What I want to do now is discuss a series of concerns I have about 
the color-coded system and its repercussions.
  First, the system evokes confusion and fear among Americans who want 
to respond to the elevated risk levels, but the question they raise is, 
Should they be changing their daily patterns without advanced knowledge 
about where or when they vacate their homes, offices, schools, 
factories, et cetera? Some Americans have stopped going to malls, some 
avoid public transportation, and many cancel trips. These arbitrary 
behavioral changes can have a serious impact on our already weak 
economy.
  These are questions we have to ask: Does work stop? Do classrooms 
close? Does shopping halt, no matter how essential the goods? Should 
Americans take precautions?
  The Department of Homeland Security doesn't tell us. I am not 
faulting the work they are doing, honestly, at the Department of 
Homeland Security. This is all still in its formative stages. We don't 
know quite where it is going to come to rest yet or where it is most 
effective.
  DHS tells us to be vigilant. I don't know what that means. I am sure 
most of the American public doesn't know exactly what being vigilant 
means. The system presents high costs to local communities. When the 
threat level is elevated, local first responders are forced to respond 
by deploying already overworked police and firefighting people and by 
bolstering other first response systems without added Federal financial 
assistance.
  When the DHS raises the alert, they provide almost no specific 
guidance to State and local governments. It requires State and local 
authorities to make many of their own decisions, or perhaps all of 
them, on how they should respond. In my State, like the rest of the 
country, when the alert is elevated to orange, or high, local officials 
tighten security on highways, railroads, bridges, bus 
terminals, Federal buildings, and densely populated areas. And this is 
an extremely expensive undertaking for State and local governments. 
Cost alone, while important, is not the only factor. Disruption of 
normal life is a victory for terrorists without any demonstrable 
benefit to our society.

  The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently released new data compiled 
from a survey of nearly 150 cities nationwide. They estimate that 
cities throughout the country are spending, on average, nearly $70 
million each and every week in additional homeland security costs due 
to the heightened threat alert level.
  These costs come in addition to the existing homeland security 
spending since 9/11, which the mayors estimated to be around $2.6 
billion in the first 15 months after the tragedy. However, this only 
asks the cities about direct costs. There are also indirect economic 
ramifications of code orange alerts that diminish tourism and other 
lucrative industries. The mayor of Atlanta, for example, has said the 
city's hotel occupancy is down 8 percent and 16,000 hotel jobs have 
been lost.
  There are also innumerable indirect nonfinancial costs of the current 
terror alert system. For example, when a police officer who is normally 
assigned to

[[Page S9768]]

antigang work, or some other assignment, is reassigned to guard a 
public building, that is a real serious cost to a city. And also it 
damages the law and order structure that must be contended with at the 
same time.
  My third concern is that the system is not tailored to give warnings 
on a regional basis. Increased terrorist chatter may suggest that a 
major New England city is subject to a possible threat. But small towns 
in the Southwest are also now asked to respond.
  Other nations that face terrorist threats have a more sophisticated 
localized system. Experts continue to recommend that the United States 
establish a threat alert system similar to that in Israel, where 
intelligence or terrorist chatter is translated into specific warnings 
about geographical areas that might be more susceptible to a terrorist 
attack. For example, in Israel, threat warnings are easier to 
understand. For example, the Israeli Government would issue a terror 
alert for an area of the country such as Galilee. If we have reference 
to a targeted region in the U.S., we ought to provide specific 
information. Is it New Jersey? Is it Los Angeles? Is it Des Moines, IA? 
Where is it? Is it the port that we were discussing before? We have so 
many port assets in our country that need to be protected against 
terrorist attack. So where do you apply the pressure? Where do you 
spend the money?
  Four, when the threat level is issued, there is no description of the 
nature of the threat that can help those expected to respond. We are 
not going to be naive about this. We are not saying we have information 
that such-and-such shopping mall is going to be attacked and, 
therefore, avoid that mall. We cannot be that specific. But we ought to 
be able to narrow it down from just a general alert across this great 
country of ours to something that gives people a direction for their 
actions when they hear the call.
  Should the Governors call out their National Guard troops to protect 
every chemical plant in the country--and there are hundreds of those--
or transportation centers, or do they bolster rail security in every 
place? I do not think so. Again, this is not criticism of a system that 
is developing against a very serious threat to our society.

  Finally--and I believe this is a key point--the system does not 
provide adequate instructions for the American people or local 
authorities. When I talk to the police in my area--and before I came to 
the Senate, I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and 
New Jersey. They may get a call about something they ought to be on the 
lookout for, but the New York State capital is in Albany and the New 
Jersey State capital is in Trenton.
  Do they call out their State troopers to cover all of those areas, 
all those police departments? In New Jersey, we have 567,000 
municipalities. Some of them only have two or three policemen. What do 
they do? We need direction from those who have the knowledge and have 
the resources to research this.
  The Homeland Security Department requires Federal agencies to respond 
to an elevated threat at the Department's own discretion, but does not 
issue specific guidance to Americans in State and local governments.
  This lack of guidance can cause a lot of confusion and, in some 
cases, real panic. I have, through the process of these alerts, had 
calls--less now than I had in months past: Should I go to New York? My 
children have to travel to school on the turnpike. Should they be on 
the turnpike? Should we do this and should we do that? In many cases, 
people want to know whether they should stay home and guard their 
household and their families.
  Lord knows we hope not, and we should take that kind of action. We 
cannot let the terrorists win by immobilizing our activities. We need 
to do better. The system has problems that at least ought to be 
reviewed, and I believe that improvements must be made.
  I am not saying we should not spend the necessary money to deploy 
more police officers to malls, nuclear plants, chemical manufacturing 
or distribution facilities, train stations, or Federal buildings. I am 
a firm believer in spending whatever we have to spend to protect our 
security at home. But I am not convinced the homeland security advisory 
system is the most efficient way of assessing threat and organizing 
local response.
  On June 6, shortly after the threat level returned to yellow from a 
Memorial Day elevation to orange, Secretary Ridge himself acknowledged 
the color-coded alert system needed readjustment. He said to the 
Washington Post:

       We worry about the credibility of the system. We want to 
     continue to refine it because we understand it has caused a 
     kind of anxiety.

  Anxiety is an understatement. The system causes financial hardships, 
fear, panic, confusion among Americans and people who want to be 
conscientious about protecting their families, sometimes exaggerating 
what they ought to be doing and creating a lot of tension within a 
family, within a household.
  Experts warn that with the continuing volleying between orange and 
yellow alerts there will be a new threat level that we might call 
fatigue. Secretary Ridge has not offered a time line for revising the 
system. My amendment will make reviewing this system an important 
priority for the Department of Homeland Security.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It will send a message 
to the Department that the alert system needs to be enhanced to 
increase its efficiency, its specificity, its overall usefulness to 
first responders, police, fire, and other emergency personnel.

  I wish to point out this entails no further expense. A review is 
common in a situation such as this where such a big change is taking 
place. I hope everybody will take a serious look at this and think 
about their constituents back home who have called them, who have 
written them letters, who asked for advice. Let them ask the mayors in 
their communities or the Governors in their States what they think.
  I want to make sure it is understood. I am not leveling broadside 
criticism at the Department of Homeland Security or Secretary Ridge. I 
think he is a very capable executive. We all want to do our best with 
this issue, spend our money most efficiently, but disrupt life as 
little as possible.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator has made some excellent 
points. He has pointed out, for example, the need for a review of the 
color-coded warning system.
  I am pleased to advise the Senator, it is my understanding that the 
Department is undertaking just such a review at this time. He makes 
some excellent suggestions about categories of warning or targeted 
areas of warning. That should be considered as well.
  I am willing to take this amendment to conference and urge, if we can 
convince our colleagues in the House, that there should be a provision 
in our conference report that encourages this kind of review and 
requires a report back to the Congress so we can know the status of it 
and what the expectations are of completing a review, giving us some of 
the details in a report so we can better understand the progress being 
made under such a review. That is why I did not ask for the yeas and 
nays because I am prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the Senator 
for offering this suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi 
for his support on this issue. I am happy to have it accepted. I wish 
to point out, in the debate we were having about port security, I have 
served with the Senator from Mississippi for now 18\1/2\ years, and I 
have never known him not to support our defense or our security needs. 
I have admired him for his balance in these issues. I continue to do 
so.
  That debate was not intended to challenge the Senator from 
Mississippi who is managing this bill, but to make sure that the 
situation we are talking about with the ports which we feel are 
susceptible, especially in the northeast corner of our country where so 
much is dependent on port activities, that it is clearly understood. I 
appreciate that. I am happy to have this amendment accepted, and I ask 
the Senator from Mississippi to make sure it gets discussed at 
conference and presented.

[[Page S9769]]

  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator has that assurance. We will 
try to keep that amendment in conference. We will continue to confer 
with our friend from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, amendment No. 1344 is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1344) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1346

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on 
behalf of Senators Dodd, Stabenow, Sarbanes, Clinton, and Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr. 
     Dodd, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 1346.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase the amount of the appropriation for firefighter 
                   assistance grants by $150,000,000)

       On page 60, line 1, strike ``$750,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$900,000,000''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security if he has a copy of the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I do not have one yet.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to give a copy to the chairman, just as a 
courtesy.
  Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment that is in support of 
our first responders. This amendment would provide an additional $150 
million to the fire grant program for firefighter equipment and 
firefighting training.
  What would the Mikulski-Dodd amendment do? Well, first, it would 
provide protective gear for 150,000 firefighters. It would buy 500 new 
fire trucks, 300 new rescue vehicles, and 25,000 new breathing masks. 
But this is not about protective gear and fire trucks. It is about 
saving lives.
  When we talk about homeland security and when we talk about 
protecting our firefighters so they can protect us, this money is about 
protecting them. It is so our firefighters are prepared for any attack. 
It offers double value for the taxpayer, whether it is a terrorist 
attack or whether we are hit by a tornado.
  When these events occur in our community, firefighters are always the 
first on the scene. We all remember that horrific and melancholy day of 
September 11 with planes crashing into the World Trade Center and a 
plane crashing into the Pentagon. It was the Chevy Chase Fire and 
Rescue Squad, Rescue One, that rushed to the Pentagon from Maryland as 
part of a doctrine of mutual aid. It was the LaPlata Fire Department 
that was the first to respond to a deadly tornado last year. It was the 
Baltimore Fire Department that rushed into a smoldering tunnel fire 
that cut off train traffic on the east coast. When they went down into 
that hell hole fuming with toxic chemicals, they did not know if a 
terrorist had caused it or it was an accident. All they knew was they 
had to respond in the name of duty.
  Well, it is our duty to make sure they have the right equipment and 
the right gear to protect us. We know they have the right stuff, but 
they need the right stuff to protect themselves.
  This is not something Barbara Mikulski has just concluded. The 
Council on Foreign Relations recently issued a bipartisan, independent 
report. It was led by Senator Rudman. Actually, it was not bipartisan. 
The Council on Foreign Relations does not have parties.
  What were their findings? They were absolutely chilling. The report 
found that the United States remains dangerously ill-prepared to handle 
a catastrophic attack on American soil. Specifically, it means this, 
and this is what they found: Fire departments across the country only 
have radios to equip 50 percent of the firefighters on a shift.
  Imagine this: People running up to the World Trade Center responding 
to a towering inferno. The firefighters will only have 50 percent of 
the radios they need.
  When they go into these situations where there are toxic chemicals 
like in the Baltimore Tunnel, or whether they are running into a 
building where they do not even know what is in it--asbestos burning, 
PCBs burning, the building burning--there is only breathing apparatus 
for one-third, and only 10 percent of the fire departments in America 
have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.
  What do terrorists do? They blow up buildings and they blow up 
people. We have to make sure that when our first responders are there, 
they have what they need.

  We did a survey in Maryland, working with our State fire agency. We 
need $52 million to provide protective equipment for firefighters in my 
State. Yet my State is facing a budget deficit of over $1 billion. 
Services are being cut, tuitions are being increased, and we ask our 
State and local governments to take on more.
  Every time our Nation goes to code orange, our communities go to code 
red. Since September 11, my city of Baltimore has spent over $16 
million on homeland security, including $1.3 million for extra 
personnel and equipment for our fire departments. In Baltimore, the 
recent heightened alerts have cost Baltimore City $750,000 in overtime. 
Maryland cannot bear this burden alone. Because it is a national 
threat, we have to make sure there are national resources to secure the 
homeland to provide not only homeland security but hometown security.
  There are over 1 million firefighters in the United States of 
America; 750,000 are volunteers. They are true heroes. They save lives. 
They save homes. They save communities. We need to make sure we save 
them. That is what protective gear is all about.
  Every day when they are on duty, they do not know what they will 
face. They might enter a house to save a child trapped on the second 
floor. They might put out the flames of a building consumed by toxic 
chemicals. Many of our volunteers work three shifts: Their regular 
jobs, their families, and at the fire station.
  For the help they need, we cannot do this on tip jars, bingo, or 
charity. They need to be able to have their Government on their side.
  It costs over $6,000 to staff a firefighter in something they call 
bunker gear. Bunker gear means what they need in terms of the 
protective suits they wear, the breathing apparatus, the special gloves 
that will snatch a person out, the boots they wear that are fire 
retardant and fire resistant. That is an awful lot in resources for 
local communities to bear, and they have to be ready, particularly in 
high-risk areas, to be able to do this.
  Last year, there were close to 20,000 applications for fire grants, 
and I compliment the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, as well as Senator Byrd, for keeping the fire grant 
program as a freestanding program. My $150 million amendment that I am 
offering with Senator Dodd really goes to the fire grant program. Last 
year, there were close to 20,000 applicants with over $2 billion worth 
of requests. The fire grant program, on a merit based, peer review, no 
pork, no partisan basis could have spent $2.5 billion. What our money 
does is restore to the $900 million authorizing level.

  After September 11 we did a lot. We said we will express our 
gratitude; a grateful nation will never forget our first responders. In 
the first place, we should not forget it is in the Federal checkbook. I 
know the chairman and the ranking member did everything they could to 
fully fund this program. I compliment them on their efforts. But it 
would take another $150 million to reach the authorized level.
  The fire grant program needs to be expanded. When we look at what we 
could do in our State, we have a fire department in Anne Arundel 
County. This county includes the National Security Agency, the capital 
of the State

[[Page S9770]]

of Maryland, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Baltimore-Washington 
Airport. Don't they need help for their first responders?
  Then there is the Chevy Chase Fire Department. We think of Chevy 
Chase as an affluent community but they cannot raise these funds from 
property taxes, fish fries, and bingo. We need help. Maryland needs 
help because we are in a high-risk area.
  I rise not only for my State. I rise for the Nation. We are not 
prepared. The facts speak for themselves. Our esteemed colleague, 
Senator Rudman, said 50 percent of the fire departments do not have 
radios; only one-third have breathing apparatus equipment. They need 
their bunker gear. That is what it is called. The cost is $6,000 each. 
Imagine what a public investment means. We give them the right gear. 
They have the right stuff. They should be able to count on us to do 
this. We need this amendment.
  I welcome the fact that my colleague, Senator Dodd, is also a 
cosponsor. He authorized the fire grant program as the appropriator. We 
have worked to keep it going. Now it is in Homeland Security.
  This is not about process, about who did what. It is about what our 
first responders do. We count on them to save our lives. They should 
count on us to make sure they have the right equipment to save their 
own while they are saving ours.
  I yield the floor for my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Maryland for her 
leadership on this issue and the tremendous support she has provided in 
the Appropriations Committee for trying to fund this program.
  I appreciate very much her typical graciousness in referring to the 
fact that Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio and I, back in 1999, authored the 
Fire Act. We introduced the legislation almost 4 years ago. We thank, 
as well, Senator Warner and Senator Levin. When we had the 
authorization bill, we were trying to get an opportunity to bring this 
matter to the floor and we were not given any time to bring up the Fire 
Act. We were trying to make the case 2 years before September 11, 2001, 
of the importance of the volunteer combination paid departments, the 
33,000 departments across the United States, the needs they had out 
there. It was as a result of the efforts of Senator Warner and Senator 
Levin that included the Fire Act in the Department of Defense 
authorization bill in the year 2000 which allowed us to get the first 
authorizations approved that led to the appropriations that came 
thereafter.
  To give an idea of the pent-up demand existing across the country 
among fire departments, well over $3 billion worth of requests came in 
under the grant program. We allocated something like $100 million the 
very first year of this program. Some questioned whether there would be 
any real interest by these departments across the country in applying 
for grants that would allow them great flexibility in improving their 
ability to respond to the myriad of problems departments have.
  As a result of the success of that first year and the tremendous 
demand, the Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator 
Byrd and Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski, obviously, Senator Cochran 
and others, over the years has added money to the program.
  Although we are offering an amendment to add money, it would be 
negligent not to recognize the contribution that has already been made 
to increase the funding for this program over the last several years.
  The point the Senator from Maryland and I are trying to make today is 
that this demand is still growing. We are not suggesting we ought to 
have a program in a dollar-for-dollar match as in the so-called COPS 
Program that provided assistance by the Federal Government to local 
police agencies, local police departments. This is a far more modest 
program.
  But the same principle behind the COPS Program is behind this idea. 
No longer can we just assume local departments can sustain themselves 
by raising mill rates or, as the Senator from Maryland properly points 
out, particularly in rural America, with volunteer fire departments 
relying on bingo sales, cake sales, and potluck dinners to raise the 
dollars to provide the equipment and training to deal with the very 
sophisticated set of problems they face.
  The old idea of the fire department racing out to deal with a 
residential home fire still is a job they must perform but today fire 
departments are being asked to deal with highly sophisticated materials 
on the highways. Usually the fire department is the first responder to 
these situations long before anyone else gets there. It is the local 
fire department that we herald and celebrate in speeches and rhetoric 
around the country during days of community celebration. These 
departments no longer can rely strictly on local funding to provide the 
sophisticated support they need to respond to the demands they are 
being asked to meet.

  The Senator from Maryland and I--and we hope others, as well--will 
join in what we think is a relatively modest request to get the funding 
level up to last year's funding level. Last year it was $900 million.
  We realize there are a lot of pressures on the budget and a lot of 
other demands. However, if we are going to be serious about providing 
the tools necessary for these young men and women who serve in our fire 
departments across the country to meet their challenges, we are going 
to have to do better than we are doing with this bill.
  We would not ask our military people to go into battle less well 
equipped, less well provided for under the circumstances they face 
today. I don't think we could ask anything less of the men and women in 
uniform in our fire departments.
  For those reasons, we have proposed this amendment. While this was 
not a number we conjured up, according to the needs assessment study 
recently released by the U.S. Fire Administration and the National Fire 
Protection Association, understaffing contributes to an enormous 
problem. For example, the U.S. Fire Administration and the National 
Fire Protection Association have found that only 11 percent of our 
Nation's fire departments have the personnel and equipment they need to 
respond to a building collapse involving 50 or more occupants.
  The U.S. Fire Administration and the Fire Protection Association also 
found there were routine problems that threatened the health and safety 
of our first responders. In small and medium-sized cities, firefighters 
are too often compelled to respond to emergencies without sufficient 
manpower to protect those on the ground. More often than not, 
firefighters in too many of our communities respond to fires with fewer 
than four firefighters per truck. That is considered to be a minimum to 
ensure the firefighters' safety.
  As I said before, we would not send our troops into battle without 
the equipment they need. We should not be sending firefighters to do 
battle against natural disasters, fires, acts of terrorists, without 
the tools they need, as well.
  So the Rudman study as well, just released by the Council on Foreign 
Relations, makes the case. The Senator from Maryland has pointed this 
out very clearly. There are great gaps in terms of these departments' 
ability to respond to the sophisticated demands we are asking of them 
today.
  For all the reasons we have enumerated, we are requesting that this 
body respond by supporting this amendment to increase the 
appropriations level for these grant programs across the country.
  I said yesterday, in supporting the Byrd amendment, the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to have a 
larger increase overall, which I regret we did not approve--and I say 
this with all the knowledge of what the implications may be, but I 
think we have to be honest with the American public. I wish I could 
stand here and say: Look, we have done everything that needs to be done 
and you don't ever have to worry about another 9/11 happening in 
America. Regretfully, that is just false. That is a false statement. 
Because the fact is, in the world we live in today, we are going to 
face these problems again. All of us know that. There is not a single 
Member of this body who does not recognize and accept that as a 
reality. That is a fact. That is the ugly kind of world we are living 
in today, until we ultimately come up with better answers.

[[Page S9771]]

  We are spending $1 billion a week, $5 billion a month if you add 
Afghanistan and Iraq--$5 billion a month to deal with the problems of 
the conflicts in those particular countries. What the Senator from 
Maryland and I are asking for is $150 million, which gets spent in a 
couple of days--less than that now, I guess--in these two countries, in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to make our fire departments better 
prepared.
  I understand what we need to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will save 
that debate for another time and discussion. We have already been 
through a bit of it already. But we are going to face these problems, 
and we ought to be doing everything we can within reason. Obviously--
and I feel strongly about this--we ought to be doing a lot more than 
what the Mikulski-Dodd amendment is calling for. This is truly a modest 
request. In fact, we may be highly criticized one day for not doing 
more when we knew better. It is not as if we are ignorant about the 
problem we potentially face. The question is, Knowing that, what did we 
do?
  We will be judged by history and we will be judged by our 
constituents as to whether or not we had the wisdom and willingness to 
make the necessary judgment calls on these matters.
  We are told over and over again there is not enough money to do this. 
I politely suggest to those who make that claim that there are 
resources by merely tailoring back on some of the largesse we provided 
for some of the most affluent of our fellow citizens who, by the way, 
would be the first to say: We don't need it. We would much rather see 
the resources spent on something like this rather than be provided an 
unneeded tax break for those of us who are well insulated against the 
economic hardships that millions of others are facing through 
unemployment.
  So don't give the argument we can't afford to do it. We can't afford 
to do it because we provide too much of a tax break to those who need 
it the least. But don't tell that to a firefighter who is a one-man or 
two-man operation, where having a couple of more people with them could 
make the difference in saving their lives. Don't say that to a family 
out there who may be the victim of some attack one day, that we didn't 
have the resources to provide the necessary support they needed in 
order to respond to these situations.

  I regret we even have to offer an amendment. My hope is that those 
who supported the authorization of this bill--and we have had 
overwhelming support for it in the years past--will come to the floor 
at the appropriate time and cast a ballot, not just for this Mikulski-
Dodd amendment, or not for those who support it, but cast a ballot for 
those who one day will say thank you for providing resources for our 
local departments. That is who you are really casting the vote for, not 
for a colleague who offers the amendment but for those who are counting 
on us to do a better job in protecting them.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden and Senator Lieberman be 
added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Harkin be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
two letters of support, one from the International Association of Fire 
Fighters strongly supporting this amendment, and then another, a joint 
letter offered by the International Association of Arson Investigators, 
the International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association 
of Fire Fighters, the International Fire Services Training Association, 
the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, the National 
Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and 
the North American Fire Training Directors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      International Association of


                                                Fire Fighters,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2003.
     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the 260,000 
     professional fire fighters and emergency medical services 
     personnel who are members of the International Association of 
     Fire Fighters (IAFF), I write to express our support for your 
     amendment to increase the FIRE Act grant funding by $150 
     million.
       As the recently released Council on Foreign Relations 
     report on first responders documents, the needs of fire 
     fighters and other first responders are great. Over the last 
     two years, the FIRE Act grants have steadily improved the 
     response capabilities of local fire departments. But more is 
     needed if we are to safely and effectively respond to 
     everyday emergencies as well as acts of terrorism.
       Your amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill 
     will increase the FY 04 FIRE Act appropriations to $900 
     million, the authorized level.
       The IAFF thanks you for your years of service to fire 
     fighters and enthusiastically supports your amendment. If we 
     can be of additional service, please contact Barry Kasinitz, 
     IAFF Governmental Affairs Director, at 202-824-1581.
           Sincerely,
                                           Harold A. Schaitberger,
     General President.
                                  ____

                                                    July 23, 2003.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: We are writing in support of your 
     amendment to the FY04 Homeland Security Appropriations Act 
     that will add $150 million to the Assistance to Firefighters 
     Grant Program (FIRE Act). Your amendment will bring the total 
     funding for the FIRE Act in FY04 to $900 million, the full 
     amount authorized by Congress.
       The FIRE Act grant program benefits our nation as a whole 
     by providing local fire departments with much-needed 
     resources to respond both within and beyond the borders of 
     their individual jurisdictions to protect interstate 
     commerce, federal lands, and the critical infrastructure of 
     the United States. Local fire departments throughout the 
     nation respond to 17 million calls annually ranging from 
     structural fire suppression, emergency medical response, 
     hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues, wildland 
     fire protection, natural disasters and events of terrorism. 
     They are also the principle delivery mechanism for fire and 
     life safety prevention and education programs. Often, local 
     governments are unable to afford the extensive training and 
     specialized equipment that these challenges require. The FIRE 
     Act grant program would assist local fire departments in many 
     jurisdictions by providing the needed funds to pay for these 
     items.
       As part of the authorizing legislation that created the 
     FIRE Grant Program, language was inserted to request the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a needs 
     assessment of the fire service. FEMA and the National Fire 
     Protection Association (NFPA) surveyed the nation's fire 
     departments, and in December 2002, NFPA and FEMA released the 
     needs assessment, which revealed that: An estimated 73,000 
     firefighters serve in fire departments that protect 
     communities of at least 50,000 population and have fewer than 
     4 career firefighters assigned to first-due engine companies. 
     (The National Fire Protection Association standard calls for 
     at least four firefighters per engine.); in communities with 
     less than 2,500 population, 21% of fire departments, nearly 
     all of them all- or mostly-volunteer departments, deliver an 
     average of 4 or fewer volunteer firefighters to a mid-day 
     house fire; half of all fire engines are at least 15 years 
     old; overall, fire departments do not have enough portable 
     radios to equip more than about half of the emergency 
     responders on a shift; an estimated one-third of firefighters 
     per shift are not equipped with self-contained breathing 
     apparatus; an estimated 57,000 firefighters lack personal 
     protective clothing; an estimated 120.1 million people are 
     protected by fire departments that do not have a program for 
     free distribution of home smoke detectors; and we must 
     continue to emphasize the importance of prevention and public 
     safety education to the fire and life safety infrastructure 
     of our Nation.
       Nearly 4,000 civilians, including more than 600 children, 
     die in fires each year. Despite all our breakthrough 
     technologies in fire prevention and suppression, the United 
     States has one of the highest rates of fire deaths among 
     industrialized nations. By passing the FIRE Act, Congress 
     unequivocally asserted that it is the policy of the United 
     States to help reduce fire deaths by partnering with local 
     governments to provide all necessary and appropriate training 
     and equipment to our firefighters.
       In the three years this program has been in existence, it 
     has become one of the most effective programs conducted by 
     the federal government. In January of this year, officials 
     from the U.S. Department of Agriculture selected the Fire 
     Grant Program for a study they were conducting as part of a 
     management training course. Summarizing the program, they 
     said that the grant program has been ``highly effective in 
     increasing the safety and effectiveness of grant 
     recipients.'' Their study found: 97 percent of program 
     participants reported positive impact on their ability to 
     handle fire and fire-related incidents; of those recipients 
     receiving firefighting equipment, 99 percent indicated 
     improvements in the safety of firefighters and 98 percent 
     indicated improvements in operation capacity; 90 percent of 
     the participants indicated that their department operated 
     more efficiently and safely as

[[Page S9772]]

     a result of the training provided by the grant program; and 
     over 88 percent of the participants who were able to measure 
     change at the time the survey was distributed reported 
     improvement in the fitness and health of their firefighters 
     as a result of the program and 86 percent indicated reduced 
     injuries.
       The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is critical in 
     addressing the needs of over 30,000 fire departments and one 
     million fire and rescue personnel. We thank you for your 
     commitment to our nation's firefighters and this important 
     program.
           Sincerely,
         Congressional Fire Services Institute; International 
           Association of Arson Investigators; International 
           Association of Fire Chiefs; Internationaal Association 
           of Fire Fighters; International Fire Service Training 
           Association; International Society of Fire Service 
           Instructors; National Fire Protection Association; 
           National Volunteer Fire Council; North American Fire 
           Training Directors.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1434

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow the President will travel to 
Philadelphia to hold a press conference to say that the Treasury 
Department will start mailing the child tax credit checks tomorrow to 
millions of Americans families. We, of course, are glad these checks 
are going out.
  Everyone on this side of the aisle feels that way because in this 
economy working families need all the help they can get. Unemployment 
rates are at a staggering number. They have gone up, now, in successive 
months. Unemployment rates around the country are the highest they have 
been in many years--13 years, I believe, is the number.
  Not only are working families in need of help, but there are 12 
million children who are still being left behind. Mr. President, 49 
days ago this body passed a bill to correct this problem. The bill 
passed by an overwhelming 94-to-2 vote. The administration said they 
supported the Senate bill and urged the House to pass it quickly. The 
House passed its own bill but then turned around and voted to instruct 
the House conferees to accept the Senate bill.
  It sounds simple: The House, the Senate, White House, have all 
signaled support for the Senate bill. This is a conference, then, that 
should have taken 5 minutes. Instead, it has been more than 40 days and 
the conferees have not even met yet.
  The day before yesterday, Senator Lincoln proposed a new bill to 
break the logjam. It includes the original Senate bill that passed, 94 
Senators for, only 2 against--a bill that helps 12 million children 
without adding a dime to the national debt. In addition, in a bow to 
the House, Senator Lincoln even included the military tax bill that 
passed the Senate previously 98 to nothing. It includes many important 
provisions, including a new deduction for expenses paid by members of 
the National Guard and the Reserves. Every provision of the Lincoln 
bill has passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  We need to pass it today, again, to send a strong message to the 
House, again, before they leave for their recess in a couple of days 
for the entire month of August plus what is left of July.
  This legislation will help 12 million children whose parents work 
hard and are struggling to provide for their families. It also delivers 
tax reductions to our men and women in uniform who are serving and 
defending our country. It sounds like a good combination to me.
  As a result of that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of S. 1434, a bill to accelerate the increase in 
refundability of the child tax credit, that the bill be read three 
times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 1346

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments that 
have been made by the distinguished Senators from Maryland and 
Connecticut about the Firefighters Assistance Grants Program. It 
certainly is a program that is very popular and it is a program that 
has been recognized as well run. It is a program that is managed by the 
firefighters themselves in determining which grants should be made in 
their regions, which items of equipment ought to be included in the 
arsenal of protection for communities.
  The only problem is, we don't have enough money in the allocation to 
this committee to make as much of an appropriation for many of these 
programs as we would like. We have to make choices. We had to allocate 
the total allocation among a large number of very worthwhile, very 
popular programs.
  I hate to put the Senate in the position of having to make choices 
here on the floor that we labored with for weeks and months, through 
hearings with administration witnesses, through discussions among our 
staffs and Members of the Senate, to try to identify the priorities and 
then come to some final decision about the exact amounts to include in 
the bill for all of these programs and activities.
  We have just so much money to appropriate. We kept the grant program 
for firefighter assistance at the same level as last fiscal year. In 
fact, we have included $200 million more than the President had 
requested in his budget which was submitted to the Congress. But this 
amendment would add funds that would cause the allocation to this 
subcommittee to be exceeded in violation of the Budget Act. As I have 
done with other amendments that have that same characteristic, I am 
constrained to make a point of order that the amendment violates the 
Budget Act.
  I make a point of order under subsection 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act that the amendment provides in excess of the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Byrd, 
Levin, and Clinton be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
the vote on the motion to waive be decided by the two leaders after 
consultation with the two leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to waive.
  With the realities of today's world, communities--both large and 
small--need to be prepared for the possibility of a terrorist attack. 
The frontline counterterrorism effort is composed of what we call first 
responders. These are the people who are first on the scene--the police 
officers, the firefighters, the emergency medical personnel, and so on.
  As they have always been, the men and women who serve in these 
departments are constantly on the job. They are always ready to fulfill 
their duty when their neighbors call for help. But the new threats of 
terrorism have forced these departments to refocus their training and 
restructure their budgets to respond to these threats.
  In many cases, the departments rely on small fundraisers to pay for 
equipment and training. However, expanded missions and continuing 
threats are pushing the price of security too high for many rural 
communities to afford. Grants through the Fire Act provide funds to 
help offset those costs for local firefighters. Unfortunately, the 
demand for funding has far outpaced the available dollars.
  According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Fire 
Protection Association, only 13 percent of the fire departments have 
the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or 
biological agents. Forty percent of fire department personnel involved 
in hazardous materials lack formal training in those duties. Only 10 
percent of the fire departments in the United States have the personnel 
and the equipment to respond to a building collapse.

[[Page S9773]]

  The amendment by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. 
Mikulski, and by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, 
would infuse critical dollars into local fire departments to help meet 
that demand.
  The administration proposed to fold this program into a single first 
responder grant account. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Cochran, for deciding to retain this effective program as a 
separate account. Unfortunately, because the budget resolution resulted 
in inadequate funding for homeland security, the committee bill 
provides only $750 million--only $5 million more than the level for the 
current fiscal year. The program is authorized at a level of $900 
million. The amendment would fund the program at the authorized level 
of $900 million.
  Terrorist incidents are primarily local events. The immediate 
response to the attacks at the World Trade Center came from the police 
and firefighters in New York City. The immediate response to the attack 
on the Pentagon came from the first responders in the neighboring 
communities.
  These events bear out the critical need for well-prepared and well-
equipped local emergency response teams. The ramifications of an ill-
prepared local community in today's world are too large.
  First responders will likely act alone in the initial critical 
moments of any emergency, no matter how large or small the emergency. 
In those moments, lives will be saved or lives will be lost. But these 
first responders cannot be expected to fund the fight against terrorism 
with bake sales, ice cream suppers, and bingo nights. That is why the 
support of the Federal Government--both in terms of funding and 
training--is so important for local police, firefighters, and emergency 
medical personnel.
  I commend my colleagues for offering this amendment. It is a 
necessary amendment. The cause is great. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment and infuse critical dollars into our Nation's 
fire departments.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want everyone to understand what this 
amendment is. It is $150 million. That is what it is.
  We want to acknowledge, first, our appreciation to the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the ranking member for 
keeping the fire grant program separate so that whatever funds come 
forth don't get meshed into one group called homeland security.
  The second thing we appreciate, given the frugal allocation of the 
subcommittee, is they did fund it at $750 million. That was very much 
appreciated. At the same time, we note that the authorization is for 
$900 million. The Mikulski-Dodd-Byrd amendment says $150 million more 
over what the committee has allocated.
  What is $150 million worth? What would we have said on September 12? 
Would we have hung our heads in shame because we didn't add $150 
million?
  I think about the Baltimore tunnel fire when we didn't know what 
caused it. We knew firefighters had to go down in the dark 6 feet 
through a manhole cover, then over a 4-foot platform, then down another 
8 or 10 feet in the total darkness with toxicity and fire.
  Was that worth $150 million, not for them alone, but that they would 
have the breathing apparatus, the telecommunications if they got into 
trouble while they were figuring out the situation? We didn't know if 
Baltimore was going to explode. We didn't know if a toxic cloud was 
going to go over my city. But I know a group of very gallant, very 
brave, very selfless people were willing to go down into that dark 
inferno. I don't want to ever say to somebody: We couldn't come up with 
another $150 million to help you out.
  Then let's go to the Rudman report. Now, we remember our dear 
colleague from New Hampshire. He is a very frugal guy. I remember 
Gramm-Rudman, Mr. Balanced Budget. So if he says we need money, we 
really must need it because he is a tight-fisted, somewhat penny-
pinching, very conservative on the fiscal spending kind of person. So 
if Warren Rudman says America needs more resources for homeland 
security, and he particularly places emphasis on the emergency 
responders, then I think we ought to listen. What he is saying is, it 
is an emergency to provide emergency help to the emergency responders.
  He starts his report by saying: If we knew that there was going to be 
another terrorist attack sometime in the next 5 years but didn't know 
what type it would be, who would carry it out, or where it would occur, 
what actions would we take to prepare, and how would we allocate our 
human and financial resources?
  This is not philosophy. This is a practical approach for the United 
States of America.
  So I appreciate everything the chairman has done, and the ranking 
member, who himself is now supporting this amendment. We are now 
shackled by our own allocation. But we do not have to be shackled. We 
have the parliamentary authority to waive that Budget Act that has us 
so constrained. And here is Warren Rudman, Mr. Balanced Budget, saying 
we need more resources.
  So I think the Congress and this Senate can vote to waive the Budget 
Act for $150 million to protect the protectors. The emergency 
responders are drastically underfunded. They are dangerously unprepared 
not because they want to be unprepared but because there needs to be 
the resources. I think we need to put the resources in the Federal 
checkbook.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with respect to the time for the votes on 
the two motions that are pending, motions to waive the Budget Act, I 
ask unanimous consent that the votes proceed in the order in which the 
motions were made and that the votes commence at 5 o'clock. It is my 
understanding that both leaders' offices have indicated that is 
permissible, and that is authorized and approved by the leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Councilman James Davis

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor on behalf of an 
amendment with regard to the homeland security funding. But I would 
like first to recognize that a tragic shooting has occurred at city 
hall in New York City this afternoon. Councilman James Davis from 
Brooklyn, a man devoted to public service and an energetic and 
outspoken advocate for New York and the community he represented, was 
murdered.
  Prior to Councilman Davis's service, he served in other capacities: 
as a New York City detective, as an instructor at the police academy. 
In 1991, he started a nonprofit organization called ``Love Yourself-
Stop the Violence'' in an effort to address growing urban violence. It 
is a tragic, terrible irony that a man who first devoted himself to 
police work and law enforcement and then to trying his best to stem 
urban violence by giving people something to say yes to would himself 
fall victim to such violence.
  I know the thoughts and prayers of New Yorkers go out to Councilman 
Davis's family and friends and colleagues at this difficult time. 
Certainly today's tragic event reminds us of the fragility as well as 
the preciousness of life. Certainly it gives us pause as we confront 
the need for us to do everything within our power on behalf of ensuring 
the safety and security of all of our citizens.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S9774]]

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


                           Amendment No. 1348

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk 
expressing the sense of the Senate that homeland security block grant 
funds should be allocated to the States using a threat-based formula 
rather than simply a per-capita formula.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1348.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that homeland security 
grants to States and local governments awarded pursuant to section 1014 
of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3711) should be allocated to 
  States through a threat-based formula, with minimum allocations for 
                             small States)

       On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 616. (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) this Act is intended to provide critical homeland 
     security resources to State and local communities and first 
     responders to help them in their efforts to improve our 
     homeland defense at the National, State, and local levels;
       (2) given the nature of the terrorist threats against our 
     Nation and the grave consequences of a terrorist attack, it 
     is in the best interest of our homeland defense that such 
     resources be disbursed and employed as effectively as 
     possible;
       (3) the Secretary of Homeland Security has repeatedly 
     emphasized the need to use a threat-based formula, instead of 
     a per capita formula, to best allocate homeland security 
     block grant funds to States for use by States and local 
     communities;
       (4) in the June 2003 report of the Homeland Security 
     Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, 
     chaired by Senator Warren B. Rudman, entitled ``Emergency 
     Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously 
     Unprepared'', the Task Force--
       (A) declared the ``existing systems for determining the 
     distribution of appropriated funds to states to be badly in 
     need of reform'';
       (B) advised that ``Congress should establish a system for 
     allocating scarce [homeland security] resources based . . . 
     on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities''; and
       (C) stated that, in allocating Federal homeland security 
     funds, ``the Federal Government should consider such factors 
     as population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence 
     of critical infrastructure within each state'';
       (5) the vulnerability assessment may cover a range of 
     considerations, including--
       (A) the proximity of a community to nuclear and chemical 
     facilities, ports, and international borders;
       (B) the presence of national icons that may be terrorist 
     targets;
       (C) population (including tourist, military, and commuting 
     population), population density, the location, risk, or 
     vulnerability of critical infrastructure or key national 
     assets; and
       (D) any other factor considered appropriate by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security;
       (6) our Nation's critical infrastructure consists of 
     systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, that are 
     vital to the United States, including infrastructure relating 
     to--
       (A) agriculture;
       (B) food;
       (C) water;
       (D) public health;
       (E) emergency services;
       (F) government;
       (G) defense;
       (H) energy;
       (I) transportation;
       (J) banking and finance;
       (K) chemicals;
       (L) postal service; and
       (M) shipping;
       (7) the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 
     Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-188) 
     requires a threat analysis, an indication that Congress 
     recognizes the importance of threat-based formulas; and
       (8) other national homeland security experts have also 
     called for the distribution of Federal, State, and local 
     homeland security grants using a threat-based formula in lieu 
     of a per capita formula.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that homeland security 
     grants to State and local governments awarded pursuant to 
     section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3711) 
     by the Office of Domestic Preparedness of the Department of 
     Homeland Security should, subject to minimum allocations for 
     small States, be allocated to States through a threat-based 
     formula in lieu of a per capita formula.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from New York. I 
walked up to her desk to talk to her about what we were doing and I 
just failed to do so. It is my fault, not hers. We have a vote in 2 
minutes. The manager of the bill is not here.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Will my friend from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I would certainly wait until after this vote or at any 
other time that the managers of the bill could schedule discussion of 
this amendment.
  Mr. REID. I think after this vote would be perfect. We have two 
votes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1343

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in relation to the 
Schumer amendment No. 1343. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 45, the nays 
are 51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1346

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the motion 
to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1346 offered by 
the Senator from Maryland. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

[[Page S9775]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Crapo
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 48, the nays are 49. Three-fifths 
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained, 
and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wish to inform Senators about the 
schedule. Since they pertain to amendments on our side, I will announce 
that the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, has an amendment. She 
indicates she will need about 15 minutes. Senator Corzine has an 
amendment which will require approximately the same amount of time. 
Then Senator Baucus has an amendment as well. We have about 45 minutes 
of time on our side. I assume there will be some time required on the 
managers' side. We expect that there will be three votes stacked at 
approximately 7:15 this evening. That may be the last business of the 
evening. But at least between now and then we will have debate on those 
three amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate very much the advice of 
the Senator from South Dakota, the distinguished leader. This side is 
not going to require as much as 15 minutes per amendment. I can assure 
you of that. We probably will not need that much time to discuss our 
views on the amendments. We are glad the Senators are here and ready to 
offer them. We appreciate their cooperation in getting the bill moving 
along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 1348

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which 
is at the desk numbered 1348.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator call up the amendment?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
  This is an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
homeland security block grant fund allocated to the States be done 
using primarily a threat-based formula rather than solely a per-capita 
formula.
  The Homeland Security appropriations bill before us seeks to provide 
critical homeland security resources to our first responders--our 
States and our local communities--to help them improve our homeland 
defense.
  I offer this amendment to support the effort to ensure that those 
funds are disbursed effectively. After setting forth a number of 
findings, this amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that 
homeland security grants to State and local governments that contain 
the small State minimums in the PATRIOT Act and that are disbursed by 
the Office for Domestic Preparedness should be allocated to the States 
through a threat-based formula rather than a per capita formula after--
and I stress this--after the small State minimum provision is applied.
  I am offering this amendment because the Senate committee report 
accompanying the bill requires Secretary Ridge to distribute the State 
and local grants, other than the high-threat formula grants, on a per 
capita basis.
  This is obviously a bit confusing and arcane because it has to do 
with formulas and percentages, but it is a very important issue with 
which we have to come to grips.
  The last wartime supplemental that we considered, thanks to the 
efforts of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, included language in 
the final supplemental conference report that directed Secretary Ridge 
to develop a threat-based formula for the distribution of State and 
local homeland security funds for fiscal year 2004.
  This amendment is wholly consistent with that language which the 
entire Congress approved. I have said for months that we need to have a 
better formula for the distribution of State and local homeland 
security grants based not solely on the population of a State but on a 
variety of threat and vulnerability factors. I am sure these factors 
are ones on which we can all agree. But we are having some difficulty 
putting them into a formula that can then be used to direct the 
expenditure of the homeland security funds.
  I have written Secretary Ridge. I have met with him. We have talked 
about this issue. He agrees that a better formula is needed. He has 
said it many times, including in testimony in April before the Senate 
Commerce Committee. At that time, Secretary Ridge told the committee he 
wants to overhaul the entire grant process to include a threat 
assessment. He has asked for guidance from Congress in designing a 
formula for distributing homeland security grant money to reflect the 
threats and vulnerabilities of different regions within the United 
States.
  Here is what he specifically has to say:

       The Office of Domestic Preparedness . . . had a formula 
     that we don't believe is the appropriate distribution for 
     counter terrorism [funding].
       The formula as it exists now does not take into 
     consideration critical infrastructure, whether it's private, 
     whether they're federal, whether they're national icons.
       The Formula doesn't really take in threat or 
     vulnerabilities.

  And finally:

       I suspect that reconstituting the Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness formula or coming up with something new is 
     something that we hope to achieve some bipartisan support 
     [on] and get it done and then attached to the 2004 
     appropriations.

  On this issue, I absolutely agree with Secretary Ridge. The last 
thing we should do is tie the Secretary's hands by saying he cannot use 
any formula other than a per capita formula.
  That is not just my view but, more importantly, it is the view of 
national experts, such as the Homeland Security Independent Task Force 
of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senator Warren 
Rudman. The task force makes it unequivocally clear that for the sake 
of our homeland defense we must employ a better formula.

  The report of the task force states that they:

     . . . found existing systems for determining the distribution 
     of appropriated funds [to States] to be badly in need of 
     reform.
       The state and population-driven approach has led to highly 
     uneven funding outcomes. . . .
       While this approach may have political appeal, it 
     unnecessarily diverts funding from areas of highest priority.
       In addition, decisions by state officials regarding the 
     allocation of funds in their states have not sufficiently 
     taken into account the multitude of necessary factors.

  Now, you see, we have a two-tiered problem. We have a problem here in 
Washington distributing the funds based on assessments of threats and 
vulnerabilities, and we have a problem in State capitals distributing 
the funds that the States get on the same basis.
  Based upon their assessment, the task force, under former Senator 
Rudman, said:

       Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce 
     resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on 
     addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities.
       To do this, the federal government should consider such 
     factors as population, population density, vulnerability 
     assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within 
     each state.

  My amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate, sets forth those 
same factors that I believe Secretary Ridge

[[Page S9776]]

can choose to consider in developing a threat-based formula.
  Let me make clear, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment; it is not 
authorizing language. Let me further underscore that the small State 
minimums in the underlying bill are not affected.
  But what then do we do with the threat assessment formula? How do we 
figure out what factors should be considered?
  Here are some I would recommend--obviously, starting with population. 
That has to be the No. 1 consideration. But I would go a step further 
because it is not just what the census says about the population as to 
who lives permanently in a particular city or county or region. There 
are parts of our country that have a very high tourism industry, that 
might have a military base, that have other factors that should be 
taken into account when we look at population.
  As Senator Reid said yesterday, in talking about Las Vegas, the 
population in Nevada peaks on the weekend when thousands of people from 
all over the country and the world come to Las Vegas.
  So in addition to population, we should consider population density, 
again, taking into account not just who lives there every day but the 
ebbs and flows in the density of the population--whether it is Orlando, 
FL, or Las Vegas, NV, or Manhattan. We should look at the proximity to 
nuclear and chemical facilities, ports, and international borders.
  Yesterday, I referred to a GAO report when I was standing here in 
support of the very commonsense approach that the Byrd amendment 
represented. I referred to a GAO report that shows there are hundreds 
of chemical facilities in our country that contain toxic chemicals that 
could harm thousands, if not millions, of people within the 
near proximity. That is an issue we need to take seriously.

  Similarly, nuclear powerplants--particularly the one in the county 
where I live, which is in a heavily populated area, in an area with 
very narrow, winding roads--they, too, should be taken into account.
  We should look at the location of national icons, whether it is the 
Gateway Arch in St. Louis or the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco or 
any other national icon.
  We should also begin to assess the presence and vulnerability of 
other critical infrastructure. I consider agriculture a critical 
industry to our country. Food supplies, water, public health, emergency 
services, the kinds of things that, if they were targeted, would 
disrupt commerce, would dramatically impede the kind of response needed 
because of the potential for destruction.
  Finally, we should be taking into account intelligence and threat 
information, and any other information or any other factor that the 
Secretary deems appropriate.
  Now, reasonable people can, of course, disagree as to which factors 
should be included and what weight should be provided to each factor. 
But there is an absolutely clear consensus among security experts that 
a better formula must be devised and used. And I have heard not just 
from homeland security experts on this point but from our front line 
defenders, our first responders, or, as some of our police officers 
like to refer to themselves, our first preventers.
  Hopefully we can prevent tragedies, not just respond to them. It is 
not only our police and our firefighters but our public health 
officials and our EMTs, our mayors, our county executives who are there 
on the front lines. I said the other day if we were to determine our 
defense posture, our projection of force around the world on some kind 
of per capita basis, we would be placing soldiers in Canada and Sweden 
because, after all, they are there. Obviously, that is nonsensical. We 
don't do that. We look at the threats. We try to design our weaponry 
and our other responses to take account of all the threats that 
American military forces might encounter. And we should be doing the 
same for homeland security.
  This is a two-front war. It is not only what we are doing in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and other places, it is what we are doing to 
defend ourselves here at home that we have to be very concerned about. 
At the national level, if we don't take these various factors into 
account and establish a formula, we also fail to give guidance to our 
States. We also fail to recognize in a thorough, comprehensive way all 
of the potential vulnerabilities and targets we have.
  For example, if one were discussing the homeland security needs of 
Louisiana, you might look at population and density, but you would also 
look at the fact that there is a major port. There are offshore 
petroleum platforms. We have part of the strategic petroleum reserve. 
We have river railroad crossings and facilities that are pumping 
natural gas to the rest of the country. That would be part of the kind 
of formula I am proposing that would certainly be justifiable and give 
the Secretary the discretion he needs.
  There are many other places in the country that at first glance you 
don't think of as being perhaps vulnerable or strategically located, 
but take Lancaster County, PA. It has two nuclear powerplants on its 
borders. There are only five counties in the entire country in that 
same position. So I would argue that kind of consideration about 
critical infrastructure, proximity to nuclear and chemical facilities, 
should be considered.
  I know many of my colleagues who represent less populated States 
worry about a threat-based formula versus a per capita formula. I have 
to say I understand that. I have lived in big States and I have lived 
in small States. I have been in every State. I believe every State has 
vulnerabilities and is potentially subject to threats that need to be 
considered. I think it is important we look at this effort as an 
ongoing one, but we have to untie the Secretary's hands. Right now he 
has no discretion. He has no ability to deal with the grants to State 
and local communities other than on a per capita basis.
  What that leads to is articles like we have seen recently in national 
newspapers where money goes out in a huge amount on a per capita basis 
to less populated States, while States and cities such as New York and 
LA are trying desperately to figure out how they are going to protect 
major airports, all the other ports and facilities that they have, how 
they are going to do it with the amount of money they have, given the 
budgetary constraints that every State and city is confronting.
  I tried in this resolution to recognize the political reality that 
exists. It retains the small State minimum. I can count and I know that 
we are not yet at a point where we can eliminate the small State 
minimum, so it retains that. That is about 40 percent of the money 
right off the top to be distributed on a per capita basis. But that 
leaves 60 percent to begin to implement a formula that does what the 
experts say we must do.

  In closing, I believe whether we go through direct funding, which I 
still believe is the best way to disburse money--I am hearing from a 
lot of my mayors; they still haven't gotten any of the money that has 
gone to the State capital. Again, I understand that. I know a little 
bit about the pressures on Governors. But the fact is, the money is not 
getting down to a lot of the cities and counties that really bear the 
brunt of homeland defense. So I still believe we should do it directly.
  But if it is passed to the States, then we need a formula, and we 
need a formula that gives guidance at the State level so we can get the 
money where it is most needed.
  I hope we can begin to move down this road and start giving the kind 
of discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security who, after all, is 
really on the hot seat. He is the person who gets the threat 
information and the intelligence. He knows exactly what is happening 
because he has to be briefed on it all the time. To provide him this 
discretion would give him the opportunity to begin to implement a 
formula which I am sure is going to be revised. The factors will 
change. The weight will change. But we must start now; otherwise, we 
lose another year. I don't think we can afford to do that.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this resolution, give the 
authority to the Secretary, preserve the small State minimum, but begin 
to give us some factors to gauge the threats and vulnerabilities that 
we know the experts know, but mostly our police and firefighters know 
they are facing every single day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

[[Page S9777]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator makes a point that certainly 
ought to be considered by the Senate, but it ought to be considered 
first by the Governmental Affairs Committee which has jurisdiction over 
the law that created the Department and the grant programs under which 
the Department administers the programs and distributes funds to the 
States.
  There was a per State minimum provided in the law that established 
the Department of Homeland Security. Just recently, the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs undertook a review of that basic law, and they 
reported out a bill, S. 1245. It deals with the issue of formulas under 
which funds are allocated to the States. As a matter of fact, it 
specifically provides for the continuation of the State minimum funding 
grant to each State based on population. But it also takes into account 
high threat areas, large State and large city problems that exist, and 
provides for special grants to be made to those areas of the country. 
We already have, for example, the high threat urban area 
classification, and funds are allocated to those States and those areas 
that are under higher threats or have higher vulnerability in addition 
to the funds they get on a per capita basis.
  My point in mentioning this and stating these facts is to say that 
this is not the time or the place for the Senate to deal with this 
issue. The time will be when this bill, S. 1245, is taken up by the 
Senate. It was just reported out of the committee on June 12, 2003. The 
distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is chairman of that 
committee. She has indicated to me, with a note yesterday, that this 
bill had been reported out. So if any issue came up about formula 
grants and how funds were being distributed, it had already been 
considered by her committee and legislation had been reported on that 
subject.
  What the Senator from New York is asking us to do tonight, even 
though this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, is to go on record 
saying the formulas under which the funds are being appropriated by 
this bill are inappropriately distributed. They are being distributed 
under the auspices of current law, and so she is asking us to disagree 
with the content of current law and suggests that some different 
distribution be made by this bill.
  We can't do that. We can't accommodate that. The time for changing 
the formulas and changing the way the distributions are made will be 
when the Senate turns to the consideration of this reported 
legislation.
  It is for those reasons and not to argue that there are needs in 
States that have cities such as New York City and others. New York City 
already gets way beyond what any other city gets because it is a high 
threat urban area. We have charts. Everybody can have access to see how 
much each State gets. The Senator has already pointed out how some 
States appear to get more per capita than the big States, and they 
do. But what happens is, this is made up for in other programs that 
provide funds to those high-threat urban areas, and it is dealt with in 
this other legislation.

  So it will be my intention to respond to any questions that I can 
answer. I wish the distinguished Senator from Maine were here because 
she knows more about the details than I do. But I will try to respond 
to any questions the Senator from New York has. Then it is my intention 
to move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, the 
chairman, I only point out that the Senate committee report 
accompanying the bill requires the Secretary to distribute the State 
and local grants, other than the high-stress grants, on a per-capita 
basis. I applaud the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for 
the work she has done because, under her leadership, there has been a 
tremendous effort undertaken to begin the process to authorize the 
changes in formula.
  This authorizing legislation will come before the Congress, I hope, 
this year. I hope it is passed this year. But it will not influence the 
appropriations we are considering today, and, therefore, the 
Secretary--even if he were to pick up the legislation from the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, read it, and say he agrees 100 
percent--would not be able to do anything about it.
  What this sense-of-the-Senate amendment tries to do is to give at 
least some encouragement, and hopefully it could become more specific 
in the conference report to the Secretary, that based on factors such 
as those in the Governmental Affairs legislation and the work of the 
committee under Senator Rudman, there would be an opportunity to begin 
to actually do this, instead of waiting for another year and a half to 
figure out what the appropriations would be.
  So I certainly understand the chairman's perspective that this is not 
authorizing legislation. That is why what I have is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment. The work the Senator from Maine has done is extremely 
important work, but I worry about the time lag because since the Senate 
committee report says that Secretary Ridge cannot distribute on any 
basis other than per capita, the good work of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the recommendations of experts is going to be once again 
in suspended animation. The Secretary will find himself once again 
having to follow what is, by all accounts, an outdated formula in the 
face of the most pressing homeland security challenges that we 
confront.
  Mr. President, I hope we will at least give a little bit of wiggle 
room, some discretion to Secretary Ridge, especially based on the good 
work done by the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the sense-of-the-
Senate amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New York 
today. The Senator's amendment is on a subject of great importance to 
each and every Senator, and that is how best to divide up the homeland 
security funds to ensure we get the most from the resources we are 
investing. It is a subject that falls within the jurisdiction of the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair.
  The committee held three hearings on this topic. We have heard from 
firefighters, police officers, mayors, Governors, State emergency 
management directors, county officials, and from Secretary Ridge. As a 
result of these hearings, I developed bipartisan legislation, which the 
committee has unanimously approved. That legislation is cosponsored by 
Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, 
Pryor, Allard, Akaka, Hagel, Burns, Chafee, Roberts, Dorgan, Chambliss, 
and Ben Nelson. In other words, it has widespread support.
  Dealing with formula issues is very difficult. They are not easy. 
They affect us all and we want to make sure we get it right.
  The legislation we reported last month addresses the very issues the 
Senator from New York has brought up and is seeking to address on the 
appropriations bill. There is much I agree with in the amendment of the 
Senator from New York. I don't agree with her treatment of small 
States, because although she keeps the small-State minimum, as I read 
the language, she would treat the current .75 allocation as a ceiling. 
That is not the way it would be done under the legislation I have 
authored, nor is that the way that small States are handled under 
current law.
  But there is much I agree with in the Senator's approach. We need to 
identify high-threat areas and we need to do vulnerability assessments. 
That means looking at military installations, ports, and looking at 
whether the State is a border State. There are many issues that need to 
be considered.
  Our legislation carefully crafts a formula and fills out the outlines 
of the homeland security grants, which were treated only in a single 
paragraph in the original legislation creating the Department of 
Homeland Security. We have made sure the money is passed on quickly, 
for example, from States to local governments and to the first 
responders. We have simplified the application process from 12 steps to 
2. We have done away with a mountain of the paperwork and bureaucracy 
that has frustrated our State and local governments. And, yes, we call 
for an allocation right off the top for high-threat

[[Page S9778]]

areas and for vulnerability assessments.
  Any modifications to the formulas for homeland security grants should 
be considered in a comprehensive, careful manner, as the committee has 
done. If the committee had not acted on this important issue, I would 
be more sympathetic to the arguments made by the Senator from New York. 
But, in fact, the committee has acted. We have held several hearings. 
We have reported legislation, which is pending for consideration by the 
full Senate.
  If we attempt to change the formula on an ad hoc basis, we may end up 
with unintended consequences and a State may end up with insufficient 
homeland security resources. We obviously are very stressed because of 
budget constraints. We need to make sure the formula is carefully done. 
I believe the appropriations bill is not the right vehicle to pass 
important authorizing legislation affecting the allocation of funds. 
For this reason, I have not sought to attach my own bill to the 
appropriations vehicle, nor pieces of it, tempted though I am. Nor do I 
think the well-intentioned amendment of the Senator from New York, 
which calls for a change in the funding formula, which is directly in 
the jurisdiction of my committee, should be adopted on this 
appropriations bill.

  I want to make an offer to the Senator from New York to work closely 
with her. New York obviously has challenges that are enormous when it 
comes to homeland security. I am very sympathetic to what a high-risk, 
high-vulnerability State the Senator so ably represents. So I want to 
work with her further on this as we bring our legislation to the floor. 
But I am reluctantly going to oppose the sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
of the Senator from New York because, frankly, it doesn't belong on 
this bill, particularly when the committee of jurisdiction has acted to 
bring forth carefully crafted, bipartisan legislation to deal with this 
very issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
leadership and her very obvious concern about these issues. I 
particularly appreciate her concern about New York and what we are 
contending with in New York, not just in New York City but throughout 
our State.
  I would very much appreciate the opportunity to work with the Senator 
from Maine on this issue. I worry a little bit, and perhaps there is 
some way, working with the able chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee--and I hope her legislation will pass very soon because it 
is a long overdue revamping of how to deal with this issue--that we 
would be able to give some discretion to the Secretary going forward 
and not have to wait until the next appropriations process.
  It is, from my perspective, based particularly on the insights and 
recommendations of many of the security experts, an issue we are 
urgently facing. With the Senator's very able stewardship of this 
legislation and getting it through on the authorizing committee, I look 
forward to working with her and doing everything I can to help move 
that legislation forward. I hope there is some way we can figure out 
how to give the Secretary some discretion in the meantime, especially 
based on the work the committee has done, the factors the Senator has 
taken into account so we do not lose another year. That is my main 
concern as I stand here today.
  Again, I commend the Senator from Maine for her extraordinary work 
and leadership, and I look forward to working with her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the disposition of the Clinton amendment, the amendments that will next 
be offered will be the Corzine amendment on chemical security for 20 
minutes for Senator Corzine and 10 minutes for Senator Cochran, then 
the Schumer-Baucus northern security amendment with 25 minutes total 
for both Senators and Senator Cochran 10 minutes.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate in relation 
to the amendments, the Senate vote, if necessary, in relation to the 
Clinton amendment No. 1348, to be followed by a vote in relation to the 
Corzine amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Schumer-
Baucus amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided for debate for each amendment in the stacked sequence and, 
further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--and Senator Clinton is 
standing next to me--based on the colloquy on the amendment that has 
taken place in the last 40 minutes, Senator Clinton has indicated she 
will withdraw her amendment.


                      Amendment No. 1348 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Clinton, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Clinton amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no objection to the unanimous consent 
request propounded by the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant 
leader from Nevada, and I thank the distinguished Senator from New York 
and the distinguished Senator from Maine, as well, for the discussion 
we have had on the issue of formulas. I look forward to joining them in 
a careful consideration of the issues that have been discussed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 1350

  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I send an amendment to 
the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Edwards, Senator Lautenberg, and 
others, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself, Mr. 
     Edwards, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1350.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To appropriate $80,000,000 for the Office of the Under 
  Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to 
            conduct chemical facility security assessments)

       On page 66, strike lines 9 and 10, and insert the 
     following:
     $903,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005; 
     of which $80,000,000 shall be for chemical facility security 
     assessments.

  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment 
addresses one of the most serious security threats facing the American 
people. As I will indicate later, this is not an assertion I make alone 
but an assertion made by a broad range of security experts, including 
the Secretary of Homeland Security: the threat of a terrorist attack on 
our Nation's chemical facilities.
  There are literally thousands of chemical producers, refineries, and 
similar facilities throughout the United States where the release of 
chemicals can kill or injure literally tens of thousands and, in many 
instances, millions of Americans through exposure to highly toxic 
gases. That is why these facilities are potentially so attractive to 
terrorists. That is why security officials indicate that point.
  From a practical viewpoint, often these facilities are located in the 
most densely populated communities across our Nation. The legacies of 
the great era of American manufacturing were practiced in our urban 
communities and continue to be in many instances today. New Jersey 
happens to be one of those communities that is densely populated--it is 
the most densely populated State in the Nation, and many of these 
facilities with exposures to over 1 million people are located in my 
State.
  Unfortunately, there are currently no Federal security standards for 
chemical facilities, none. So the private sector has been left to do as 
it sees appropriate on a completely voluntary basis. There are some 
very positive actions by some in the industry to make sure that 
security and safety at

[[Page S9779]]

the plants is attended to. There are good standards being promoted by 
trade associations. But far too many of the facilities across this 
country have not stepped up to meet their responsibilities. Far too 
many continue to be vulnerable to attack.
  Time after time we have seen press reports and other indications that 
our chemical facilities are not properly secure, and there has been 
very little effort to improve the safety of the processing in many 
plants. Put literally, millions of Americans are at risk.
  A recent report by the conference board, by the way, that confirms 
this shows there has been a very limited increase in expenditures at 
publicly held companies in this country. Less than 4 percent at the 
median, and very little, according to many of the anecdotal pieces of 
information we have been able to find with regard to chemical plants.
  According to the EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a 
chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly 
toxic chemicals. There are about 750 facilities in 39 States where a 
chemical release could expose more than 100,000 people to these 
chemicals. Thirty-nine States have that kind of exposure.
  I have with me a map that shows how many of these facilities are 
located in each State. This really is a broad-based national issue. 
There are nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where a 
chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people. These are 
staggering numbers representing a broad vulnerability across America.
  The consequences of an attack on a chemical plant are potentially 
horrific, and it is hard for any of us to even imagine. Think back to 
1983 in Bhopal, India, where over 3,000 people died and innumerable 
injuries and problems in health still linger today. I would argue that 
our Nation appears to be in denial about this problem. If anything, 
September 11 taught us that we cannot avoid thinking about the 
unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious 
vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them and confront them head on. If 
we look at what has been identified by security experts and the people 
at the Department of Homeland Security, we will draw that conclusion.
  I repeat one of the statistics I mentioned: There are 123 chemical 
facilities around our Nation that could threaten more than 1 million 
American lives in their immediate vicinity. To bring this home, there 
are eight of these facilities in my home State of New Jersey, one that 
has the potential to expose over 8 million people in the Greater New 
Jersey-New York region with a toxic cloud. Think about that, 8 million 
people located smack dab in the middle of one of the most densely 
populated areas in our country.
  These facilities pose a severe threat to public safety. They have 
serious weapons that could be used against the American people and 
cause massive injuries and death. Loaded with chemicals such as 
chlorine, ammonia, and hydrogen fluoride, chemicals that serve an 
important industrial function, they could be instantly transformed into 
a weapon of mass destruction at the hands of a terrorist.
  I am not arguing that many are not doing what they are supposed to be 
doing. I see great activity about security and safety in many of the 
pharmaceutical plants in New Jersey.
  There are many who are not stepping up to the plate to make sure the 
public is protected, and this is not just my opinion. Again, it has 
been documented by experts in the administration and the like. On March 
18, the General Accounting Office issued a new report on this matter. 
GAO found that chemical facilities may be attractive targets for 
terrorists because of the extent of harm they could inflict.
  If one is trying to find a way to seriously impact broad numbers of 
the population, this is how GAO says terrorists might actually 
accomplish that. GAO goes on to say: There are no Federal laws 
requiring chemical facilities to assess vulnerabilities, to take 
action, to safeguard against these attacks. GAO recommended that the 
Department of Homeland Security and the EPA jointly develop a strategy, 
including legislative proposal, to address the threats of attacks on 
chemical facilities.
  The GAO report was released on March 18 of this year, but only one 
month earlier the Department of Homeland Security itself sounded the 
alarm about the threat facing chemical facilities. In the bulletin 
issued on February 12 of this year, when we moved to code orange, the 
Department stated:

       Al-Qaida operatives also may attempt to launch conventional 
     attacks against U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial 
     infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption and terror.

  In our releases to our own people across this country, we identify 
this as a vulnerability. We ask our local law enforcement to protect 
the American people.

       Based on information, nuclear power plants and industrial 
     chemical plants remain viable targets.

  Now I go back to October 6 of last year. On that day, Homeland 
Security Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman had a letter of 
theirs published in the Washington Post. In that letter they stated:

       The Bush administration is committed to reducing the 
     vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist 
     attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that 
     would require such facilities to address their 
     vulnerabilities.

  That was on October 6 last year. I think this is July 23.
  The letter goes on to state:

       We applaud the voluntary efforts some in the industry have 
     undertaken--

  By the way, I do as well--

       but we believe that every one of the 15,000 chemical 
     facilities nationwide that contain large quantities of 
     hazardous chemicals must be required to take the steps the 
     industry leaders are taking at their facilities: performing 
     comprehensive vulnerability assessments and then acting to 
     reduce those vulnerabilities.

  Yet in spite of all of these public acknowledgments, comments and 
statements, we still have not been able to enact chemical security 
legislation. I introduced a bill back in October of 2001, and did a lot 
of compromising with a lot of folks on the EPW committee, addressing 
industry concerns. We reported out a bill 19 to 0. I reintroduced that 
legislation in this Congress. In April, I offered the bill with further 
modifications as an amendment to the Defense supplemental 
appropriations bill. The amendment was defeated on a point of order. In 
that bill, I actually included additional funds to help facilitate 
putting in security elements to make sure industry believed we were 
working as partners to accomplish it.
  I will not be offering that legislation on this appropriations bill. 
I know it would be subject to a point of order. But I simply cannot let 
this legislation go through without drawing attention to an issue that 
just lingers and lingers. For the people of the State of New Jersey, 
and I know in all of these other States that I just talked about, this 
is a serious risk as we go forward.
  In that regard, I want to commend Senator Byrd for recognizing the 
importance of this issue and including chemical security as a priority 
in his amendment yesterday. More than any other Senator, the senior 
Senator from West Virginia has consistently demanded that we do more on 
homeland security than talk about it. So I thank him for his leadership 
on homeland security in general, and more specifically for his 
attention to chemical plant security.
  The amendment Senator Edwards and I are offering today is the 
chemical security portion of Senator Byrd's amendment. It appropriates 
$80 million for the Department to conduct vulnerability assessments at 
chemical facilities--simple, with none of the other stuff that is such 
an onerous problem for the industry. Just get an assessment of what the 
risks are.
  We would not tolerate this with our nuclear plants in this country. 
We check them out all the time. We have a whole infrastructure to do 
it. We have these plants located--again, 123 right in the middle of our 
most vulnerable areas, our most densely populated areas. This $80 
million is the amount the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it 
will cost to conduct vulnerability assessments nationwide.
  Some have questioned whether we should legislate this as a priority. 
They argue that we have funds in the bill that could be used for this 
purpose and that we should let the Department identify infrastructure 
priorities as they see fit. That certainly does not jibe with the 
language I have heard Secretary Ridge, EPA Director Whitman, the GAO, 
and others talk about,

[[Page S9780]]

and I would respond that chemical plants have consistently been 
identified by every security expert and leader as a top priority. They 
must be addressed.
  Last week, Rand Beers, who until recently was a senior director for 
combating terrorism on the Bush administration National Security 
Council, was asked the following question:

       When we think about homeland security, what specifically 
     concerns you?

  To which Mr. Beers replied:

       We have looked at the chemical industries around the 
     country and have a very serious concern. There are a number 
     of these plants in locations around the country where an 
     explosion would create a catastrophic result which could 
     approximate the World Trade Center. These are areas where we 
     need the Federal Government to give the chemical industry the 
     guidelines that are necessary in order to protect those 
     plants, because for the plants to simply do it on their own 
     is going to create a great disadvantage to those who do and 
     an advantage to those who don't because it will cost money. 
     So it ought to be evened out across the industry.

  I wish I had been as articulate as Mr. Beers. That is exactly what we 
need to be doing. By the way, it is unfair for those who are actually 
dealing with the problem relative to those who walk away from their 
responsibility in their communities.
  Chemical plants were the first thing on Mr. Beers' list, and we have 
done nothing to address this threat. I think it is appropriate that we 
deal with it and give direction to the Department in this regard. This 
amendment, which would fund vulnerability assessments, is a positive 
step. It is one that we ought to take today. I also want to make it 
clear it is a first step, and we need to do more.

  After we appropriate these funds, we will still have the task of 
passing authorizing legislation to assure appropriate security 
standards and accountability mechanisms are put in place, as Mr. Beers 
alluded to in his comments. We just have to get moving on this issue.
  Earlier in the year, Senator Inhofe introduced his own bill on 
chemical plant security. There is much in that bill that I find 
positive. It does not go far enough, in my view, but it is a good first 
step. It is a great place to start. We need to get moving on this 
issue. We have people exposed to vulnerability that almost everyone 
recognizes and identifies. I think we need to get moving in the 
Congress, and I think the administration needs to step forward also.
  Despite consistent statements in support of the concept of the 
legislation, it has not been pushed as a priority on the agenda. So I 
am calling on the President and Secretary Ridge to move on this issue. 
My goal is to truly develop bipartisan legislation, an effective 
approach that deals with the real vulnerability that we have; one that 
can move through this body and the House and be signed into law. For 
now, as a first step toward securing chemical plants, I urge my 
colleagues to support this simple amendment which will provide $80 
million to the Department of Homeland Security to conduct vulnerability 
assessments at chemical plants. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will add $80 
million to the appropriations for the Office of Under Secretary for 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and it is earmarked 
specifically to conduct chemical facilities security assessments. Our 
bill provides a total of $823,700,000 for the information, analysis, 
and infrastructure protection operating expenses.
  The Senator adds his $80 million to that account and earmarks it for 
chemical facilities. There is no offset for this amendment. Therefore, 
it violates the Budget Act inasmuch as it surpasses the allocation 
available to the subcommittee to use in writing this bill. At the 
appropriate time I will make a point of order that it violates the 
Budget Act in that it is spending in excess of the subcommittee's 
allocation. I assume the Senator will move to waive the Budget Act and 
get the yeas and nays and the vote will occur on the motion to waive 
the Budget Act. That is my expectation. I am hopeful the Senate will 
refuse to waive the Budget Act.
  What we are doing if we start down this path is not only adding money 
that is not available to the subcommittee, but we are earmarking 
specific, critical infrastructure facilities and telling the Department 
how much money they should spend on each one, or selected ones. It 
deprives them of the flexibility they need to use the funds they are 
given under this legislation to assign priorities as they understand 
the threats. Changing threats could mean a change in the areas where 
they are concentrating their activities and assessing the security of 
specific facilities in addition to chemical facilities.
  Chemical facilities, incidentally, are considered critical 
infrastructure and they are defined as such in the bill. So there is no 
restriction for this agency to use the funds appropriated in this act 
for the purposes of assessing the security needs of chemical 
facilities.
  I don't know how much time remains for the Senator, but I don't 
intend to debate this any further. When the time of the Senator is 
yielded back or used, I will make the point of order.
  I make the point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the 
subcommittee 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. CORZINE. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
74, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the 
purposes of the pending amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, every department head, including the 
Director of Homeland Security, Secretary Ridge, has identified this as 
a priority. They have earmarked it, but we have yet to see the actual 
dollars flowing to meet the challenge that occurs in this area. Each 
day that goes by is another day of exposure to literally millions of 
Americans.
  Given it is identified over and over again in the rhetoric and the 
memoranda to first responders across the country, in times of high 
tension and vulnerability, it seems to me we ought to single this out 
in a context that makes this a vulnerability that we will address. That 
is what my amendment is trying to do.
  We have procrastinated long enough on an issue that is very important 
to the entire Nation with regard to these very serious 
vulnerabilities--100,000 Americans or more are at risk in 39 States. 
There are 123 facilities that expose more than 1 million people. That 
is why I make a point of bringing this up.
  I appreciate the comments. I hope, with the dialog we are having, we 
will encourage the Homeland Security Department to be cognizant of the 
need to make these vulnerability assessments.
  I yield back the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1351

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Schumer-Baucus 
amendment. Under the previous order the Senator from Montana or the 
Senator from New York is to be recognized.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am awaiting the arrival of my colleague 
from New York to offer the amendment. It is his amendment and I am a 
cosponsor. Pending his arrival, I will make a couple of statements. I 
do not have the amendment with me.
  I am pleased to join with the Senator from New York, essentially 
offering an amendment that provides additional funds to increase the 
number of border personnel protecting the more than 5,000 miles of 
border we share with Canada.
  It goes without saying that protecting this great Nation is the most 
important responsibility facing the Congress and the administration. 
Certainly enhancing border security is critically important in the wake 
of September 11, 2001. The need for increased security against threats 
from outside and within our country is evident.
  Over the years our borders have seen a rise in the number of illegal 
aliens trying to gain entry into our country.

[[Page S9781]]

These individuals are using whatever means possible to get into this 
country, some to seek a better life, others to traffic in illegal and 
harmful activities, and some with even more nefarious goals.
  Clearly, we must do more to control and prevent illegal entry into 
the United States. How do we do that? What is the best way? One, 
clearly, is to invest in advanced surveillance technology and 
communication systems that allow enforcement personnel to monitor the 
flow of individuals entering this country. All personnel involved with 
border security and law enforcement need to be able to communicate with 
each other effectively. Currently, it is very difficult for them to do 
so.
  Illegal entry is usually gained somewhere along the vast 5,000-mile 
border between border stations. Sometimes it is at the border stations, 
but often it is in between them, in the mountains, in the plains, and 
the unobserved areas. In the mountains of northern Montana, for 
example, electronic sensors have recently picked up 1,000 crossings 
between Canada and the United States. Not one arrest was made from any 
of those sensor signals. What were those crossings? Who were they? What 
were they? Could it be wild animals, backpackers, illegal aliens? No 
one knows. Why? Because of the lack of personnel and proper equipment, 
we can only guess. We do not know what type of activity the sensors are 
picking up and what is crossing our borders.
  The security of our Nation affects everyone. My example points out 
that the State of Montana faces unique issues regarding homeland 
security. Montana has the longest border with Canada in the lower 48 
States. We border three Canadian provinces with a northern border of 
roughly 600 miles. Controlling the traffic of people coming in and out 
of the country through Montana is difficult, to say the least. People 
working at the border stations or near the border stations are 
extremely frustrated because of inadequate personnel, because of the 
inability of personnel to communicate with each other--regardless of 
what agency it might be. It might be DEA; it might be Immigration; it 
might be Customs. There are lots of agencies and each has different 
communications facilities. They have a hard time talking with each 
other.
  In addition, there are very few personnel along that entire border.
  Along with the sheer length of the border, the topography of the 
region makes patrolling it a terrific challenge. A lot of my colleagues 
have spoken to me and said how much they like visiting Montana because 
of the beauty of the State, particularly Glacier Park. It takes a lot 
of work to hike over those mountains and it is very difficult to 
protect that border with Canada. Then in eastern Montana, as far as the 
eye can see, are vast plains and it is very easy to cross the border 
from the United States through Montana.
  Glacier National Park is located in the northwestern corner of our 
State. It crosses over to the Province of Alberta and the Province of 
British Columbia. It has sharp mountains and rugged peaks; it is 
wilderness but also an area that requires increased resources to 
monitor because it is so difficult to monitor that part of the border.
  The U.S. Park Service is responsible for the security of our national 
parks. The National Park Rangers patrol the 40 miles of the 
international border that lies within Glacier Park with little 
increases in funding for park security.
  Park services are already strained, our national parks are already 
strained for resources, and we need a vast increase in them, in my 
judgment. With the additional terrorism threat that faces our country, 
we have additional pressure for more resources to protect our borders.
  I believe homeland security is of the utmost importance and our 
border agencies, law enforcement, and the National Park Service need a 
lot of help. If we do not increase the technology, if we do not 
increase the personnel needed for border security, we will certainly 
continue to see more individuals who will enter our country through the 
remote areas of the border, particularly in my State of Montana. We 
don't like it. We are very concerned.
  There are also drugs coming down because of the inadequate number of 
personnel and inadequate equipment the current personnel have. Our 
country must do more to increase the number of border personnel to 
prevent this unwanted traffic.
  Finally, we need to continue working with our neighbor to the north, 
continue working with Canada to secure our Nation's northern border, 
their southern border. We can do this with coordinated law enforcement 
operations, through intelligence sharing and infrastructure 
improvements but, again, this cannot be done just on the basis of 
words. It can only be done with effective manpower, with proper 
technology, and with good communication systems. It is clearly 
inadequate today.
  I am pleased today to join with Senator Schumer to offer an amendment 
that will provide an additional $200 million to increase the number of 
border personnel. This will enhance our ability to conduct inspections 
of people and goods entering our country. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  This is not an idle statement; this is very important. If the 
Presiding Officer, who comes from a State which also borders with 
Canada, were joined with me in explaining to our colleagues just how 
important it is to protect that border and how easy it is to cross that 
border undetected--I am certain in the home State of the Presiding 
Officer it is almost as easy as in my State of Montana let alone other 
Western States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I guess it will be 
opposed, but, frankly, $200 million for additional border security I 
think is an investment very well worth it. It is an investment we must 
make.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Baucus, spoke on this amendment but I believe it has not been 
sent to the desk yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and 
     Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Leahy, and Ms. Stabenow, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1351.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available an additional $200,000,000 to increase the 
number of border personnel at the northern border of the United States 
                    by the end of fiscal year 2004)

       In title III under the heading ``salaries and expenses'' 
     under the heading ``Customs and Border Protection'', strike 
     ``$4,366,000,000,'' and insert ``$4,566,000,000, of which not 
     to exceed $200,000,000 shall be available to assist the 
     Department of Homeland Security in increasing the number of 
     border personnel at the northern border of the United States 
     by the end of fiscal year 2004 as authorized by section 402 
     of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
     Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
     Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001 (115 Stat. 342), and may 
     be transferred by the Secretary of Homeland Security to the 
     salaries and expenses account of the Bureau of Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement;''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my good colleague from Montana is from a 
State that is quite different from mine. He has summed up this bill 
well. We are from different States but we face the same problem, and 
that is our northern border is not guarded as well as it should be.
  Frankly, I think our country has done a very good job on the southern 
border. We have had lots of problems there in the past. The various 
governmental agencies, prodded in part by this body and the other body, 
did a good job tightening things up.
  There was really no need to tighten up the northern border until 9/
11. But what we have learned is that the terrorists know what we are 
doing. They can log onto the Internet, even if they are in a cave in 
Afghanistan, as long as they have a wireless connection, and can learn 
what we are doing. So they know what we all know: The southern border 
is pretty well guarded but the northern border is not.

[[Page S9782]]

  As a result, we have seen that various terrorists and others who seek 
to do damage to our country, evil acts in our country, perhaps, have 
started crossing at the northern border. It is a massive border. It has 
128 ports of entry. It is 5,500 miles long. Large parts of it are 
totally unguarded. Some of it is water. The Canadian border that New 
York State shares with Canada is bounded by Lake Ontario and by the 
Niagara River and by the St. Lawrence River. It is a beautiful border, 
it is a peaceful border, but unfortunately it can be used by bad people 
for evil purpose.
  The challenge we face is we have trade with Canada. Western New York, 
the north country in New York State depend on that trade. Yet we need 
to be more secure. Can we have security and commerce? Is there a 
tradeoff between one and the other? Only if we do not provide the 
resources. If we provide the resources for personnel, for equipment, 
for technology, we can have the best of both worlds--a northern border 
that is secure and a northern border where a free flow of commerce 
occurs. It is extremely important. Canada is my State's biggest trading 
partner. Last year we exported $9 billion worth of merchandise to the 
north.
  In order to do what we do, we need a three-pronged approach. We must 
first have the technological programs such as FAST, NEXUS, and US 
VISIT. We need the VACIS radiological detection program. And, most 
important, we need sufficient staffing at the border.
  We recognized this in the PATRIOT Act, where we authorized a tripling 
of Immigration, Customs, and Border Patrol. I have to be honest; it is 
not that this country has done nothing. There are now more people 
guarding northern borders than there were in September 2001. There were 
2,300 in September 2001; there are now about 5,000. That is a 
significant advance and I am not critical of that advance; I think it 
is a good one.
  But my motto in the post-9/11 world is a simple one: You can't be too 
careful. This is a greater expense but we need it. We need it both so 
commerce continues--I know your State, Mr. President, depends on that 
commerce as well--and we need it so our people can be more secure.
  There should be, according to the PATRIOT Act, not just 5,000 men and 
women guarding that border, which there will be in September of 2004, 
but 6,900. That is a shortfall of 27 percent. We will basically have 
only three-quarters of the men and women at the northern border we 
publicly promised to station there.
  That is less than one person per mile of the border.
  The amendment of my good friend from Montana and I--again, from 
completely different States but who share the same problem of a border 
that is guarded better than before but still not well enough--allocates 
$200 million to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for the 
express purpose of adding new personnel to the northern border. We give 
the Department of Homeland Security flexibility to transfer these funds 
to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement if needed to meet 
the PATRIOT Act goals.
  I urge that we support it.
  Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for 
the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not in order at this time.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senators Schumer 
and Baucus increases the funding available for personnel along the 
northern border by $200 million to meet a level of personnel authorized 
by the USA PATRIOT Act.
  This amendment is identical to the portion of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, yesterday on which a point 
of order was made and the motion to waive failed. So the amendment was 
not agreed to.
  I will make the same statements I made yesterday but in a different 
way--it won't be exactly the same--to explain why the funding made 
available in the bill has gone a long way toward achieving the goal. In 
fact, before the end of this fiscal year of 2004, there will be the 
number of agents anticipated and contemplated by the USA PATRIOT Act, 
and they are funded in the legislation that is before the Senate now.
  Since fiscal year 2002, more than 5,000 additional inspectors, 
special acts, and Border Patrol agents have been funded by the 
Congress. The supplemental included $75 million for additional staffing 
for the northern border and maritime ports of entry. It also included 
$25 million to transfer 285 Border Patrol agents to the northern 
border.
  The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection reports that over 4,000 
inspectors have been added since September 11, 2001. Over 1,000 
inspectors have been added to the northern border since 9/11; 613 
Border Patrol agents are assigned to the northern border compared to 
368 before September 11, 2001.
  Commissioner Bonner plans to have 1,000 agents on the northern border 
by October of this year. When the new agents funded in the bill are 
counted, there will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 
2004. This bill includes the maximum number of new border agents that 
can be absorbed in 1 year.
  But for the purpose of our discussion on this specific amendment, I 
am constrained to point out that the amendment provides spending in 
excess of our allocation under the Budget Act and, therefore, I am 
constrained to make a point of order, and do hereby make a point of 
order, under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the 
amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Levin be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back all time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield all of the time available to me 
under the order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 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. COCHRAN. Mr. 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. 1350

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Corzine amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the 2 minutes 
available to me, if the other side will yield back its time. I think 
the amendment has been fully debated. It was simply put in order of 
reservation to protect the Senators who wanted to speak in addition to 
those 20 minutes that were provided to Senator Corzine and 10 minutes 
to me under the order. I have no need of expressing myself again on 
this subject. I yield back the 2 minutes available to me under the 
order.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will reiterate the strong feeling that 
we need to address chemical plant security in this Nation. There has 
not been the attention that is due to the millions and millions of 
Americans who are exposed to the potential for toxic fumes from a 
potential terrorist attack.
  These plants are identified as one of most vulnerable elements by the 
Department of Homeland Security. They are cited in each of the notices 
to move to code orange as requiring the attention of local law 
enforcement and the providers of safety for communities. I think it is 
time for Congress to take action to assess these vulnerabilities on a 
complete basis. I hope we will come back and have some stricter 
requirements that will also deal with it. But that is the first step.
  I appreciate the help of my colleagues and urge support of the 
amendment.

[[Page S9783]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to the Corzine amendment No. 1350. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Crapo
     Domenici
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 43, the nays are 52. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1351

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes evenly divided prior to the vote in relation to the Schumer 
amendment.
  Who yields time? The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will soon yield a minute to my 
colleague from Montana. The amendment is very simple. It brings up what 
we promised in the PATRIOT Act--funding for northern border personnel.
  Right now, we have increased the personnel on the northern border, 
but we have not increased them to a level even close to the level we 
mentioned in the PATRIOT Act. The northern border has become the border 
of choice for those who want to infiltrate into this country and do 
real harm. It makes eminent sense to spend a relatively small amount of 
money--$200 million--to fulfill our promise and bring the Border Patrol 
and others, including Customs, to that border so we can have both 
commerce and security. We can have both if we provide the dollars.
  I yield the remaining time to my friend from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a great amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would exceed by a 
substantial amount the 302(b) allocation, if it were agreed to, that 
the subcommittee had to appropriate. In addition to that, the northern 
border will be fully staffed under the target provided in the USA 
PATRIOT Act with the funding that is already in this bill that has been 
previously appropriated.
  This motion to waive the Budget Act should be rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     Domenici
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45 and the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


               Amendments Nos. 1353 through 1359, En Bloc

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a list of amendments which have been 
cleared by the distinguished Republican manager of the bill, Mr. 
Cochran, and have been cleared on both sides. They are on behalf of 
Senators Bingaman, Dodd, Byrd, Murray, Reid of Nevada, Conrad and 
Dorgan, and Edwards. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en 
bloc, agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table en bloc, and that the amendments appear in the Record as though 
individually considered and adopted.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request of the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the numbers of the 
amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1353 through 1359, en bloc.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1353

         (Purpose: To provide for a study by GAO of the SEVIS)

       On page 46, line 17, insert before the period the 
     following:
       ``Provided further, That not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page S9784]]

     the General Accounting Office shall transmit to Congress a 
     report on the implementation of the Student and Exchange 
     Visitor Information System (SEVIS), including an assessment 
     of the technical problems faced by institutions of higher 
     education using the system, the need for the detailed 
     information collected, and an analysis of corrective action 
     being taken by the Department to resolve problems in SEVIS''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered on behalf of 
the Senator from New Mexico calls upon the General Accounting Office to 
submit a report on the implementation of the Student and Exchange 
Visitor Information System known as SEVIS.


                           amendment no. 1354

  (Purpose: To ensure that there is a robust program of research and 
                    development for the Coast Guard)

       On page 50, line 16, after ``United States:'', insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, funding to operate and maintain 
     the Coast Guard Research and Development Center shall 
     continue at the fiscal year 2003 level: Provided further, 
     That the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall conduct a study, 
     the cost of which is not to exceed $350,000, to be submitted 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, on the research and development 
     priorities of the Coast Guard and a design for a new research 
     and development organizational structure within the Coast 
     Guard that ensures that the Coast Guard has access to the 
     most advanced technology necessary to perform its missions 
     effectively: Provided further, That the Commandant may seek 
     an independent entity to conduct such a study:''.
       On page 67, line 8, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That the Under Secretary 
     for Science and Technology shall work with the Coast Guard 
     Research and Development Center regarding research priorities 
     for the Coast Guard: Provided further, That there may be 
     credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation 
     funds received from State and local governments, other public 
     authorities, private sources, and foreign countries, for 
     expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
     evaluation''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered on behalf of 
Senator Dodd does two things:
  One, it ensures that funding to operate and maintain the Coast 
Guard's research and development, R&D, center in Connecticut is funded 
at levels provided in fiscal year 2003, which was $9 million supporting 
a staffing level of 107 employees. The Senate bill, as reported by the 
committee, denied the President's request for Coast Guard R&D and 
instead added $15 million to the Department's science and technology 
account to carry out the Coast Guard's R&D priorities. However, the 
committee intended for the operational costs of the Coast Guard's R&D 
center in fiscal year 2004 to be funded from the Coast Guard's 
operations and expenses budget.
  Two, the amendment directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to 
conduct a study on the R&D priorities for the Coast Guard and to 
examine the existing R&D organizational structure of the Coast Guard. 
The amendment allows up to $350,000 to be spent on such a study.


                           amendment no. 1355

       On page 75, line 5 delete all beginning with ``after'' down 
     through and including ``Act'', and insert: ``the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security has published in the Federal Register the 
     Department's privacy notice for CAPPS II or no later than 60 
     days after enactment of this Act, which is later''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this technical amendment requires the 
General Accounting Office to report to the Committees on Appropriations 
on the privacy protections in the Transportation Security 
Administration's program known as, CAPPS II.
  This report will be delivered either 60 days after the Secretary of 
Homeland Security has published in the Federal Register the 
Department's privacy notice for CAPPS II, or no later than 60 days 
after enactment of this act, whichever is later.


                           amendment no. 1356

         (Purpose: To provide funding for oil spill prevention)

       On page 51, line 24, after the word ``equipment'', insert: 
     ``including $3,500,000 for defense message system 
     implementation and $1,000,000 for oil spill prevention 
     efforts under the Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS) 
     program''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Murray amendment included in the 
manager's package provides $1 million for the Ports and Waterways 
Safety Systems, PAWSS, which is the Coast Guard's program to improve 
waterway safety. The $1 million would continue efforts of the Coast 
Guard to upgrade technology at their Vessel Traffic Systems, VTS, which 
are located at nine U.S. ports.
  The amendment includes an offset of $1 million from the Coast Guard's 
Defense Messaging System Implementation.


                           amendment no. 1357

       On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 616 (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) emergency responders are the first line of defense in 
     protecting our Nation against terrorist attacks;
       (2) the Department of Homeland Security uses population as 
     a factor when allocating grant funding to States and local 
     governments for emergency responders;
       (3) population plays an important role in both formula and 
     discretionary grants, which are administered by the 
     Department of Homeland Security;
       (4) the number of people in any city or State often differs 
     from estimates by the Census Bureau;
       (5) large groups of tourists regularly visit many American 
     cities and states, but are not included in the resident 
     population of these cities and states; and
       (6) the monetary needs of emergency responders are directly 
     related to the amount of people they are responsible to 
     protect.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security should take into account tourist population 
     as a factor when determining resource needs and potential 
     vulnerabilities for the purpose of allocating funds for 
     discretionary and formula grants.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment offered on behalf of Senator 
Reid, expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security should take into account tourist population as a factor when 
determining resource needs and potential vulnerabilities for the 
purpose of allocating funds for discretionary and formula grants.
  It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared by the 
majority and has been adopted.


                           amendment no. 1358

(Purpose: To require the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and 
 Response to review any outstanding claims by the University of North 
  Dakota relating to damages and costs associated with the April 1997 
   flooding in North Dakota and report to Congress on the efforts to 
                          resolve such claims)

       On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 616. Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response shall--
       (1) review the damage survey reports and project worksheets 
     relating to the damages and costs incurred by the University 
     of North Dakota as a result of the April 1997 flooding in 
     North Dakota, which is classified by Emergency Preparedness 
     and Response as DR-1174-ND; and
       (2) submit a report on the efforts of the Directorate of 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response to resolve any 
     outstanding claims by the University of North Dakota relating 
     to the reports described in paragraph (1) to--the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the amendment of Senator Conrad 
and Senator Dorgan. I understand the amendment also has the support of 
the majority.
  The amendment would direct the Under Secretary of emergency 
Preparedness and Response to review and report back to the Homeland 
Security appropriations Subcommittee on efforts to resolve the 
outstanding disaster claims from the University of North Dakota.
  Only $718,675 is in dispute between the University and the Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Directorate related to damages the university 
sustained during the 1997 flood.
  These claims have been pending for 6 years.
  Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan have been working to resolve them, 
but the Department has been less than cooperative.
  I support the efforts of my colleagues to bring this matter to 
closure.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1359

(Purpose: To require a report on the vulnerability of large sports and 
                       entertainment facilities)

       On page 66, line 3, after ``Center'', insert:
       Provided, That no later than 120 days after enactment the 
     Under Secretary of Infrastructure Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection shall submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives on 
     the vulnerability of the 250 largest sports and entertainment 
     facilities (based on seating capacity).''

  Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, this amendment will require that no later 
than 120

[[Page S9785]]

days after enactment of this bill the Under Secretary of Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection will report to the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees on the vulnerability of our Nation's 
largest sports and entertainment facilities.


                        high-threat urban areas

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I express my support for the allocation 
of funds from the discretionary grants program to high-threat urban 
areas, including the city of Atlanta. Atlanta was not recognized by the 
Department of Homeland Security as a high-threat urban area in the 
department's last round of funding grants based on the department's 
grant criteria.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, if my colleague from Georgia would yield 
for a moment, Atlanta is the largest city in the south, with one of the 
busiest airports in the country, as well as being home to the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention. Therefore, I find it shocking that 
Atlanta was not considered a high-threat urban area.
  Mr. BAYH. I have been listening with great interest to my friends 
from the State of Georgia discuss their concerns with the high-threat 
urban grant program. I, too, was surprised to hear that a city as large 
as Atlanta did not receive any of these funds. I would ask my 
distinguished colleague from the State of Georgia if he was aware that 
Indianapolis, or any other city in the State of Indiana for that 
matter, did not receive any funds from the high density, high-threat 
urban areas grant program.
  Mr. MILLER. I was unaware that Indianapolis did not receive funds 
under this vitally important program. As both Senators realize, it is 
essential that all our large cities obtain adequate funding for 
homeland security. It seems remarkable that two cities with such a 
large quantity of critical infrastructure did not receive any funds 
under the program.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I was disappointed to learn that not one 
city in my home state received any of the $700 million allocated in the 
fiscal year 2003 Supplemental for high-threat urban areas. After all, 
Indianapolis is the 12th largest city in the United States and hosts 
two of the three largest sporting events in the world each year. Every 
year, over one million race fans visit the great State of Indiana to 
attend the Indianapolis 500, the Brickyard 400 and the U.S. Grand Prix. 
I believe it is imperative that Indianapolis receive funds through the 
high-threat urban areas grant program to ensure a sufficient level of 
security is provided to all Hoosiers in central Indiana. I thank my 
distinguished colleagues from Georgia for their attention to this 
matter.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank my distinguished colleagues from Georgia and 
Indiana for their questions and concerns pertaining to this matter. In 
response to my colleague from Georgia; not only is it true that Atlanta 
is the largest city in the South, with the busiest airport in the 
nation as defined by the largest volume of air carriers in the industry 
and home of the CDC and the U.S. Army Forces Command headquarters, it 
is also true that Georgia is the tenth largest state in the nation 
based on population and plays host to numerous high profile events. It 
is extremely important to Atlanta and the state of Georgia that Atlanta 
receive adequate consideration for funding from the DHS via the high-
threat urban area grant program in the future to better ensure a secure 
city of Atlanta and the state of Georgia. I thank my distinguished 
colleagues from Georgia and Indiana.


                           emergency warnings

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I applaud the Appropriations Committee's 
efforts to improve our public warning system in the event of a 
terrorist attack. Right now, we depend almost exclusively on television 
and radio, which most of us wouldn't hear should a disaster occur in 
the middle of the night. I support the Committee's efforts to include 
the full range of communications technologies in our alert system. 
Public warnings save lives, and we must ensure that warnings reach 
every American in times of danger.
  While terrorism warnings are vitally important, we must not forget 
that more than 95 percent of all public warnings deal with weather 
hazards like hurricanes and floods. I am concerned that creating a new 
public warning system to alert Americans in the events of a terrorist 
attack, rather than building upon an existing warnings network, like 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, weather radio, 
could further confuse and frustrate the public.
  During consideration of the supplemental earlier this year, the 
Senate passed an amendment I introduced to incorporate terrorism 
warnings and updated technologies within National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, weather radio. The House 
Appropriations Committee Report also includes language about 
incorporating terrorism alerts within NOAA weather radio. I believe 
very strongly that the Senate must also be on record supporting an 
integrated alert system. Such a system must make use of all existing 
communication technologies, including traditional telephones, wireless 
technology, including cellular telephones and pagers, and the Internet. 
This can only be achieved if the Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, representatives of State and 
local govermments, and representatives of the private sector, media, 
and academia are all involved.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Committee supports the creation of a national, all 
hazards warning network, and will work in conference to achieve this 
goal.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank my distinguished colleague for the 
clarification.


                    u.s.-mexico border vulnerability

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators Cochran and Byrd for 
their leadership on this legislation. They have crafted a very good 
bill, which will go a long way toward improving security along our 
Nation's borders.
  For many years now, I have been concerned about the vulnerability of 
the U.S.-Mexico border in my home state of New Mexico. I think a lot of 
people would be surprised to learn that there are still miles of border 
land where there is nothing separating my state from Mexico. To correct 
this problem, I requested and the Appropriations Committee approved 
$967,000 in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the Border Patrol to 
construct vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border in New Mexico.
  The original appropriations are now nearly exhausted and this 
important project will have to come to a halt in the near future if 
more funding is not allocated to this effort. I have been informed by 
the New Mexico Border Authority that an additional 76 miles of vehicle 
barriers need to be constructed at an estimated cost of approximately 
$2.4 million.
  I understand that the bill we are now considering includes $90.3 
million for construction for the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection. Is it the expectation of the chairman and ranking member 
that the funds in this account could be used for continuing the 
construction of additional barriers?
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is my expectation.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur that this funding could be used as the Senator 
from New Mexico describes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me also ask whether it is the opinion of the 
chairman and ranking member that this project is worthwhile and that 
the Department of Homeland Security should be encouraged to continue it 
in fiscal year 2004?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Let me assure the Senator from New Mexico that I 
recognize the need for continuation of this project in his State, and 
that the funding provided to the Department of Homeland Security by 
this bill would be available for this purpose.
  Mr. BYRD. I also agree that the Department of Homeland Security 
should continue the efforts that have been initiated by the Senator 
from New Mexico. There are serious needs that ought to be met along the 
border in his State, and it is my belief that the Department should 
continue to construct vehicle barriers using the funding we have 
provided in this bill.


         National infrastructure simulation and analysis center

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I engage the distinguished Senator from

[[Page S9786]]

Mississippi and chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a discussion about the National Infrastructure 
Simulation and Analysis Center--or NISAC--and its importance to the 
overall mission of the Department of Homeland Security.
  I understand the desire of the chairman to give the Department of 
Homeland Security the maximum flexibility to identify potential 
terrorist threats and to appropriately respond to them. However, there 
are ongoing programs that I believe deserve the Senate's support and 
that need to be put in place to assist with this important 
responsibility.
  The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center was 
established in fiscal year 2000 by Department of Energy national 
laboratories at Sandia and Los Alamos in New Mexico to model critical 
infrastructure in the nation to identify vulnerabilities to potential 
terrorist attacks, prepare for such attacks, and to mitigate and 
respond to such attacks if necessary.
  Following the terrible events of September 11, NISAC was specifically 
authorized in the Patriot Act and received appropriations of $20 
million in fiscal year 2002 to continue to implement the program.
  The Patriot Act established NISAC ``to serve as a source of national 
competence to address critical infrastructure protection and continuity 
through support for activities related to counter terrorism, threat 
assessment, and risk mitigation.'' The Act defines the need for this 
modeling and simulation to evaluate ``appropriate mechanisms to ensure 
the stability of these complex and interdependent systems. . . .'' 
NISAC is being designed to understand the full consequences of 
disruptions of the nation's infrastructure, including direct 
consequences, lives lost, property destruction, contamination, 
secondary consequences, economic disruptions and national defense 
threats, and cascading consequences, infrastructure interdependencies 
and regional interdependencies.
  For the current year, fiscal year 2003, $27.5 million has been 
approved for NISAC--$20 million in program funding and $7.5 million for 
a NISAC facility at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. These funds 
were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted this past 
February.
  NISAC has now been transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security. First, I call on the Department of Homeland Security to 
release the fiscal year 2003 funding immediately so the NISAC program 
is not delayed. The Department is sitting on $15 million in program 
funding and $7.5 million for the NISAC facility in New Mexico, and 
Sandia and Los Alamos need these funds to continue to develop NISAC.
  It is my understanding that the President's fiscal year 2004 budget 
request includes $23 million in the Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection Directorate for continued development of 
NISAC, and that the President's request for NISAC funding is approved 
in this bill. May I inquire of the chairman if this is indeed the case?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. Although the 
Department of Homeland Security is newly constituted and its budget 
submission is not completely detailed, I have confirmed with the 
Administration that the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis 
Center, or NISAC, receives $23 million in the budget request for the 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. Those 
funds are approved in the Committee-reported bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for clarification on this point.
  Mr. President, NISAC fills a critical need in our work to secure the 
United States against terrorist attacks. By utilizing the modeling and 
simulation analysis capabilities at the DOE labs, NISAC is providing 
the Department of Homeland Security with science-based information and 
analysis to understand the full consequences of disruptions to the 
Nation's critical infrastructure. NISAC can assess infrastructure 
vulnerabilities, interdependencies, and complexities to help the 
department, industry and other government agencies protect and secure 
critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks.
  NISAC is already at work to help protect the critical infrastructure 
of our Nation against terrorist attack. NISAC has looked at port 
security with specific demonstrations in the Pacific Northwest in 
Seattle and Portland. NISAC has supported the TOPOFF II exercise to 
help evaluate the impact of decisions made during an exercise 
simulating a biological attack. NISAC is being tasked to model critical 
industries and critical links in the nation's transportation network.
  NISAC has developed an initial suite of modeling, simulation and 
analysis capabilities that address urban, regional, and national 
interdependent infrastructures that only the Federal Government has the 
resources to accomplish. This package can be adapted for new issues, 
new regions, and new infrastructures to help secure the Nation against 
future terrorist events.
  Mr. President, I am excited at the work already performed by NISAC, 
and the development that is underway on NISAC to help the Department of 
Homeland Security address potential terrorist threats against the 
Nation's critical infrastructure. I encourage the Department to embrace 
the NISAC program and to fully utilize the talents and expertise of 
Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories who have developed NISAC. 
Would the Chairman join me in that message to the Department of 
Homeland Security?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I join the senior Senator from New Mexico in urging the 
Department of Homeland Security to utilize the National Infrastructure 
Simulation and Analysis Center and to support partnerships with the DOE 
national laboratories in New Mexico. I concur that the Nation's 
critical infrastructure is a potential target for future terrorist 
attack and that the Department must move swiftly to assess the nature 
of those threats and secure our critical infrastructure against such 
attack.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee for his recognition of this 
important component of the Federal homeland security effort.


              national center for disaster decision making

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 
2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I want to bring to the 
Senate's attention a national program operating in my home State of 
Oregon that promises to provide important training for our Nation's 
State and local civilian officials who oversee first responders.
  The National Center for Disaster Decision Making, or NCDDM, is a 
strong partnership of public and private entities seeking to provide 
leaders with the skills necessary to combat terrorism.
  Although Congress and the administration have provided significant 
funds for first responder training, we have not emphasized the 
importance of preparing our State and local leaders who oversee and 
coordinate first responders. When a crisis occurs, the people who 
command first responders will be required to make critical decisions 
that we hope will mitigate loss of life and property. These leaders 
need to have comprehensive training and education that best prepares 
them to respond to any crisis or disaster that may occur in their local 
communities.
  I want to confirm that it is the committee's intent that entities, 
such as the NCDDM, are eligible for funding from the Department of 
Homeland Security now, and that under the fiscal year 2004 Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill, the NCDDM will also be eligible to apply 
for competitive grant funding for ``emerging'' training available from 
the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The senior Senator from Oregon is correct; that is the 
committee's intent.
  Mr. SMITH. I join my distinguished colleague from Oregon in 
applauding the NCDDM program. This program will prepare civic and 
business leaders to face the challenges presented by domestic 
emergencies. NCDDM will enhance the decision-making abilities of first 
responder management, health managers, and appointed and elected 
officials.
  As our Nation continues to fight terrorism, programs like NCDDM will 
be an important component of our homeland security strategy. I thank my 
colleagues--the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee Cochran and Ranking

[[Page S9787]]

Member Byrd for their support of this program and for their 
clarification of the committee's intent in assuring that the NCDDM 
program is eligible for funding today and may apply for competitive 
grant funding under the Office of Domestic Preparedness national 
programs in fiscal year 2004.
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with my colleagues and I encourage the NCDDM to 
apply for the grants under this office. As a training center for those 
who oversee our State and local first responders, this program should 
be in good standing for Office for Domestic Preparedness grant 
programs.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with the senior Senator from West Virginia and 
the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee.


      the multi-state anti-terrorism information exchange program

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I ask Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd are you 
aware of the Multi-State Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange Program, 
or the MATRIX program, which is a powerful new tool used by our law 
enforcement officers to combat terrorism and domestic crime?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I am aware of the MATRIX program and the promise it 
has shown in providing State and local first responders with the 
information they need in their fight against terrorism.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am also aware of this program and understand that, 
for the first time, Florida's local and State law enforcement officials 
have access to an integrated law enforcement database that can provide 
them with the needed law enforcement information.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. We are faced with a changed world following 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It is imperative that our 
Nation's first responders be given the necessary tools they need to 
fight this war. From our Nation's busiest ports and key border 
crossings, to local law enforcement in rural America charged with 
safeguarding critical infrastructure, there is a great and growing need 
for timely and accurate information. That capability is now possible 
with the MATRIX system.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I can attest to the success the MATRIX program 
has had in our home State of Florida. Time is critical in preventing 
acts of terrorism. Our law enforcement officials in Florida tell me 
that, with the advantages of the MATRIX system, they have seen 
significant improvements in cases involving kidnapping, identity theft, 
drug trafficking and terrorism, just to name a few. MATRIX has been a 
resounding success, with the program set to expand to 12 additional 
States in the near future, including Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to remind Senators Cochran and 
Byrd that the MATRIX program has received $10 million in grant funding 
from the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Yes, for the first time, States will be able 
to share information through this integrated database system, providing 
law enforcement officers with the information they need to investigate 
threatened acts of terrorism or domestic crimes. The same results would 
have required many hours to accomplish. Those hours can now be 
compressed, freeing up limited law enforcement resources to focus on 
critical priorities, such as responding to terrorist threats.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Senator Byrd, do you believe that the MATRIX 
system would qualify for continued funding from the Department of 
Homeland Security?
  Mr. BYRD. The committee is aware of the benefits of this program to 
States in winning the war against terrorism. I believe it qualifies for 
continued funding from the Department.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. My colleague from the State of Florida and I 
encourage the Department of Homeland Security to identify additional 
funds for the MATRIX program, as it is clear the existing information 
systems and networks upon which our first responders rely need to be 
upgraded to fight the global war on terror. And I thank the chairman 
and ranking member for their comments.


                          fort gordon, georgia

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
a Homeland Security mission at Ford Gordon. Fort Gordon has been 
recognized as possessing a number of homeland security resources.
  Mr. MILLER. If my colleague from Georgia would yield for a question, 
would you expand on any ongoing training missions in disaster 
preparedness at Fort Gordon at this time and how these missions 
incorporate other agencies?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia for 
his question and concern about this matter. It is true, that training 
missions pertaining to disaster preparedness are currently taking place 
at Fort Gordon. I would also like to point out to my colleague from 
Georgia that numerous other local State and Federal agencies including 
partnerships between the Eisenhower Army Medical Center, the Medical 
College of Georgia, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have 
all played an active role in this training.
  Mr. MILLER. If the Senator from Georgia would yield for another 
question, it is my understanding that implementing a training mission 
at Fort Gordon would greatly contribute to the national security of 
this country. For the benefit of our colleagues, would you expand on 
that point?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senior Senator from Georgia for his 
question. Implementing a training mission at Fort Gordon would provide 
our country with the necessary combination of diverse military and 
civilian assets to better prepare us in the future from any threats to 
our national security. It is extremely important that we establish a 
homeland security mission, and for the record I would like to make it 
known that the committee has noted that this bill makes available $60 
million for a competitive training grant program and I would encourage 
Fort Gordon to put in for an application for these available funds. I 
thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia.


                  corrections to senate report 108-86

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would like to note for the record the 
following corrections to Senate Report 108-86 accompanying H.R. 2555 as 
reported by the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2004.

       On page 5, line 3, the dollar amount should read 
     ``$40,000,000.''
       On page 47, the second paragraph, the description of local 
     government should reflect that the Subcommittee amended the 
     report to include ``borough.''


                             PLAYAS PROJECT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to discuss a very important 
homeland security project being developed in New Mexico.
  Responding to our Nation's need for more sophisticated security, the 
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, NM Tech, and New Mexico 
State University, NMSU, are collaborating to create and operate the 
National Emergency Response Training, Research, and Development Center. 
This center would be located in Playas, NM.
  Playas is a small town in Hidalgo County, NM, that was built in the 
late 1970s by the Phelps Dodge Mining Company to provide housing for 
1,000 workers employed at its nearby copper smelting operation. The 
town includes 259 modern homes and 25 apartment units, a community 
center, restaurant, bank, gas station, post office, fire station, 
medical center and airstrip. It also has recreational facilities 
including a bowling alley, fitness center, rodeo arena, basketball 
courts, tennis courts, and swimming pool. Smelting operations were 
suspended in 1999 and currently the town is almost completely 
uninhabited.
  NM Tech, a member of the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, 
Office for Domestic Preparedness, ODP, National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium, is currently in the process of purchasing Playas. If bought 
using ODP funds and properly developed by New Mexico Tech and then 
transferred to DHS, Playas could become a critical national facility 
for securing our Nation against future terrorist attacks. NM Tech and 
NMSU see it playing two critical roles, as an advanced training 
facility where our Nation's first responders can practice real world 
training scenarios and a place where biological, agricultural and 
environmental terrorism can be studied.
  First, the center will provide standardized emergency operations 
training for our Nation's First Responders. Specifically, it will 
provide advanced

[[Page S9788]]

training for emergency operations personnel, emergency medical 
personnel, and physicians. This training would focus on teaching 
advanced skills that will dramatically increase the technical capacity 
of emergency response organizations to manage incidents involving 
chemical, biological, radiological, explosive, and environmental 
agents. Training participants would also learn how to increase public 
confidence and foster organizational cooperation among local, State, 
Federal, and private sector emergency responders. Relationships 
fostered by this training will help to increase communications among 
local, regional and national emergency response organizations regarding 
mutual aid, information sharing, emergency credentialing, equipment 
interoperability, security clearances, and secure communication 
systems.

  Second, the center will focus on ensuring the biological security of 
our Nation's agricultural assets and natural resources. Playas will 
provide a secure environment where university researchers can work 
collaboratively with private sector companies to study our homeland 
security challenges and develop new tools for fighting terrorist 
activities. The center will allow our researchers to network with other 
scientists throughout the world to develop and maintain constantly 
evolving strategies for dealing with biological security threats or 
breaches. Initially, these research efforts will focus on food supply 
security including crops and livestock, pipeline security, and 
transportation system security.
  New Mexico Tech will be the lead organization for this project and 
will provide the administrative, maintenance, and operations 
infrastructure needed to support this project. New Mexico Tech will 
conduct extensive research and training programs at this location. Its 
research efforts will be coordinated closely with programs currently 
offered on its Socorro campus and will include research initiatives 
regarding dirty bomb detection; suicide bomb detection; and oil and gas 
infrastructure protection. New Mexico Tech's training efforts will 
focus on providing advanced skills training for emergency personnel and 
will build on the first responder training currently offered by the 
university.
  New Mexico State University will focus its efforts on conducting 
research and developing complementary programming that will protect our 
Nation's natural and agricultural resources from biological security 
breaches. Though significant natural biological security breaches have 
occurred in the past decade, current security trends indicate that in 
the near term even greater risks may be associated with breaches 
maliciously perpetrated by terrorist organizations. NMSU's research 
efforts would focus on securing our Nation's agricultural and 
biological environments that would include developing a state-of-the-
art rural border crossing facility with testing and engineering 
facilities. This would include assessing our Nation's agricultural 
security infrastructure, preventative activities, training programs, 
and response protocols.
  The Playas purchase would add significantly to the DHS infrastructure 
arsenal by providing a working town for real world training scenarios 
like those carried out at Hogan's Alley, a mock town used to train 
agents at the FBI's training academy in Quantico, VA. I believe that 
this could prove to be a very useful piece of property for the 
Department of Homeland Security. There are undoubtedly a number of 
possibilities as to potential uses for this land, including an 
infrastructure protection and training center. We all recognize that 
real world training for first responders and anti-terrorist 
organizations within our government will be of vital importance to 
accomplishing our mission. Because the entire necessary infrastructure 
is in place, this town could be used for training personnel charged 
with protecting our homeland. Furthermore, our Nation must be able to 
handle agricultural and biological outbreaks that could significantly 
harm our citizens and crate chaos in our agricultural sector. Playas is 
the perfect location to study and train against these problems.
  I suggest that the Department of Homeland Security work with NM Tech 
to purchase this town. I am certain it could be a great training and 
research asset for the new Department.


                        first responder training

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I express my concern about the Committee 
recommendation for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, which 
is provided $140 million in the Senate version of the FY 2004 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
  I understand the desire of the Committee to give the Department of 
Homeland Security the maximum flexibility to identify threats and 
appropriately respond to them. However, there are ongoing programs that 
I believe deserve the Committee's support and that need to be put in 
place to assist with this important responsibility.
  The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium is one of those 
programs. I believe the consortium needs about double the amount in the 
current bill to meet the need to train our first responders--our 
firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel.
  The National Domestic Preparedness consortium was created with the 
able guidance and support of Senator Gregg following the 1998 Oklahoma 
City bombing tragedy. Senator Gregg has been the leader in the Senate 
in recognizing the potential threat of terrorism and providing 
direction and funding to prepare the nation to respond to this threat 
in his position as Chairman of the Committee, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee.
  The consortium, which includes the New Mexico Institute of Mining and 
Technology as one of its training partners, has the expertise to train 
our first responders in conventional explosives.
  New Mexico Tech alone has trained more than 6,000 first responders at 
its one-week advanced course, and more than 40,000 first responders in 
its general course.
  The other consortium training partners--Texas A&M University, 
Louisiana State University, and the Nevada Test Site--have unique 
facilities and expertise to give our first responders the best 
training, and coordinated training that is so important during an 
emergency situation. The consortium is led by the National Preparedness 
Center at Fort McClellan, AL.
  I firmly believe we need to support the National Domestic 
Preparedness Consortium with the funding needed to fully utilize its 
capacity and to train as quickly as possible the additional thousands 
of first responders who need training in a comprehensive and 
coordinated fashion.
  The $20 million provided to each of the four training partners in the 
consortium is below the $30 million they each received in FY 2001 and 
FY 2002. It is an artificial level developed with the delay in enacting 
the FY 2003 appropriations bills that eventually passed as a 
consolidated bill this past February, nearly five full months into the 
fiscal year.
  I hope as this bill moves forward that we will recognize this 
extremely valuable homeland security asset and will provide 
significantly more funding for the National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium in the final bill so that we can train our first responders 
without delay.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, after discussing the plan for further 
consideration of this bill, we understand there are a few more 
amendments that are going to be offered. We have the expectation we can 
complete action tomorrow on this bill after we consider the amendments 
that remain to be offered.
  I know of no Senators who plan to offer amendments at this time to 
the bill. If there are any Senators who want to offer amendments, I am 
prepared to stay as long as Senators want to discuss their amendments. 
I await the pleasure of the Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________