[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11891-S11897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2555.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have
been in touch with Senator Byrd, who is comanager of this bill, and he
has no objection to proceeding to this conference report. He simply
wants to be able to be heard prior to our scheduling a vote on adoption
of the conference report.
I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2555), making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
and agree to the same, with an amendment, and the Senate
agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on
the part of both Houses.
The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of September 23, 2003.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is my honor and pleasure to present
for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 2555, the
fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. As all Senators
know, this is an historic occasion. Not only is this the first
appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security, but it
is also the first of the 13 fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill
conference reports to be presented to the Senate.
The conference agreement provides total new budget authority for the
new Department of $34.9 billion, including $4.7 billion in advance
appropriations for future fiscal years. Of the amount provided for
fiscal year 2004, $29.4 billion is for discretionary programs. This is
approximately $1 billion more than the level requested by the
President. It is also $890 million more than the Senate-passed bill
level, due to inclusion in the conference report of $890 million in
fiscal year 2004 funding for biodefense countermeasures, so-called
BioShield, as recommended in the House bill and the President's
recently submitted revised budget request.
To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders
to prepare for and respond to possible terrorist
[[Page S11892]]
threats and other emergencies, this conference report provides a total
of $4.037 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness. This
includes $1.7 billion for the State and local formula-based grant
programs; $500 million for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants;
$725 million for high-threat, high-density urban area grants; and $750
million for the firefighter assistance grant program which will remain
a stand-alone program.
The conference report also includes $180 million for emergency
management performance grants which will be managed by the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate.
The conference report includes a total of $4.5 billion for the
Transportation Security Administration. Air cargo security was a
priority of the conference committee, as evidenced by the fact that the
conference report provides $85 million for air cargo security, which is
$55 million higher than the President's request. This funding will
allow the Department to enhance its efforts to identify and prohibit
the transportation of high-risk cargo on passenger aircraft as well as
to advance efforts to research, develop, and procure the most effective
and efficient air cargo inspection and screening systems.
Additionally, $8.6 billion is provided for the defense of our
borders; $9.1 billion for emergency preparedness and response; $6.8
billion for the Coast Guard; and $1.5 billion for research, analysis,
and infrastructure protection.
The conference committee met and completed action on Wednesday of
last week, and the conference report was filed yesterday, September 23.
It was adopted by the House of Representatives earlier this afternoon
by a vote of 417 yeas to 8 nays. Senate passage of this conference
report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 2004
appropriations bill to the President for his signature into law before
October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.
I must acknowledge the assistance and important work by the ranking
member of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Byrd; also the chairman of the House committee, Mr.
Rogers, and the ranking member of the House subcommittee, Mr. Sabo, for
their substantial contributions to the development and writing of this
bill throughout the year.
We began the year with extensive hearings, reviewing the proposals
for the budget of all of the directorates and the individual agencies
that are funded in this bill, which includes the Secret Service, the
Coast Guard and others. A lot of time has been devoted to understanding
the missions and responsibilities of the 22 Federal agencies that were
brought under the jurisdiction of the new Department of Homeland
Security.
We have also worked closely and consulted with the distinguished
Secretary of the Department, Tom Ridge. In my judgment, Secretary Ridge
is doing an excellent job of starting up this new Department,
understanding the importance of the mission, and helping our country
prepare for and prevent terrorist attacks, and prepare for and respond
to natural disasters.
The chairmen and ranking members of the full committees have also
been very helpful in the development of this legislation. We want to
express our appreciation for their good work and their important
assistance.
It is with pleasure and honor that I recommend to the Senate the
adoption of this conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I understand other Senators, including
Senator Byrd, may be speaking on this and will be here in a few
minutes. I thought I would take the opportunity to make some comments
on a specific provision in this conference report.
First, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this very
important appropriations conference report for the new Department of
Homeland Security, and I am pleased that the chairman of this
subcommittee is my colleague from Mississippi. He has shown real
leadership and stamina in getting this done, bringing it to the floor
of the Senate, and holding the line on making sure that what we spend
is what we need, a reasonable amount, and not allowing it to spiral out
of control, which it could have very easily.
He deserves a lot of credit. It went right into conference and
secured an agreement. This is going to be one of the appropriations
bills that gets to the President for his signature early. That is the
way this process should be done, because it is going to be finished
before the beginning of the next fiscal year. There are not many
appropriations bills that are going to do that this year or in most
years.
I do have a concern and am disappointed with a particular provision
in this conference report that affects the FAA reauthorization
conference report. As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, we had
extensive hearings, as I know this appropriations subcommittee did as
well, in developing the legislation that led to the FAA reauthorization
bill. It became very clear early on that one of the major issues that
we had to confront was how to pay for security capital costs at
airports. We have additional needs. There are additional costs. Many of
the airports' lobbies are crowded because they have the new equipment
that has been installed there to scan our luggage. A lot of additional
costs have been heaped on the airports, local authorities, and, as a
matter of fact, the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration.
The majority of the costs they are dealing with in the airports
themselves are associated with modifying the airports to install
explosive detection systems so that the baggage can be fully screened.
Eventually, we will have to move them out of the lobbies because we
have lines in airports now outside the buildings. That equipment is
going to have to be moved.
The estimated cost associated with these modifications ran up to as
much as $5 billion. I must say I gulped when I heard that. I have asked
a lot of questions about just how much is needed and how are we going
to fund it. That was the natural question to come up.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, as we worked aggressively to deal
with tighter security at airports, the TSA was allowed to take $500
million out of the Airport Improvement Program. Those funds are
supposed to go for improving the airports, for aprons, runways,
security fences. But that money was diverted, $500 million of it, out
of the normal AIP program into the security area.
The Transportation Security Administration came before the committee
and said: We are going to need another $500 million, and we are going
to need more and more and more. We made it clear that they could not
take another $500 million bite out of the airport improvement program,
which is what they intend to do. But we do see that we need probably at
least $250 million a year to help airports fund these important
security projects. So we had to also come up with a way to provide that
money.
The way that has been done is a $2.50 security fee that has been
assessed on all airline passengers. The airlines will tell you that the
passengers are not paying that fee. They are just having to absorb it.
Because if they raised ticket prices even a little bit, that would
affect decisions that passengers make to go a different way or go on
some other airline. So they maintain they are having to eat that fee.
Regardless, the actual fee is supposed to be on the passengers.
I have some problems with that, particularly when you look at how
that money is really being paid. It is a tremendous cost that is one of
the issues affecting our airline industry and the ability of airlines
to make a profit and to stay in business.
So I actually considered the idea of eliminating this fee. The other
side of the coin is that we have to come up with some way, if we are
going to provide for these security changes, to pay for them. While I
think everybody has a responsibility to assume some of the cost--the
Federal Government and local governments, perhaps, and airport
authorities--the people themselves are getting additional security. So
we decided to leave the fee in place.
Now, in my view, that is kind of like the highway trust fund. It is a
fee charged for a specific purpose: aviation security. It should be
used for that purpose, and that purpose should include airport
security. For years, the highway trust fund money was held in the trust
to make the deficit look lower than it really was. It was also quite
[[Page S11893]]
often used in ways other than highways and bridges, and it has
continued to change. On the last highway bill, we had a big discussion
about that. The budget people wanted to keep some of that money in the
trust fund to help with the budget numbers; the appropriators didn't
want to mandate that that money be spent, even though we needed
highways and bridges. We came up with a compromise that the Budget
Committee and appropriators could live with, and we spent more money
and built more roads and bridges.
This is how I view a fee being paid for security at the airports. We
said it would go into a fund where it would be earmarked for that
purpose. The Appropriations Committee indicated that that was a problem
for them because they don't like, understandably, that this money is
earmarked in a particular area. They say the Appropriations Committee
will look at that and make those decisions. Therefore, in the Homeland
Security conference report, even though I thought we had worked our
disagreement out, we originally had a fund of $500 million and we went
to $250 million, leaving money that could be used for discretionary
purposes, the appropriators chose to override the authorizing
committee. That is the way it went through the Senate, with Senator
Cochran raising concerns at the time the FAA Reauthorization was on the
floor, but I thought it was with an understanding to allow the process
to move forward.
Now the conference report knocks that provision out--it is kind of
novel because the appropriations conference report knocks out a section
in a bill that has not yet been passed. That was a little unusual, I
thought. But I do think money that is paid by the passengers as a
security fee for purposes such as airport security should be spent for
that purpose, at a level designated by the authorizing committee. It
should not be left to the discretion of the appropriators or anybody
else to spend it at a level they see fit, although they may be spending
the money on justified programs in other aviation areas of the
Transportation Security Administration.
So I am concerned about this. This bill is too important for our
country, it affects too many people, and there are too many things to
be delayed. I would not do that. I wanted to go on record expressing my
disappointment particularly in this section--how it was done--and say
that if we are not going to mandate spending this money for airport
security, it would be my desire to eliminate the fees. That may be
where we will have to go next year. For now, this is a small part of a
very large bill, although I think it is an important one. I had to
raise my concerns and my objections, while not being prepared, of
course, to delay this important legislation.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, is
recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments made by my
good friend and State colleague, who is chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee.
When the FAA bill was on the floor, I offered an amendment to strike
that language, which would have reduced resources available to meet the
Department of Homeland Security requirements for aviation security.
That amendment was adopted without an objection.
Madam President, I would like to briefly explain the order in which
these events occurred and the reason for providing the funding
prohibition that was included in this conference report.
On June 12 the Senate considered H.R. 2115, the Vision 100-Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act reauthorizing Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) activities. The FAA reauthorization bill contained
language that established a new entitlement for the Transportation
Security Administration, an Aviation Security Capital Fund, by
earmarking the first $500 million derived from the aviation security
service fees which are currently available and relied on as an offset
to funding appropriated by Congress for aviation security.
This provision would have directed $500 million used by the
Transportation Security Administration to offset the funds appropriated
by Congress for aviation security. During consideration of the bill, I
offered an amendment with Senator Byrd that would instead ``authorize
to be appropriated to the Fund up to $500 million for each of the
fiscal years 2004 through 2007'' for security improvements at our
Nation's airports.
This amendment was adopted by the Senate without objection. However,
when the FAA reauthorization bill was reported from conference, the
language of that amendment was reversed. The conference agreement
included $250 million in direct spending, not subject to appropriation,
to be taken from the offsetting fee collections. The concerns raised
that the Department of Homeland Security would have to take a cut in
its budget for aviation security to offset this new entitlement were
not taken into consideration.
There is no argument that our nation's airports need the resources to
make structural changes for the safety and security of the traveling
public. We have provided funding to address these needs in this
conference report. We would not have been able to do this without the
inclusion of the provision prohibiting the reduction of offsetting
collections.
I ask unanimous consent at this point that a letter to me from the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on this subject, dated
June 11, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 11, 2003.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration appreciates the
continued support of Congress for improvements in the
security of the Nation's civil aviation system and supports
Senate passage of S. 824, the Aviation Investment and
Revitalization Vision Act (Air-V). However, the
Administration opposes a provision in S. 824 that would
divert fees collected for security activities for purposes
other than the provision of direct security services.
With the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress identified
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the focal point
of the federal government's homeland security efforts, with
the mission of preventing terrorist attacks and reducing the
nation's vulnerability to terrorism. While the Department
welcomes and appreciates the assistance of other agencies in
improving security, any diversion of security fees, such as
that proposed in S. 824, would directly undermine the
Department's ability to fulfill its mission. Air-V would
establish an Aviation Security Capital Fund that is both
outside the control of the Department and funded by diverting
$500 million per year of passenger and air carrier security
fees collected by the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). This would diminish the Department's funding capacity.
As you know, the direct annual costs of operating the
aviation security system are not fully offset by these fees,
and diverting fee revenue for other purposes clearly weakens
the intended financing structure of TSA set forth in the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Diversion of the
fees into a fund outside of DHS undermines the ability of the
Administration to apply these resources to the most pressing
security needs.
The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
to ensure that the version of the bill presented to the
President eliminates this objectionable provision.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the submission of these views for the
consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
Tom Ridge.
Mr. COCHRAN. I think it is important for us to continue to discuss
and consider the appropriate way to deal with these fees and funds that
are used for airport security. I assure my friend from Mississippi that
I want to consider his suggestions and thoughts, and those of his
committee, as we proceed in the administration of these programs. I
want to see that the fees are fair for the airlines, fair for
passengers, that they achieve the results we all want, which are
improved airport security and the security and safety of the traveling
public. I hope we can do that and work out an appropriate way of
handling this issue in the future.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S11894]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it seems to be the ill fortune--the ill
fortune--of the present occupant of the chair to have to find himself
in the chair when I make speeches. It seems that every time I make a
speech, the Senator from Texas is in the chair.
Well, I am glad to see him there. He is a good Presiding Officer. He
is alert to what is going on on the floor. He listens, and he is always
very pleasant, congenial, and I congratulate him, because sitting in
the chair while I speak makes it very difficult for any Senator to
carry on his other necessary activities--the work in his office and
meeting with constituents and so on. So I not only congratulate him, I
also thank him.
Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate finds itself with the first
Homeland Security appropriations conference report before it. I thank
Senate Chairman Thad Cochran, House Chairman Harold Rogers, and the
ranking member on the House Homeland Security Subcommittee,
Representative Martin Sabo, and all of the House and Senate conferees
for their hard work on this important legislation. We all share the
goal of ensuring that the new Homeland Security Department has the
resources it needs to secure the homeland.
The conference report that is before the Senate provides $29.4
billion for discretionary programs for fiscal year 2004 for the new
Department. With the limited resources that were made available under
the budget resolution, the conference agreement is fair and balanced.
And so much of that is due to the fair and balanced approach that the
distinguished chairman here, Senator Thad Cochran, always displays. It
comes as a habit to him. It is just second nature.
This bill provides a $1 billion increase over the President's
request, and it makes a number of significant improvements in the
organization of the Department.
In particular, I am pleased that the conference agreement includes
language that will ensure that the new airline passenger screening
system, known as CAPS II, will not be deployed before February 15,
2004, until the General Accounting Office has had the ability to review
and report on the personal privacy protections, including an appeal
process for individuals who are prevented from flying because the
system has identified them as a security risk.
Funds are included, consistent with the Senate bill, to enhance
border security--none of which were requested by the President--
including funds for an additional 570 Border Patrol agents and funds to
establish a northern border air wing.
Mr. President, $60 million is included to begin the development of an
antimissile device for commercial aircraft.
The conference agreement restates both House and Senate language
regarding full funding of antidumping enforcement provisions as well as
calling on the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to rigorously
enforce trade laws pertaining to steel imports.
The conference agreement is good for disaster-prone States. The bill
contains $200 million for flood map modernization, which is the largest
amount ever appropriated for this account. Further, the bill strikes a
balance between premitigation and postmitigation grants. The bill
contains $150 million for predisaster mitigation grants, so that States
have access to funds that help them to plan for and prevent damage from
disasters.
The bill also continues to fund postdisaster mitigation, which is
made available to States as a percentage of disaster relief money
received from FEMA. The President had proposed to eliminate funding for
postdisaster mitigation.
The conference agreement provides $180 million for emergency
management performance grants. These grants allow States and localities
to develop basic emergency preparedness and response capabilities. This
program is the only Department of Homeland Security grant program that
is focused on all hazards, such as terrorist attacks, floods, and
building collapses. The administration had recommended rolling this
program into the ODP State grants program.
As Hurricane Isabel confirmed, we must make sure that this new
Department of Homeland Security maintains its ability to respond to
natural disasters, while preventing and responding to terrorist
attacks. These are all significant improvements over the program
proposed by the President.
Regrettably, even with these improvements, the conference agreement
leaves significant gaps in the security of our homeland. After 9/11,
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, the Maritime Transportation Security
Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the Enhanced
Border Security Act. The President signed these measures with great
fanfare, but the President has done little to fulfill the promise of
those laws.
The inadequate allocation given to the subcommittee has forced the
conferees to underfund a number of these critical new authorities.
Last Wednesday, I offered an amendment in conference to add $1.25
billion of emergency funding to the bill to secure the homeland by
funding some of the authorities that the President had signed into law
after 9/11 but failed to fund. The amendment included funding for port
security, aviation security, chemical security, first responder grants,
and for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program. The White House opposed and
the Republicans rejected the amendment.
On the same day, last Wednesday, the President sent to Congress a
supplemental request for his war in Iraq that totals $87 billion. No
funding was requested to help secure our homeland. Yet included in his
request was $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, of which $5.1
billion is for homeland security in Iraq.
If my amendment had been approved, the conference report that is
before the Senate would have included $125 million more to hire 1,300
more Customs inspectors on our U.S. borders, $200 million more for
first responder grants to equip and train police and firefighters here
at home, and $100 million for the U.S. Coast Guard to secure our ports.
Instead, next week, the Senate will be considering the President's
request for reconstructing Iraq, including $290 million for Iraqi fire
departments; $150 million for Iraqi border enforcement, including 2,500
customs inspectors; $150 million for an Iraqi ``911'' emergency system;
$499 million for Iraqi prisons; and $82 million for an Iraqi coast
guard.
I continue to maintain that the Senate should take some time to
review the President's supplemental request for the cost of the war in
Iraq. We should hold further hearings in the Senate Appropriations
Committee. We should hear from outside witnesses, not just
administration witnesses. The Senate should not act as a rubberstamp
for any President. I find it more than ironic that the Bush
administration would oppose homeland security protections for American
citizens but ask Congress to express dollars to Iraq for security
efforts there.
With regard to the Homeland Security conference report that is before
us, I again thank Chairman Cochran and his staff for their hard work in
producing the first Homeland Security appropriations conference report.
I also thank my own staff in this regard, and I thank all of the
subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs as
well. While this conference report does not include sufficient
resources to fund many of the new homeland security programs that this
Congress authorized in response to the attacks of 9/11, it is a
significant improvement over the President's request. I support its
adoption.
The chairman would have done more if he had had more funds with which
to do it. I again thank him for his many courtesies. I thank the floor
staff and the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia for his kind words, his compliments to me and the members
of our staff. He also devoted a great deal of personal attention and
effort to the development of this legislation, and his experience and
good judgment have been invaluable in the presentation of this
conference report to the Senate today.
[[Page S11895]]
I know of no other Senators who are seeking to speak on the
conference report at this time. Not wanting to leave anyone out of the
debate who wants to join in, 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.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Homeland Security
appropriations conference report today because this funding is vital to
our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us. I
am disappointed that the conference committee rejected additional
funding for first responders, port security grants, aviation security,
additional Customs inspectors at our borders and other protective
measures. At a time when homeland security should be a top priority, we
should not be underfunding these programs.
In addition to inadequate funding, the grant formula that is used to
distribute funding under the Office of Domestic Preparedness State
Homeland Security Grant Program is inequitable and needs to be changed.
This program distributes funds using a minimum State funding formula
that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of the funds to be divided
equally among the States, regardless of need. Many Federal grant
programs provide a minimum State funding level to ensure funds reach
all areas of the country. But the State minimum formula in this
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which is taken
from the USA Patriot Act and sets aside 0.75 percent of the total funds
as a base for each State, is unusually high and therefore inequitable.
I will continue to work to change this formula so that funding is
allocated in an equitable and reasonable manner.
I am also disappointed that this bill does not sufficiently address a
problem known as ``corporate inversions.'' As young men and women are
putting their lives on the line for us and our country, some
corporations have put profits before patriotism by pretending to
reincorporate in Bermuda or some other offshore tax haven to avoid
paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. This process is called corporate
inversion. It is unfair, it is founded on a deception, it mistreats the
average American taxpayer, and it undercuts U.S. corporations that do
pay their taxes. A company simply set up a shell headquarters in a tax
haven, while all the benefits of living in America remain, all the
benefits we would hope to provide in this bill--for instance,
protection, homeland security, police, fire, port security. They take
advantage of all the other services which are provided to these
particular corporations. But because a shell headquarters has been
opened up for a few of these corporations in Bermuda, they have avoided
paying taxes.
I am disappointed that the conferees chose to allow a special benefit
to these unpatriotic companies to continue to exist. Back in July, when
this body debated the bill before us, the Senate adopted the amendment
I offered with Senator Reid that disqualified these unpatriotic
companies from competing for homeland security contracts.
Unfortunately, the conference committee dropped this amendment from the
bill, so those who have engaged in these so-called inversion
transactions in past years can still enter into homeland security
contracts.
They continue to use our roads and our law enforcement, our education
system. They use our free-trade laws. But then they avoid paying taxes
by opening up a post office box and a computer in a tax haven.
Inversions are unfair to the taxpayers who are left holding the bag
and unfair to the U.S. companies that are doing the right thing by not
inverting but who nevertheless are at a competitive disadvantage
because of these sham moves. Those that engaged in these specious
inversion transaction in past years can still enter into homeland
security contracts--the current prohibition in the law only applies to
future inverters, not those that did so previously. The competitive
advantage these inverters enjoy vis-a-vis every other U.S. company,
therefore remains undisturbed.
Senator Reid and I, along with other of our colleagues, have
introduced a bill that would deny tax benefits to U.S. companies that
invert by continuing to treat them as U.S. companies for tax purposes.
This bill would not only level the playing field between these
companies and their U.S. competitors, it would also save other U.S.
taxpayers from having to make up an estimated $4.9 billion in lost tax
revenues over the next 10 years.
I hope that we will soon have an opportunity to act on this
legislation in order to address this problem.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2004.
I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member. They and
their staffs need to be congratulated on successfully reporting and
conferencing the very first Homeland Security appropriations bill.
The pending bill provides $30.2 billion in total budget authority and
$31.0 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. The Senate bill is
$1.4 billion in BA and outlays above the President's budget request.
The pending bill funds the program of the Department of Homeland
Security, including the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard,
the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Secret Service,
the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and several other offices and
activities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2555, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS, 2004: SPENDING
COMPARISONS: CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal year 2004, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
Budget authority.................. 29,411 831 30,242
Outlays........................... 30,110 847 30,957
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority.................. 28,521 831 29,352
Outlays........................... 29,737 847 30,584
2003 level:
Budget authority.................. 28,269 889 29,158
Outlays........................... 27,558 818 28,376
President's request:
Budget authority.................. 28,004 831 28,835
Outlays........................... 28,581 847 29,428
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.................. 29,411 831 30,242
Outlays........................... 30,500 847 31,347
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority.................. 28,521 831 29,352
Outlays........................... 29,737 847 30,584
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO--
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority.................. 890 .......... 890
Outlays........................... 373 .......... 373
2003 level:
Budget authority.................. 1,142 (58) 1,084
Outlays........................... 2,552 29 2,581
President's request:
Budget authority.................. 1,407 .......... 1,407
Outlays........................... 1,529 .......... 1,529
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.................. .......... .......... ..........
Outlays........................... (390) .......... (390)
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority.................. 890 .......... 890
Outlays........................... 373 .......... 373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 9/24/2003.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference agreement on the fiscal
year 2004 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security
includes funding for the Project Bioshield proposal, a $5.6-billion
initiative proposed in the President's 2004 budget to develop and
purchase countermeasures to combat public health threats.
The appropriation itself is very unusual, providing 10 years' worth
of discretionary program funding all at once, with $890 million for
2004 and essentially a gigantic $4.7 billion ``advance'' appropriation
to cover the next 9 years. Further, this funding is being provided
without authorization, since that bill, S. 15, has been blocked from
consideration in the Senate by a small minority of Senators.
I am very concerned about appropriating this much money for any
purpose without a proper authorization. I am equally concerned about
protecting the integrity of the budget due to the proposal's
unconventional use of advance appropriations authority. It is rare to
provide 10 years' worth of appropriations to a program in one fell
swoop, and it opens the door to future ``piggy-banking'' or redirection
of those funds.
[[Page S11896]]
My colleagues may remember that Congress decided in the 2001 budget
resolution to begin limiting the use of advance appropriations since
they had become a way to avoid annual spending limits. The potential to
abuse advance appropriations for scoring purposes was never more
clearly illustrated that with the recent consideration of the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill in the Senate, as amendment after amendment altered
the timing of advance appropriations and claimed it as an ``offset.''
Since the potential for redirecting, rescinding, delaying, or
accelerating the $4.7 billion Bioshield advance appropriation presents
too great a temptation, the HELP Committee Chairman Judd Gregg is
working with me to prevent these abuses by creating a new scorekeeping
rule to protect the unique purpose of this funding. The rule would
ensure that any funding for Bioshield will be spent on that program, or
not spent at all, by providing that any legislation changing the
availability of the funds will not be scored for purposes of budget
enforcement. However, until the authorization bill including our
protections is enacted, the budget remains at risk.
Since the President originally requested that Bioshield be a
mandatory spending program, the 2004 budget resolution did not provide
for its consideration as a discretionary spending program. Thus, my
colleagues should be aware that its inclusion in this bill subjects the
entire bill to a 60-vote point of order.
I plan to take whatever steps are necessary this year, and in next
year's budget resolution, to ensure that this program is properly
authorized and that the integrity of the budget is protected. I look
forward to working with our leader and my fellow committee chairmen in
this regard.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the primary purposes of the Department of
Homeland Security, DHS, are to prevent terrorist attacks within the
United States; to reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism; and, to
minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur. The
fledgling agency has begun to address many of the challenges presented
it, including the monumental restructuring of 22 domestic Federal
agencies. The Appropriation Committee's role is to provide the DHS the
funds necessary to continue to carry out its important missions. I am
pleased that, in this first homeland security appropriations bill, the
agency's priorities were, for the most part, placed above the special
interests'.
The conference report and the accompanying Statement of Managers is
relatively free of objectionable provisions. There are, however, a
couple of provisions that merit the attention of my colleagues.
One such provision would prohibit any funds from being used to
implement section 44922(h) of title 49. Interestingly, there is no such
section under existing law.
So why have the appropriators taken action to prohibit the
implementation of a provision of law that doesn't exist? Well, the FAA
reauthorization conference report, which has yet to be voted on by the
full Senate, includes such a section that we expect will become law as
soon as we can take final action on the bill and send it to the
President for his signature.
The FAA reauthorization conference report provision would provide
$250 million per year to airports for capital costs associated with
security at our Nation's airports. We received testimony during our
many oversight hearings on aviation security that such costs could
total almost $5 billion. Therefore, the FAA conference report
appropriately provides funding for such costs.
Do the appropriators disagree that such funding is needed? Apparently
not, since the DHS conference report actually contains on appropriation
of $250 million--exactly the same amount as the FAA bill--for such
costs. So what is behind the appropriators' actions?
Given that the DHS conference report doesn't provide an explanation,
one can only conclude they want to ensure complete and total control,
as usual, even if it means taking action to nullify a provision not in
their jurisdiction and that has not even been enacted.
The funding under the FAA conference report is taken from the revenue
collected by the $2.50 security fee imposed on all airline passengers.
That fee was first established by legislation originating in the
Commerce Committee after the September 11 attacks. The legislation also
specified that the revenue could be used by the appropriators to help
pay for the costs of aviation security.
The FAA conference report simply expands the uses of the fee revenue
to include capital security costs at airports. The report also makes
the money available directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security
without further appropriation.
Our Nation's security, including the very important issue of aviation
security, which the Congress has spent considerable time and attention
addressing, should not be jeopardized due to needless jurisdictional
fights. It is unfortunate that such a provision was included in such an
important funding bill without any consultation with the authorizing
committee of jurisdiction. I would hope we could do better for the sake
of our Nation's security interests.
In addition, I am concerned about a provision in the conference
report that would transfer funding for the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant program from the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate to the Office for Domestic
Preparedness.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program is a highly successful
Federal program created to meet the basic day-to-day needs of our
Nation's firefighters. The program uses a competitive, merit-based
review process to distribute funds directly to fire departments
demonstrating the greatest need. Grants under this program are used for
improving local response to ``all-hazards,'' including wildfires,
hazardous materials accidents, tornadoes, floods, and structural fires,
and are not solely for antiterrorism efforts.
I am greatly concerned about the effects of this transfer on the
program. ODP has little experience at running merit-based programs,
such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. ODP is focused on
counterterrorism, and may not have the experience necessary to
understand the basic requirements of today's firefighter to deal with
non-terrorism related disasters.
I understand that the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget
submission seeks to transfer this grant program to ODP. However,
changes to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program should be made
after a thorough review and subsequent legislative changes by the
appropriate authorizing committees, not as a provision in an
appropriations bill.
Compared to other appropriations measures, the conference report and
Statement of Managers contain fewer objectionable provisions and
earmarks. I would hope future appropriations measures follow suit.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no other Senators who wish to
speak on the adoption of the conference report on the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. We are prepared to proceed to a vote on the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has acted
favorably on this conference report. Before we leave the subject, I
have to express my appreciation to the members of the staff of our
subcommittee in the Senate on our side of the aisle who worked so hard
to make this conference report a reality. This was breaking new ground;
there is no precedent for this bill. This is a historic event and a lot
of hard work went into writing the bill and guiding it to passage on
the floor of the Senate and then working out our differences with the
other body.
I am pleased that the Senate has unanimously adopted the conference
report. I especially want to express my
[[Page S11897]]
appreciation to Rebecca Davies, chief clerk of the subcommittee, and to
the other staff members who assisted her in the hard work that was done
in furtherance of our efforts to get a bill, including Les Spivey,
Rachelle Schroeder, Carol Cribbs, James Hayes, and Josh Manley. They
all deserve our thanks and congratulations for a job well done.
____________________