Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3568-S3588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BOND (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2269. A bill to improve environmental enforcement and security; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and
colleague Senator Mikulski to introduce today the Environmental
Enforcement and Security Act (EESA) of 2004. This bill will increase
substantially enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws, increase
environmentally related homeland security, and further protect our
Nation's water supply from terrorist attack.
Our families and environment deserve communities free from
intentional violators of environmental laws and terrorists who would
attack our drinking water supplies.
With this dramatic new commitment to environmental enforcement and
drinking water security, we will tell those who would intentionally
harm us that we are coming after them.
The environment and health of our communities need vigorous
prosecution of intentional violations of our Nation's environmental
laws. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Criminal
Enforcement program investigates the most significant and egregious
violators of environmental laws that pose a significant threat to human
health and the environment. However, the number of EPA Criminal
Enforcement Special Agents has remained constant for the last several
years.
In addition, in our post-9/11 world, EPA Special Agents are needed
for homeland security duties to detect, investigate and respond to
terrorist threats involving chemical or biological hazards.
EPA Special Agents support the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. EPA
Special Agents are members of FBI Counter-Terrorism Response Teams and
Evidence Response Teams.
However, with this new post-9/11 need to respond to the threat of
terrorism, some are concerned that environmental violations may not be
receiving the attention they deserve. A recent report by the EPA
Inspector General, an internal review by the EPA Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program, and various media accounts tell how EPA
needs more resources to meet both its environmental and homeland
security duties.
Our bill responds to these calls with a dramatic new commitment to
EPA's enforcement program. My bill will put 50 new EPA Criminal
Enforcement Special Agents on the environmental beat. EESA will also
provide for 80 Special Agents to support homeland security duties.
With our bill, we will no longer need to make a choice between
protecting our homeland and protecting our environment.
With out bill, those who would intentionally hurt our families and
communities through environmental harm will know that we are sending
the manpower and resources needed to come after them.
We are also sending local communities new funding to protect our
drinking water supplies. Every family and every business needs clean
and safe drinking water. Every mother needs to know that when she turns
on the tap in her kitchen sink, clean and safe water will come out.
That is why our bill devotes $100 million for additional drinking
water security protections. EESA will send grant funds directly to
water systems to protect against terrorist attack with fencing,
intruder detection, access control and water monitoring. The need is
great, but the federal government will attempt to do its share.

[[Page S3569]]

Our bill will also enhance EPA's ability to protect the environment
and human health in several other ways. EESA will double the number of
enforcement trainers and triple EPA's enforcement training budget. EESA
funds will train Federal, State and local inspectors, law enforcement
agents and prosecutors with the training they need to pursue
environmental violations.
Our bill will also improve the environment by doubling compliance
assistance funds to fill gaps in enforcement coverage, reach regulated
facilities not visited by inspectors, and help the regulated community,
especially small businesses, to understand EPA's complex and extensive
regulatory requirements.
Our bill will also make EPA's enforcement actions more efficient and
targeted by fully funding a strategic enforcement targeting program.
EESA will enhance EPA's ability to target its enforcement actions to
where the environment needs them most. Strategic targeting will also
improve EPA's ability to identify and respond to increased
noncompliance with environmental laws.
Our Nation's environmental laws exist to protect our families, our
communities and our natural resources. Those who would intentionally
violate our environmental laws deserve the full force of the government
to stop them.
Our families and communities also deserve our most vigorous efforts
to protect them from the specter of terror. Chemical and biological
threats represent one of the most sinister means for men to terrorize
each other.
We will send our homeland security agencies the environmental
expertise and personnel they need to confront these threats.
We will also send our local communities new help for additional
drinking water security protections.
Our environment deserves no less, our families deserve no less. I
urge my colleagues to support passage and funding of the Environmental
Enforcement and Security Act of 2004.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Specter, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Coleman):
S. 2270. A bill to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and
exporting cartels illegal; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this afternoon about a bill
that my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold,
Senator Specter, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, Senator Coleman, and I
are introducing, which is called the No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels Act of 2004. We are introducing this bill to address the
longstanding problem of foreign governments acting in the commercial
arena to fix, allocate, and establish production and price levels of
petroleum products.
Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached
record highs over the last couple of weeks. The national average has
reached a new record high for self-serve unleaded gas. That is
approximately $1.80 per gallon. But over the last week in my home State
of Ohio gas prices have been even higher. In Marietta, gas was $1.84;
in Cleveland, $1.86; in Columbus, it topped out at $1.88 in some
stations. Many analysts predict that prices could get as high as $2 per
gallon, or higher, by the summer.
This is of particular interest to me because Ohio and the Midwestern
States always seem to be hit especially hard by gas prices spikes.
These spikes are acutely painful to persons who commute long distances
and to those who live on fixed incomes such as the elderly.
What is the cause? Certainly there are many causes, but as we might
expect, there are a number of factors at play. But there is surprising
agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas
prices and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices.
We also know the biggest factor in setting crude oil prices is OPEC.
The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of
collusive agreements among OPEC nations to maintain the price of oil.
Despite the fact that gasoline prices are going through the roof,
OPEC members met yesterday in Austria and decided to cut the output of
oil even further. We have been through this process more than enough to
know what that means for the American consumer. When demand is high and
supplies are cut, that obviously means higher prices. That is exactly
what OPEC did to us yesterday. It ripped off American consumers by
raising gas prices even more.
this is an outrage. In fact, OPEC is probably the most notorious
example of an illegal cartel in the world today, even at a time when it
is widely understood that such conduct is counterproductive and ill-
suited for our global economy. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in a recent
case described collusion among competitors as ``the supreme evil of
antitrust.'' Nation after nation has adopted antitrust enforcement
principles that recognize the illegality of price fixing and output
restrictions among competitors. In 1998, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, then composed of twenty-nine member
nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's
continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international
antitrust principles, should not be tolerated.

Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received special treatment
under U.S. antitrust laws--despite the fact that oil is a commodity
that touches the lives of nearly every American consumer. It is time
that we take steps to assure that oil is subject to the principles of
the free market. The bill that we are introducing today would do just
that and help in the fight to lower gas prices.
Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill twice before--in 2000
and 2001. It is an idea whose time has come. The purpose of our NOPEC
bill is simple--it would treat OPEC like any other cartel. If OPEC were
a group of private companies colluding on prices, the executives could
be prosecuted and sent to jail, and the firms would pay millions of
dollars in fines or maybe even billions in fines. Unfortunately,
however, for years enforcement has been constrained by two related
court opinions.
In 1979, a Federal District Court found that OPEC's price-setting
decisions were ``governmental'' acts and accordingly that they were
given sovereignty status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal Court of Appeals
declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so-
called ``act of state'' doctrine.
NOPEC would effectively reverse these decisions by making it clear
that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that
the Federal courts should not decline to hear such a case based on the
``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring a legal antitrust
enforcement action against foreign states engaging in the restraint of
trade regarding oil and other petroleum products. Simply put, NOPEC
assures that our U.S. antitrust agencies have jurisdiction and
authority to bring such cases.
We don't intend to give up the fight for lower gasoline prices.
Today, I want the members of OPEC to hear a message loud and clear--we
won't quit fighting for American consumers. When OPEC wants to do
business with America, it must abide by our antitrust laws.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2270

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``No Oil Producing and
Exporting Cartels Act of 2004 '' or ``NOPEC''.

SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT.

The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding
after section 7 the following:

``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of
this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or
agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in
combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality
or agent of any other foreign state, or

[[Page S3570]]

any other person, whether by cartel or any other association
or form of cooperation or joint action--
``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil,
natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or
any petroleum product; or
``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade
for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

when such action, combination, or collective action has a
direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the
market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas,
or other petroleum product in the United States.
``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in
conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the
jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States
in any action brought to enforce this section.
``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court
of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state
doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action
brought under this section.
``(d) Enforcement.--The Attorney General of the United
States and the Federal Trade Commission may bring an action
to enforce this section in any district court of the United
States as provided under the antitrust laws.''.

SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) in which the action is brought under section 7A of
the Sherman Act.''.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in recent weeks, consumers all across the
Nation have watched gas prices rise, seemingly without any end in
sight. On March 24, U.S. gasoline prices reached a record high average
of $ 1.74 a gallon. And, if consumers weren't paying enough already,
just yesterday the OPEC nations decided to cut production by a million
barrels a day, an action sure to drive prices even higher. Such
blatantly anti-competitive action by the oil cartel violates the most
basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be
tolerated. It is for this reason that I rise today, with my colleagues
Senators DeWine, Specter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Coleman and
Grassley, to reintroduce the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels
Act'' ( ``NOPEC"). This legislation is identical to our NOPEC bill
introduced in the last two Congresses, a bill which passed the
Judiciary Committee unanimously in 2000.
Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because
of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices are a silent tax that takes hard-
earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump.
Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming
thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to
aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of
higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher
heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a
Midwest winter or a deep South summer can tell you about the tremendous
personal costs associated with higher home heating or cooling bills.
We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices.
Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame
disruptions in supply. Others point to the EPA requirement mandating
use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the
Midwest or other ``boutique'' fuels around the country. Some even claim
that refiners and distributors have illegally fixed prices. On this
issue, Senator DeWine and I have asked the Federal Trade Commission to
investigate these allegations. As a result of our inquiries, the FTC
has put a task force in place to find out if those allegations were
true. While we continue to urge the FTC to be vigilant, the FTC has to
date found no evidence of illegal domestic price fixing as a cause of
higher gas prices.
But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price
fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has
unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed
of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in
government has yet tried to take any action. NOPEC will, for the first
time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil
producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set
prices, they are violating U.S. law. It will authorize the Attorney
General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our
bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind
the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape
the reach of American justice.
The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors
cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can
be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any
nation to flout this fundamental principle.
Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not
work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our
NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our authorities to
take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of
the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on
nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of
consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S.
government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle
of price increases.
There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law
overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with
clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American
consumers. A few years ago, for example, the Justice Department secured
record fines totaling $725 million against German and Swiss companies
engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of
vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Their behavior harmed
consumers by raising the prices consumers paid for vitamins every day
and plainly needed to be addressed. As this and other cases show, the
mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to
shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic
behavior.
Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the
international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law
if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of
international private companies rather than foreign governments, their
actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But
OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape
accountability for their price-fixing. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of
nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to
imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil
for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will correct one
erroneous twenty-year-old lower federal court decision and establish
that sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from
jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel
are violating antitrust law.
In the last few weeks, I have grown more certain than ever that this
legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's decision yesterday to cut oil
production and the FTC's conclusion for the last several years that
there is no illegal conduct by domestic companies responsible for
rising gas prices, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take
action now, before the damage spreads too far.
For these reasons, I urge that my colleagues support this bill so
that our nation will finally have an effective means to combat this
selfish conspiracy of oil-rich nations.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Corzine, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2271. A bill to establish national standards for discharges from
cruise vessels into the waters of the United States, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Cruise
Ship Act of 2004. I am proud to be joined by Senators Lautenberg,
Corzine, Feinstein, Kennedy and Boxer in offering this legislation. I
also am honored to be working with Congressman Farr, who is leading
companion legislation

[[Page S3571]]

in the House and is a co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus.
America's oceans span nearly 4.5 million square miles, an area 23
percent larger than the nation's land area. They are a resource for
travel, commerce, recreation and the global ecosystem. They comprise 70
percent of our planet.
We cannot continue to take this vast resource for granted. The Pew
Commission found in June 2003 that our oceans are in crisis. The report
cites five priorities: implementing a sustainable national ocean
policy; coordinating the governance of ocean resources; reorienting our
fisheries policy to emphasize sustainability; protecting ocean habitat
and managing coastal development; and controlling the sources of
pollution threatening our marine ecosystems. Today I want to
concentrate on the fifth priority: controlling pollution.
With growing amounts of pollution caused by human activity, we are
significantly degrading the marine environment. According to the EPA,
pollution has rendered 44 percent of tested estuaries and 12 percent of
ocean shoreline miles unfit for swimming, fishing or supporting aquatic
life. The Coast Guard estimates that marine debris is responsible for
the deaths of more than 1 million birds and 100,000 marine mammals each
year. About 90 percent of Florida's coral reefs are believed to be dead
or dying.
We have taken some actions to protect our oceans, but we still have a
long way to go. We need to improve enforcement of our existing
environmental protection laws, but we also need to update them to
accommodate for the changing times.
Specifically, we need to address pollution from passenger cruise
ships. The cruise line industry has grown significantly over the past
34 years. In 1970, cruise ships carried 500,000 passengers in the
United States. In 2002, the cruise line industry carried 6.5 million
passengers in about 150 ships in the United States, and that number has
continued to grow.
In addition to a tremendous increase in the number of passengers,
cruise ships themselves have grown. Today the average cruise vessel
accommodates 3,100 passengers and crew. Carnival recently built the
largest passenger ship in the world, the Queen Mary 2: it's 1,132 feet
long, which is more than twice as long as the Washington Monument is
tall; it is 236 feet high, about the height of a 23-story building; and
it weights about 151,400 long tons, the rough equivalent of 390 fully
loaded 747 jets.
According to the EPA, a typical 3,000 passenger cruise ship each week
generates 210,000 gallons of sewage; 1 million gallons of gray water,
including runoff from baths, laundry machines and dishwashers; and
37,000 gallons of oily bilge water. Ships of the size of cruise vessels
today, which generate the amount of waste of today, did not exist when
the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws were written in the
1970s. Therefore, our laws regarding cruise ships are grossly
inadequate.
My colleagues may be shocked to learn that it is legal to dump raw
sewage 3 miles from shore; and it is legal to dump sewage within 3
miles so long as it is run through a machine, which complies with a
standard that is over 20 years old and which is never rigorously tested
once installed. Also it is legal to dump gray water--which can contain
harmful toxins and nutrients--anywhere in the ocean. Only Alaskan
waters are protected by strong federal legislation enacted in 2000 that
regulates sewage and graywater.
The legislation I am introducing today,the Clean Cruise Ship Act of
2004, would draw from key provisions of the federal law in place in
Alaska and the Clean Water Act. This bill would: first, create a no
discharge zone that would prevent dumping of sewage, graywater and oily
bilge water within 12 miles of shore--to protect our coasts and
estuaries; second, apply the current Alaskan standards to sewage and
graywater discharges outside of 12 miles from shore; third, allow the
Coast Guard and EPA to jointly issue discharge requirements based on
the best available technology, with the goal of zero pollutants by
2015; and finally, strengthen enforcement.
Studies show that the Alaskan standards, which our bills applies to
the rest of the country, can be achieved. Indeed, ships that have been
upgraded to treat sewage and graywater with modern technology are
easily meeting or exceeding standards for such constituents as fecal
coliform and chlorine.
Not only is this bill technologically feasible: it is affordable. The
cost to upgrade each ship will be more than $3 million. To put this
into context, Carnival Cruise Lines just spent $800 million to build
the new Queen Mary 2, and earned $6.7 billion in revenues last year.,
The Clean Cruise Ship Act of 2004 is a reasonable approach to an
urgent problem. I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 2272. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
expand the pediatric vaccine distribution program to include coverage
for children administered a vaccine at a public health clinic or Indian
clinic, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in conjunction with Senator Smith, I am
introducing the ``Children's Vaccine Access Act of 2004.'' This
legislation makes three changes to the Vaccines for Children program
with the intent of expanding access and the delivery of vaccines to our
Nation's children. This legislation is supported by the Administration
and included in the Administration's budget as recommended by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.
First, the legislation expands access to the Vaccines for Children,
or VFC, program for children whose private health insurance does not
cover immunizations by allowing children to receive their VFC vaccines
at State and local public health clinics. Currently, underinsured
children must go to specially designated Federal Qualified Health
Centers or rural health centers to receive VFC vaccines. Consequently,
our bill expands the number of access points at which children can get
the vaccines they need.
According to the CDC, there are approximately 3,000 Federally
Qualified Health Centers enrolled in VFC, compared with approximately
7,000 health department clinics. As the CDC notes, ``Increasing access
points for VFC eligible underinsured children will allow those who may
have been previously denied immunizations at public health clinics to
be vaccinated with the full series of routinely administered
vaccines.''
Second, the bill seeks to restore the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines
to the VFC program by lifting the 1993 price caps that were in use
prior to enactment of the VFC program. The price caps are so low that,
for example, the tetanus booster vaccine was unfortunately dropped from
VFC coverage when no vaccine manufacturer would bid on the contract at
the 1993-imposed price cap levels.
CDC estimates that over 200,000 additional children would be served
through VFC with these two changes.
And finally, the bill includes new authorizing language to allow the
CDC to sell the VFC purchased stockpile vaccines to its grantees or
back to manufacturers for use in the private sector in the event that
the stockpiled vaccines are needed by non VFC-eligible children.
Immunizations are critical to both children's health and the public
health care system. The VFC program began on October 1, 1994, to
improve vaccine availability to children nationwide by providing
vaccines free-of-charge to Medicaid-eligible, uninsured, underinsured,
American Indian, or Alaska Native children through both public and
private providers. The VFC program automatically covers vaccines
recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or
ACIP, and approved by the CDC.
VFC has had an enormous impact on improving the immunization rates
among our Nation's children. According to the Children's Defense Fund,
``Between 1993 and 1999, there was nearly a 20 percent increase in the
number of fully immunized two year-olds.''
However, the goal of achieving a 90 percent immunization coverage
rate, with the complete series of recommended vaccines, has still not
been achieved. According to the National Immunization Survey (NIS), the
nationwide vaccination coverage levels

[[Page S3572]]

among children 19-35 months of age for the 4:3:1:3:3 series of
childhood immunizations was 74.8 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, the
immunization rate in New Mexico was just 64.6 percent in 2002 and
second worst in the Nation to only Colorado. To address that problem,
in December 2001, I requested the CDC to work with the State of New
Mexico on improving its immunization rate and a number of positive
developments have taken place, including the creation of an
Immunization Task Force at the state level and the passage of
legislation to create an immunization registry by the New Mexico
Legislature this past month.
It is my belief that the strides the Nation and New Mexico continue
to make to further improve the childhood immunization rate is assisted
by this legislation. I would like to thank the CDC for their fine work
on the VFC program and their assistance with this legislation and in
its assistance directly to the State of New Mexico. I would also like
to thank Senator Smith for his dedication and support for this
initiative to improve the health of our Nation's children.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2272

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Children's Vaccine Access
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF FEDERALLY VACCINE-ELIGIBLE
CHILD.

(a) In General.--Section 1928(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I)) is
amended by striking ``or a rural health clinic (as defined in
section 1905(l)(1))'' and inserting ``, a rural health clinic
(as defined in section 1905(l)(1)), or a State or local
public health clinic''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1928(h)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s(h)(3)) is amended by striking
``and `tribal organization' '' and inserting ``, `tribal
organization', and `urban Indian organization' ''.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRICE CAP FOR PRE-1993 VACCINES.

(a) In General.--Section 1928(d)(3)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s(d)(3)(B)) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1928(d)(3) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396s(d)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph
(C) and inserting the following:
``(B) Negotiation of discounted price.--With respect to
contracts entered into for a pediatric vaccine described in
this section, the price for the purchase of such vaccine
shall be a discounted price negotiated by the Secretary.''.

SEC. 4. SIMPLIFIED ADMINISTRATION OF VACCINE SUPPLY.

Section 1928(d)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396s(d)(6)) is amended by inserting after the second
sentence the following: ``The Secretary may sell such
quantities of vaccines from such supply to public health
departments or back to the vaccine manufacturer as the
Secretary determines appropriate. Proceeds received from such
sales shall be available to the Secretary only for the
purpose of procuring pediatric vaccines stockpiles under this
section and shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act take effect on October 1,
2004.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Biden, Mr. Carper, and Mr.
Lautenberg):
S. 2273. A bill to provide increased rail transportation security; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Hollings and other
members of the Senate Commerce Committee in introducing the Rail
Security Act of 2004.
The recent attacks on Madrid's commuter rail system demonstrated all
too vividly that our own transit system, Amtrak, and the freight
railroads could be vulnerable to terrorist attack. Only modest
resources have been dedicated to rail security since the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, and efforts to address
rail security remain fragmented. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has not completed a vulnerability assessment for the rail system,
nor is there an integrated security plan that reflects the unique
characteristics of passenger and freight rail operations.
The legislation we are introducing today would authorize resources to
ensure rail transportation security receives a high priority in our
efforts to secure our country from terrorism. The legislation directs
DHS to complete a vulnerability assessment for the rail system and make
recommendations for addressing security weaknesses within 180 days of
enactment. It also authorizes funding to address long-standing fire and
life safety needs for several tunnels along the Northeast Corridor, and
authorizes appropriations to meet immediate security needs for
intercity and freight rail transportation. Further, as recommended by
the General Accounting Office, the proposal requires DHS to sign a
memorandum of agreement with the Department of Transportation to make
clear each department's roles and responsibilities with respect to rail
security.
The freight railroads, individual commuter authorities, and Amtrak
have, on their own initiative, completed risk assessments and taken
steps to safeguard passengers, facilities, and cargo. These efforts,
accomplished at a very small cost to the federal government, have
helped make our rail system safer. The legislation introduced today
will augment these efforts and bring these individual initiatives
together in a coordinated rail security program.
More than 2 years ago, in the aftermath of the September 11th
attacks, the Commerce Committee reported rail security legislation but
unfortunately that proposal was not adopted by the full Senate. The
Commerce Committee will meet in the coming weeks to consider this
legislation and it is my hope that the proposal will be acted upon
quickly by the full Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2273

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rail
Security Act of 2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Rail transportation security risk assessment.
Sec. 3. Rail security.
Sec. 4. Study of foreign rail transport security programs.
Sec. 5. Passenger, baggage, and cargo screening.
Sec. 6. Certain personnel limitations not to apply.
Sec. 7. Fire and life safety improvements.
Sec. 8. Transportation security.
Sec. 9. Amtrak plan to assist families of passengers involved in rail
passenger accidents.
Sec. 10. System-wide Amtrak security upgrades.
Sec. 11. Freight and passenger rail security upgrades.
Sec. 12. Department of Transportation oversight.
Sec. 13. Rail security research and development.
Sec. 14. Welded rail and tank car safety improvements.
Sec. 15. Northern Border rail passenger report.

SEC. 2. RAIL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT.

(a) In General.--
(1) Vulnerability assessment.--The Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
complete a vulnerability assessment of freight and passenger
rail transportation (encompassing rail carriers, as that term
is defined in section 20102(1) of title 49, United States
Code). The assessment shall include--
(A) identification and evaluation of critical assets and
infrastructures;
(B) identification of threats to those assets and
infrastructures;
(C) identification of vulnerabilities that are specific to
the transportation of hazardous materials via railroad; and
(D) identification of security weaknesses in passenger and
cargo security, transportation infrastructure, protection
systems, procedural policies, communications systems,
employee training, emergency response planning, and any other
area identified by the assessment.
(2) Existing private and public sector efforts.--The
assessment shall take into account actions taken or planned
by both public and private entities to address identified
security issues and assess the effective integration of such
actions.
(3) Recommendations.--Based on the assessment conducted
under paragraph (1), the Under Secretary, in consultation
with the

[[Page S3573]]

Secretary of Transportation, shall develop prioritized
recommendations for improving rail security, including any
recommendations the Under Secretary has for--
(A) improving the security of rail tunnels, rail bridges,
rail switching areas, other rail infrastructure and
facilities, information systems, and other areas identified
by the Under Secretary as posing significant rail-related
risks to public safety and the movement of interstate
commerce, taking into account the impact that any proposed
security measure might have on the provision of rail service;
(B) deploying weapon detection equipment;
(C) training employees in terrorism prevention, passenger
evacuation, and response activities;
(D) conducting public outreach campaigns on passenger
railroads;
(E) deploying surveillance equipment; and
(F) identifying the immediate and long-term economic impact
of measures that may be required to address those risks.
(4) Plans.--The report required by subsection (c) shall
include--
(A) a plan, developed in consultation with the freight and
intercity passenger railroads, and State and local
governments, for the government to provide increased security
support at high or severe threat levels of alert; and
(B) a plan for coordinating rail security initiatives
undertaken by the public and private sectors.
(b) Consultation; Use of Existing Resources.--In carrying
out the assessment required by subsection (a), the Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation
Security shall consult with rail management, rail labor,
owners or lessors of rail cars used to transport hazardous
materials, shippers of hazardous materials, public safety
officials (including those within other agencies and offices
within the Department of Homeland Security) and other
relevant parties.
(c) Report.--
(1) Contents.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Under Secretary shall transmit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure a report containing the assessment and
prioritized recommendations required by subsection (a) and an
estimate of the cost to implement such recommendations.
(2) Format.--The Under Secretary may submit the report in
both classified and redacted formats if the Under Secretary
determines that such action is appropriate or necessary.
(d) 2-year Updates.--The Under Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall update the
assessment and recommendations every 2 years and transmit a
report, which may be submitted in both classified and
redacted formats, to the Committees named in subsection
(c)(1), containing the updated assessment and
recommendations.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Border and Transportation Security $5,000,000
for fiscal year 2005 for the purpose of carrying out this
section.

SEC. 3. RAIL SECURITY.

(a) Rail Police Officers.--Section 28101 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``the rail
carrier'' each place it appears and inserting ``any rail
carrier''.
(b) Review of Rail Regulations.--Within 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security,
shall review existing rail regulations of the Department of
Transportation for the purpose of identifying areas in which
those regulations need to be revised to improve rail
security.

SEC. 4. STUDY OF FOREIGN RAIL TRANSPORT SECURITY PROGRAMS.

(a) Requirement for Study.--Within one year after the date
of enactment of the Rail Security Act of 2004, the
Comptroller General shall complete a study of the rail
passenger transportation security programs that are carried
out for rail transportation systems in Japan, member nations
of the European Union, and other foreign countries.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to identify
effective rail transportation security measures that are in
use in foreign rail transportation systems, including
innovative measures and screening procedures determined
effective.
(c) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
on the results of the study to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The report shall include the Comptroller
General's assessment regarding whether it is feasible to
implement within the United States any of the same or similar
security measures that are determined effective under the
study.

SEC. 5. PASSENGER, BAGGAGE, AND CARGO SCREENING.

(a) Requirement for Study and Report.--The Under Secretary
of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security,
in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall--
(1) analyze the cost and feasibility of requiring security
screening for passengers, baggage, and mail on passenger
trains; and
(2) report the results of the study, together with any
recommendations that the Under Secretary may have for
implementing a rail security screening program to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure within 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Pilot Program.--As part of the study under subsection
(a), the Under Secretary shall complete a pilot program of
random security screening of passengers and baggage at 5
passenger rail stations served by Amtrak selected by the
Under Secretary. In conducting the pilot program, the Under
Secretary shall--
(1) test a wide range of explosives detection technologies,
devices and methods;
(2) require that intercity rail passengers produce
government-issued photographic identification which matches
the name on the passenger's tickets prior to boarding trains;
and
(3) attempt to achieve a distribution of participating
train stations in terms of geographic location, size,
passenger volume, and whether the station is used by commuter
rail passengers as well as Amtrak passengers.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Border and Transportation Security to carry out
this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.

SEC. 6. CERTAIN PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS NOT TO APPLY.

Any statutory limitation on the number of employees in the
Transportation Security Administration of the Department of
Transportation, before or after its transfer to the
Department of Homeland Security, does not apply to the extent
that any such employees are responsible for implementing the
provisions of this Act.

SEC. 7. FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Life Safety Needs.--The Secretary of Transportation is
authorized to make grants to Amtrak for the purpose of making
fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on the Northeast
Corridor in New York, N.Y., Baltimore, Md., and Washington,
D.C.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for the
purposes of carrying out subsection (a) the following
amounts:
(1) For the 6 New York tunnels to provide ventilation,
electrical, and fire safety technology upgrades, emergency
communication and lighting systems, and emergency access and
egress for passengers--
(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(E) $170,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(2) For the Baltimore & Potomac tunnel and the Union
tunnel, together, to provide adequate drainage, ventilation,
communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades--
(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(B) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(C) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(D) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(E) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(3) For the Washington, D.C. Union Station tunnels to
improve ventilation, communication, lighting, and passenger
egress upgrades--
(A) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(B) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(D) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(E) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(c) Infrastructure Upgrades.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for fiscal
year 2005 $3,000,000 for the preliminary design of options
for a new tunnel on a different alignment to augment the
capacity of the existing Baltimore tunnels.
(d) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available
until expended.
(e) Plan Required.--The Secretary may not make amounts
available to Amtrak for obligation or expenditure under
subsection (a)--
(1) until Amtrak has submitted to the Secretary, and the
Secretary has approved, an engineering and financial plan for
such projects; and
(2) unless, for each project funded pursuant to this
section, the Secretary has approved a project management plan
prepared by Amtrak addressing project budget, construction
schedule, recipient staff organization, document control and
record keeping, change order procedure, quality control and
assurance, periodic plan updates, periodic status reports,
and such other matter the Secretary deems appropriate;
(f) Financial Contribution from Other Tunnel Users.--The
Secretary shall, taking into account the need for the timely
completion of all life safety portions of the tunnel projects
described in subsection (a)--
(1) consider the extent to which rail carriers other than
Amtrak use the tunnels;
(2) consider the feasibility of seeking a financial
contribution from those other rail carriers toward the costs
of the projects; and
(3) seek financial contributions or commitments from such
other rail carriers at levels reflecting the extent of their
use of the tunnels.

[[Page S3574]]

SEC. 8. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

(a) Memorandum of Agreement.--Within 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation and
the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and
Transportation Security shall execute a memorandum of
agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland
Security, respectively, in addressing railroad transportation
security matters, including the processes the departments
will follow to promote communications, efficiency, and
nonduplication of effort.
(b) Rail Safety Regulations.--Section 20103(a) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``safety'' the
first place it appears, and inserting ``safety, including
security,''.

SEC. 9. AMTRAK PLAN TO ASSIST FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED
IN RAIL PASSENGER ACCIDENTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 243 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 24316. Plans to address needs of families of
passengers involved in rail passenger accidents

``(a) Submission of Plan.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of the Rail Security Act of 2004,
Amtrak shall submit to the Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board a plan for addressing the needs
of the families of passengers involved in any rail passenger
accident involving an Amtrak intercity train and resulting in
a loss of life.
``(b) Contents of Plans.--The plan to be submitted by
Amtrak under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
``(1) A process by which Amtrak will maintain and provide
to the National Transportation Safety Board, immediately upon
request, a list (which is based on the best available
information at the time of the request) of the names of the
passengers aboard the train (whether or not such names have
been verified), and will periodically update the list. The
plan shall include a procedure, with respect to unreserved
trains and passengers not holding reservations on other
trains, for Amtrak to use reasonable efforts to ascertain the
number and names of passengers aboard a train involved in an
accident.
``(2) A plan for creating and publicizing a reliable, toll-
free telephone number within 4 hours after such an accident
occurs, and for providing staff, to handle calls from the
families of the passengers.
``(3) A process for notifying the families of the
passengers, before providing any public notice of the names
of the passengers, by suitably trained individuals.
``(4) A process for providing the notice described in
paragraph (2) to the family of a passenger as soon as Amtrak
has verified that the passenger was aboard the train (whether
or not the names of all of the passengers have been
verified).
``(5) A process by which the family of each passenger will
be consulted about the disposition of all remains and
personal effects of the passenger within Amtrak's control;
that any possession of the passenger within Amtrak's control
will be returned to the family unless the possession is
needed for the accident investigation or any criminal
investigation; and that any unclaimed possession of a
passenger within Amtrak's control will be retained by the
rail passenger carrier for at least 18 months.
``(6) A process by which the treatment of the families of
nonrevenue passengers will be the same as the treatment of
the families of revenue passengers.
``(7) An assurance that Amtrak will provide adequate
training to its employees and agents to meet the needs of
survivors and family members following an accident.
``(c) Use of Information.--The National Transportation
Safety Board and Amtrak may not release to any person
information on a list obtained under subsection (b)(1) but
may provide information on the list about a passenger to the
family of the passenger to the extent that the Board or
Amtrak considers appropriate.
``(d) Limitation on Liability.--Amtrak shall not be liable
for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court
arising out of the performance of Amtrak in preparing or
providing a passenger list, or in providing information
concerning a train reservation, pursuant to a plan submitted
by Amtrak under subsection (b), unless such liability was
caused by Amtrak's conduct.
``(e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in
this section may be construed as limiting the actions that
Amtrak may take, or the obligations that Amtrak may have, in
providing assistance to the families of passengers involved
in a rail passenger accident.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation for the use of Amtrak $500,000 for fiscal year
2005 to carry out this section. Amounts appropriated pursuant
to this subsection shall remain available until expended.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
243 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``Sec.
``24316. Plan to assist families of passengers involved in rail
passenger accidents''.

SEC. 10. SYSTEM-WIDE AMTRAK SECURITY UPGRADES.

(a) In General--Subject to subsection (c), the Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation
Security is authorized to make grants, through the Secretary
of Transportation, to Amtrak--
(1) to secure major tunnel access points and ensure tunnel
integrity in New York, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.;
(2) to secure Amtrak trains;
(3) to secure Amtrak stations;
(4) to obtain a watch list identification system approved
by the Under Secretary;
(5) to obtain train tracking and communications systems
that are coordinated to the maximum extent possible;
(6) to hire additional police and security officers,
including canine units; and
(7) to expand emergency preparedness efforts.
(b) Conditions.--The Secretary of Transportation may not
disburse funds to Amtrak under subsection (a) unless the
projects are contained in a systemwide security plan approved
by the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, and meet the requirements of section 7(e)(2).
(c) Equitable Geographic Allocation.--The Secretary shall
ensure that, subject to meeting the highest security needs on
Amtrak's entire system, stations and facilities located
outside of the Northeast Corridor receive an equitable share
of the security funds authorized by this section.
(d) Availability of Funds.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for
Border and Transportation Security $62,500,000 for fiscal
year 2005 for the purposes of carrying out this section.
Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended.

SEC. 11. FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL SECURITY UPGRADES.

(a) Security Improvement Grants.--The Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security is
authorized to make grants to freight railroads, the Alaska
Railroad, hazardous materials shippers, owners of rail cars
used in the transportation of hazardous materials, and,
through the Secretary of Transportation, to Amtrak, for full
or partial reimbursement of costs incurred in the conduct of
activities to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism,
sabotage, or other intercity passenger rail and freight rail
security threats, including--
(1) security and redundancy for critical communications,
computer, and train control systems essential for secure rail
operations;
(2) accommodation of cargo or passenger screening equipment
at the United States-Mexico border or the United States-
Canada border;
(3) the security of hazardous material transportation by
rail;
(4) secure intercity passenger rail stations, trains, and
infrastructure;
(5) structural modification or replacement of pressurized
tank cars to improve their resistance to acts of terrorism;
(6) employee security awareness, preparedness, passenger
evacuation, and emergency response training;
(7) public security awareness campaigns for passenger train
operations; and
(8) other improvements recommended by the report required
by section 2, including infrastructure, facilities, and
equipment upgrades.
(b) Accountability.--The Under Secretary shall adopt
necessary procedures, including audits, to ensure that grants
made under this section are expended in accordance with the
purposes of this Act and the priorities and other criteria
developed by the Under Secretary.
(c) Conditions.--The Secretary of Transportation may not
disburse funds to Amtrak under subsection (a) unless Amtrak
meets the conditions set forth in section 10(b) of this Act.
(d) Tank Car Replacement Incentive.--A grant under
subsection (a)(5) may be for up to 15 percent of the cost of
the modification or replacement of a pressurized tank car.
(e) Allocation between Railroads and Others.--Unless as a
result of the assessment required by section 2 the Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation
Security determines that critical rail transportation
security needs require reimbursement in greater amounts to
any eligible entity, no grants under this section may be
made--
(1) in excess of $65,000,000 to Amtrak; or
(2) in excess of $100,000,000 for the purposes described in
paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a).
(f) Procedures for Grant Award.--The Under Secretary shall
prescribe procedures and schedules for the awarding of grants
under this title, including application and qualification
procedures (including a requirement that the applicant have a
security plan), and a record of decision on applicant
eligibility. The procedures shall include the execution of a
grant agreement between the grant recipient and the Under
Secretary. The Under Secretary shall issue a final rule
establishing the procedures not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Border and Transportation Security $250,000,000
for fiscal year 2005 to carry out the purposes of this
section. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended.

[[Page S3575]]

SEC. 12. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT.

(a) Secretarial Oversight.--The Secretary of Transportation
may use up to 0.5 percent of amounts made available to Amtrak
for capital projects under the Rail Security Act of 2004 to
enter into contracts for the review of proposed capital
projects and related program management plans and to oversee
construction of such projects.
(b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary may use amounts available
under subsection (a) of this subsection to make contracts for
safety, procurement, management, and financial compliance
reviews and audits of a recipient of amounts under subsection
(a).

SEC. 13. RAIL SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Establishment of Research and Development Program.--The
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and
Transportation Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of
Transportation, shall carry out a research and development
program for the purpose of improving freight and intercity
passenger rail security, including research and development
projects to--
(1) reduce the vulnerability of passenger trains, stations,
and equipment to explosives;
(2) test new emergency response techniques and
technologies;
(3) develop improved freight technologies, including--
(A) technologies for sealing rail cars;
(B) automatic inspection of rail cars;
(C) communication-based train controls; and
(D) emergency response training;
(4) test wayside detectors that can detect tampering with
railroad equipment; and
(5) support enhanced security for the transportation of
hazardous materials by rail, including--
(A) technologies to detect a breach in a tank car and
transmit information about the integrity of tank cars to the
train crew;
(B) research to improve tank car integrity, with a focus on
tank cars that carry toxic-inhalation chemicals; and
(C) techniques to transfer hazardous materials from rail
cars that are damaged or otherwise represent an unreasonable
risk to human life or public safety.
(b) Coordination with other Research Initiatives.--The
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and
Transportation Security shall ensure that the research and
development program authorized by this section is coordinated
with other research and development initiatives at the
Department and the Department of Transportation.
(c) Accountability.--The Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Border and Transportation Security shall carry
out any research and development project authorized by this
section through a reimbursable agreement with the Secretary
of Transportation if the Secretary of Transportation--
(1) is already sponsoring a research and development
project in a similar area; or
(2) has a unique facility or capability the would be useful
in carrying out the project.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to appropriated to the Under Secretary of Homeland Security
for Border and Transportation Security $50,000,000 in each of
fiscal years 2005 and 2006 to carry out the purposes of this
section. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 14. WELDED RAIL AND TANK CAR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Track Standards.--Within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Railroad Administration
shall--
(1) require each railroad using continuous welded rail
track to include procedures (in its program filed with the
Administration) that improve the identification of cracks in
rail joint bars;
(2) instruct Administration track inspectors to obtain
copies of the most recent continuous welded rail programs of
each railroad within the inspectors' areas of responsibility
and require that inspectors use those programs when
conducting track inspections; and
(3) establish a program to periodically review continuous
welded rail joint bar inspection data from railroads and
Administration track inspectors and, whenever the
Administration determines that it is necessary or
appropriate, require railroads to increase the frequency or
improve the methods of inspection of joint bars in continuous
welded rail.
(b) Tank Car Standards.--The Federal Railroad
Administration shall--
(1) within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
validate the predictive model it is developing to quantify
the maximum dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under
accident conditions; and
(2) within 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, initiate a rulemaking to develop and implement
appropriate design standards for pressurized tank cars.
(c) Older Tank Car Impact Resistance Analysis and Report.--
Within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Federal Railroad Administration, in coordination with the
National Transportation Safety Board, shall--
(1) conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine the
impact resistance of the steels in the shells of pressure
tank cars constructed before 1989; and
(2) transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
recommendations for measures to eliminate or mitigate the
risk of catastrophic failure.

SEC. 15. NORTHERN BORDER RAIL PASSENGER REPORT.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and
Transportation Security, in consultation with the heads of
other appropriate Federal departments and agencies and the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, shall transmit a
report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure that contains--
(1) a description of the current system for screening
passengers and baggage on passenger rail service between the
United States and Canada;
(2) an assessment of the current program to provide
preclearance of airline passengers between the United States
and Canada as outlined in ``The Agreement on Air Transport
Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the
Government of the United States of America'', dated January
18, 2001;
(3) an assessment of the current program to provide
preclearance of freight railroad traffic between the United
States and Canada as outlined in the ``Declaration of
Principle for the Improved Security of Rail Shipments by
Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway from
Canada to the United States'', dated April 2, 2003;
(4) information on progress by the Department of Homeland
Security and other Federal agencies towards finalizing a
bilateral protocol with Canada that would provide for
preclearance of passengers on trains operating between the
United States and Canada;
(5) a description of legislative, regulatory, budgetary, or
policy barriers within the United States Government to
providing pre-screened passenger lists for rail passengers
travelling between the United States and Canada to the
Department of Homeland Security;
(6) a description of the position of the Government of
Canada and relevant Canadian agencies with respect to
preclearance of such passengers; and
(7) a draft of any changes in existing Federal law
necessary to provide for pre-screening of such passengers and
providing pre-screened passenger lists to the Department of
Homeland Security.

By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2274. A bill to expand and improve retired pay, burial, education,
and other mobilization benefits for members of the National Guard and
Reserves who are called or ordered to active duty, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk
the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on
behalf of myself.
I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the
framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our
Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed
Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force,
a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline.
This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a
comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana
across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support
because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform,
particularly our Guard and Reserve components.
If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning
some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this
war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the
strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves.
Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this
large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over
355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized.
To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most
powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have
called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in
the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of
womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just
backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as
we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being
wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600
deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths.
Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that
number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent
of the

[[Page S3576]]

troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These
are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small
business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and
waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then
called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the
uniform and go to the front lines to protect us.
In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and
women have been called up.
We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000
Louisiana reservists have been activated since
9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted,
because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months
to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently
deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already.
Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been
put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized
before.
Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National
Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's
256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on
Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk
about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a
nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this
difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in
this war effort.
The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of
our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to
explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI
benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do
not match with their level of service and do not match with the
contribution they are, in fact, making.
I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and
Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a
backup, as a filler.
They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars.
They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural
disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as
the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those
rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the
1960s, and in the 1970s.
In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are
meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than
halfway.
Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning
from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business
restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to
serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another
few months, get ready to ship out again.
We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I
would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been
called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961,
through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a
total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40
years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the
Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping,
Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on
terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history.
The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are
increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have
supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances
for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is
going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact,
that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families
are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve
us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling
more and more on our Guard and Reserve.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent
article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by
Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2004]

Army Reserve Chief Fears Retention Crisis

(By Vernon Loeb)

The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the
205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis
in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are
being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred
from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in
Iraq.
Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly said his staff is working on an
overhaul of the reserve aimed in part at treating soldiers
better and being more honest with them about how long they're
likely to be deployed. Helmly said the reserve force
bureaucracy bungled the mobilization of soldiers for the war
in Iraq, and gave them a ``pipe dream'' instead of honest
information about how long they might have to remain there.
``This is the first extended-duration war our Nation has
fought with an all-volunteer force,'' said Helmly. ``We must
be sensitive to that. And we must apply proactive, preventive
measures to prevent a recruiting-retention crisis.''
Helmly said his staff is engaged in an overhaul of the
reserve aimed at turning the Army's part-time soldiers into a
top-flight fighting force that can handle the strains of the
global war on terrorism. In a Pentagon briefing for defense
reporters, Helmly outlined an array of planned changes and
bluntly described the force he took over in May 2002 as being
dominated by bureaucrats who often ignored soldiers' needs.
In a recent memo, Helmly said, he told his subordinates
that he was ``really tired of going to see our reserve
soldiers [and finding] they're short such simple things as
goggles. It's about damn time you listen to your lawyers less
and your conscience more. That will probably get me in
trouble. But I told them, I want this stuff fixed.''
Reservists in Iraq have long complained about having to
spend a year there with inadequate equipment, including a
lack of body armor.
Most reservists went to Iraq last year on year-long
mobilizations, with a belief that they would be required to
spend only 6 months in the country. But they were abruptly
informed in September that they would have to spend 12 months
in Iraq, pushing the total length of many reservists'
mobilizations to 16 months or longer.
Analysts inside and outside the military say these long
overseas mobilizations could have the effect of driving
reservists out of the military in droves once they begin
returning from Iraq over the next several months. After that,
the service will lift the ``stop-loss'' provisions that
prohibit soldiers from quitting the reserve when their
hitches are up.
Helmly said he has not been surprised by such criticism.
``The [Iraq] mobilization was so fraught with friction that
it really put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths,'' he
said. ``We had about 10,000 who had less than 5 days' notice
that they were going to be mobilized. Then we had about 8,000
who were mobilized, got trained up, and never deployed.''
``No sooner do the statues of Saddam Hussein start tumbling
down, then the guidance was, start planning to demobilize
everybody,'' Helmly said, only to find in July that a growing
insurgency required remobilizing 4,000 to 5,000 of the 8,000
that were initially mobilized but never deployed.
``One lesson I have certainly learned . . . it is
imperative that we communicate with our soldiers and their
families in advance, and that we not set false
expectations,'' Helmly said.
To that end, Helmly said, a ``major order culture change''
is taking place in the reserve so that reservists know, upon
joining, that they will be called up to active duty for
between 9 and 12 months every 4 to 5 years.
As part of that change, he said, the current total of 2,091
reserve units will be reduced significantly so that every
unit--typically a support company of about 150 soldiers--is
manned, equipped and ready to go to war, if necessary.
Currently, 226,000 soldiers would be necessary to man all
those units. But the Army Reserve is only authorized by
Congress to have 205,000 soldiers, Helmly said, and at any
given time, only between 160,000 and 175,000 of them are
available for mobilization.
``We will in fact inactivate units beginning next year
specifically to harvest the strength so we can man fully our
remaining units,'' Helmly said, adding that maintenance and
``water support'' units will be reduced in favor of more
military police, civil affairs and heavy truck transport
detachments.
``I'm often asked by families, how do you know you'll be
able to recruit for this force?'' Helmly said. ``There are no
knowns; we're treading new virgin territory here. But most of
our people will respond well to the initiatives we're putting
forward. They don't wish to be part of a second-class team.''
Ms. LANDRIEU. According to this reporter:

[[Page S3577]]

He goes on to say:

Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was
``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and
finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's
about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your
conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I
told them, I want this stuff fixed.''

Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented
numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is
masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being
provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that
they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of
unease.
Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that
they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do
every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these
modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their
service to us.
The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no
end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will
become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially
because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our
Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention
crisis.
As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal
protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is
lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and
others to fix this situation.
I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward
to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and
Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it
the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act.
We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and
Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years
later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service,
to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is
time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the
benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and
Reserve.
We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill
does it in several ways.
First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of
burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as
Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national
cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or
a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is
called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines,
perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after
serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were
not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is
time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our
national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty
serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a
situation.
The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to
these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought
overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades
simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was
active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine
but yet not the same burial ground.
No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated
for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill,
which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress
has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and
off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about,
quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American
troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The
GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the
cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in
50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get
good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and
the contribution they can make to their community rises in a
significant way.
Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits
than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve
personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I
would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal
ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to
participate more equally in the GI benefits.
The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between
Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age.
Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years.
We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the
military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably
for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third
career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We
believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service.
But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years
of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust
situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this
retention issue by making these benefits more generous.
The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill
seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and
reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot
of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in
Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand
how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take
a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life
on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe
place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges
right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity
as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield.
Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now
and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal
Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have
worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level
before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually
taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us
safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the
battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we
are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell
the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a
country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to
give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the
sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of
dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to
serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level
while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy.
I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the
community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together
for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments.
Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the
house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American
spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out
tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are
giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting
on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off
what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain
this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize
the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also
require the Federal Government to step up to the plate

[[Page S3578]]

and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those
salaries are compensated.
Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an
April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From USA Today, Apr. 22, 2003]

Reservists Under Economic Fire

Washington.--Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed
homes. They aren't exactly the kind of challenges that
members of America's military reserves signed up for when
they volunteered to serve their country.
But for many, the biggest threat to the home front isn't
Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the bill collector.
Four in 10 members of the National Guard or reserves lose
money when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty,
according to a Pentagon survey taken in 2000. Of 1.2 million
members, 223,000 are on active duty around the world.
Concern is growing in Congress, and several lawmakers in
both parties have introduced legislation to ease the
families' burden.
Janet Wright says she ``sat down and cried'' when she
realized how little money she and her children, Adelia, 5,
and Carolyn, 2, would have to live on when her husband was
sent to the Middle East. In his civilian job with an
environmental cleanup company, Russell Wright makes $60,000 a
year--twice what he'll be paid as a sergeant in the Marine
Forces Reserve. Back in Hammond, La., his wife, who doesn't
have a paying job, is pouring the kids more water and less
milk. She is trying to accelerate Carolyn's potty training
schedule to save on diapers.
She doesn't know how long she'll have to pinch pennies.
Like his fellow reservists, Russell Wright has been called up
for one year. He could be sent home sooner, or the military
could exercise its option to extend his tour of duty for a
second year. Even so, Janet Wright considers her family
lucky: She can still pay the mortgage, and the children's
pediatrician accepts Tricare, the military health plan.
Ray Korizon, a 23-year veteran with the Air Force Reserve
and an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration, says
his income will also be cut in half if his unit ships out.
Korizon, who lives in Schaumburg, Ill., knows the financial
costs of doing his patriotic duty from bitter experience.
Before the Persian Gulf War in 1991, he owned a Chicago
construction company with 26 employees. He was sent overseas
for six months and lost the business.
Still, he never considered leaving the reserve. Korizon
says he enjoys the work and the camaraderie. But he worries
about whether his two kids can continue to see the same
doctor when he shifts to military health coverage. ``It's
hard to go out and do the job you want to do when you're
worried about things back home,'' he says.
Once regarded as ``weekend warriors,'' they have become an
integral part of U.S. battle plans. Call-ups have been longer
and more frequent.
``The last time you'd see this type of mobilization
activity was during World War II,'' says Maj. Charles Kohler
of the Maryland National Guard. Of the Maryland Guard's 8,000
members, 3,500 are on active duty. Kohler knows several who
are in serious financial trouble. One had to file for
bankruptcy after a yearlong deployment, during which his
take-home pay fell by two-thirds.
Stories like that are the result of a shift in military
policy. Since the end of the Cold War, the ranks of the full-
time military have been reduced by one-third. The Pentagon
has increasingly relied on the nation's part-time soldiers.
More than 525,000 members of the Guards and reserves have
been mobilized in the 12 years since the Persian Gulf War.
For the previous 36 years, the figure was 199,877.
The end of fighting in Iraq isn't likely to lessen the
pressure on the Guard and reserves. They'll stay on with the
regular military in a peacekeeping role. Nobody knows how
long, but in Bosnia, Guard members and reservists are on duty
seven years after the mission began.
Korizon, who maintains avionics systems on C-130 cargo
planes, has been told his Milwaukee-based reserve unit may be
called up for humanitarian missions.
Some of the specialists who are in the greatest demand--
physicians and experts in biological and chemical agents--
command six-figure salaries in civilian life. The average pay
for a midlevel officer is $50,000 to $55,000.
``They were prepared to be called up. They were prepared to
serve their country,'' Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., says.
``They were not prepared to be part of a regular force and be
away from home 200 to 300 days a year.''
Concerns are growing on Capitol Hill. As the nation's
reliance on the Guard and reserves has increased, ``funding
for training and benefits simply have not kept up,'' says
Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, a member of the
Armed Services Committee.
The General Accounting Office, Congress' auditing arm, is
studying pay and benefits for Guard members and reservists. A
report is due in September. Meanwhile, members of Congress
are pushing several bills to ease the burden:
Closing the pay gap. Some employers make up the difference
in salary for reservists on active duty. But many, including
the federal government, do not. A bill sponsored by
Democratic Sens. Mikulski, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Mary
Landrieu of Louisiana would require the federal government to
make up lost pay. Landrieu is doing that for one legislative
aide who has been called up for active duty.
She has also introduced a bill to give private employers a
50% tax credit if they subsidize reservists' salaries.
Closing the health gap. Once on active duty, reservists,
Guard members and their families are covered by Tricare.
But for the 75% of reserve and Guard families living more
than 50 miles from military treatment facilities, finding
physicians who participate in Tricare can be difficult.
A measure sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine, a Republican from
Ohio, would give reservists and Guard members the option of
making Tricare their regular insurer or having the federal
government pay premiums for their civilian health insurance
while they are on active duty. Several senior Democrats,
including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota
and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, support the idea.
Keeping creditors at bay. The Soldiers and Sailors Relief
Act caps interest rates on mortgages, car payments and other
debts owed by military personnel at 6% while they are on
active duty. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina
Republican who is the Senate's only reservist, says the act
doesn't apply to debts that are held in the name of a spouse
who is not a member of the military. He plans to introduce
legislation to cover spouses.
Despite a groundswell of support for troops, none of the
bills is assured of passage. There's concern among some
administration officials about the cost of some of the
proposals. In addition, some at the Pentagon think morale
would be hurt if some reservists end up with higher incomes
than their counterparts in the regular ranks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. It starts:

Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't
exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's
military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to
serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the
home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the
bill collector.

And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the
bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention
on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other.
I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back
home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not
acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else
tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these
634,000 of our bravest.
I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband
Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was
activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started
putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be
quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count
every penny.
This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I
think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that.
A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their
salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill.
One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a
cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of
different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have
been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an
interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more
than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that
made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are
relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either
have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of
money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a
year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make
ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one
deployed.
As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to
succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the
benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of
them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw
unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't
ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of
benefits,

[[Page S3579]]

upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget,
and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this
time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress
on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will
just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to
succeed in our war on terror.
I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing.
I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have
a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the
Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do
not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget.
I yield the floor.
______

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Murray, Mrs.
Clinton, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Daschle,
and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2275. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
101 et seq.) to provide for homeland security assistance for high-risk
nonprofit organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and
Senators Specter, Murray, Clinton, Landrieu, Dayton, Schumer, Daschle
and Lieberman, to introduce the High-Risk Non-Profit Security and
Safety Enhancement Act of 2004. This bill provides homeland security
assistance for high-risk non-profits to protect them against foreign
terrorist attacks. This legislation is critical to help protect the
``soft targets'' of terrorism all over the United States.
We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States,
Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco and Turkey. These attacks
by Al Qaeda on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, train
stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and cultural
centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of all types
in order to conduct its campaign of terror.
I want to make sure that our communities are protected and the
buildings where citizens live, learn and work are as secure as possible
to safeguard American lives from a potential terrorist attack. Local
communities are on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This
Congress must do its share to make sure that they do not have to bear
the full cost of this war. This bill helps us do that by providing
funds for security enhancements in buildings that Americans visit
everyday and by providing local law enforcement with added support for
the costs they incur in helping to guard these local buildings and
community centers.
Specifically, this legislation will provide up to $100 million in
assistance to 501(c)(3) organizations demonstrating a high risk of
terrorist attack based upon very specific standards. Organizations
wishing to receive security enhancements under this Act must
demonstrate that they have experienced specific threats by
international terrorist organizations, there were prior attacks against
similarly situated organizations, there is vulnerability of the
specific site, the symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized
American Institution, or that they have a specific role in responding
to terrorist attacks.
This bill allows the Department of Homeland Security to contract for
security enhancements to help these high-risk non-profit organizations.
These funds can only be used for security enhancements, such as
concrete barriers, and ``hardening'' of windows and doors, as well as
technical assistance to assess needs, develop plans, and train
personnel. Funding under this Act can never be used for enhancements
that would only be reasonably necessary to protect from neighborhood
crime.
This bill also helps our vital first responders, those who are on the
frontline everyday helping to protect these ``soft targets.'' These men
and women have the responsibility for protecting institutions against
the possibility of terrorist attack, while they are also responding to
the public safety needs of the entire community. By authorizing $50
million in grant funds for local police departments, this bill provides
real relief to local law enforcement who bear the growing costs
associated with providing heightened security to high-risk non-profits.

As a Nation our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be able
to better detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill
gets us one step closer to meeting those goals by helping vulnerable
targets better detect and prevent terrorist attacks and by making sure
that if terror strikes one of these facilities, security and safety
measures are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around
these buildings.
Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America
security and Americans safety. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation because it does exactly that. It makes sure that there is
added security for these ``soft targets'' that Americans visit everyday
and it adds funding to support the local police, fire and rescue
workers who are the first responders when there is a threat to one of
these organizations. In the battle to protect our Nation from terrorist
attacks, we must be sure to provide assistance to these high-risk non-
profit organizations that provide vital health, social, cultural, and
educational services to the American people.
I know others share my concerns about protecting these ``soft
targets'' in our war against terrorism and that is why the United
Jewish Communities, the American Red Cross, United Way, the American
Hospital Association, the American Association of Museums, the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), American
Jewish Congress, the Theatre Communications Group, and the YMCA of the
USA are all united in supporting this legislation.
This bill not only supports homeland security, it supports hometown
security, making our communities stronger and safer, and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record a letter from organizations supporting
this effort and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Coalition for the High-Risk Non-Profit Security
Enhancement Act of 2004, March 29, 2004.
Dear Member of Congress: Before the recess--We are
requesting that you sign-on as a co-sponsor of the High-Risk
Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act of 2004, legislation to
provide for homeland security assistance for high-risk non-
profits to protect them against foreign terrorist attacks.
The legislative language is attached to this e-mail.
As leaders of our nation's non-profit sector, we firmly
believe there is a compelling public interest in protecting
high-risk non-profit institutions from terrorist attacks that
would disrupt the vital health, social, educational and
spiritual services they provide to the American people, and
threaten the lives and well-being of American citizens who
operate, utilize, and live or work in proximity to such
institutions.
The risk to such institutions since 9/11 is clear. Al
Qaeda's willingness to attack targets of all types has been
made readily apparent with attacks in the United States,
Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey,
including an international Red Cross building, synagogues,
train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs,
and cultural centers.
This legislation would authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security to make available in FY 2005 up to $100 million in
assistance to 501(c)(3) organizations demonstrating a high
risk of terrorist attack based upon: specific threats of
international terrorist organizations, prior attacks against
similarly situated organizations; the vulnerability of the
specific site; the symbolic value of the site as a highly
recognized American institution; or the role of the
institution in responding to terrorist attacks. Federal loan
guarantees would also be available to make loans accessible
on favorable terms. Funds would be allocated by a new office
in the Department of Homeland Security dedicated to working
with high-risk non-profits nationwide.
The authorized amount of grants--$100 million--is a
fraction of the assessed needs of high-risk non-profits,
which is well in excess of $1 billion. However, in view of
current budgetary constraints, supporters of this legislation
have proposed a modest level of Federal assistance.
Applicant organizations would submit requests to state
homeland security authorities that would identify and
prioritize high-risk institutions. Qualifying requests would
be forwarded to the Secretary of Homeland Security who would
allocate resources based on risk--maximizing the number of
institutions receiving security enhancements and technical
assistance. Payments would be made directly to contractors.

[[Page S3580]]

Security enhancements would include items directly related
to the international terrorist threat, such as concrete
barriers, and ``hardening'' of windows and doors, as well as
technical assistance to assess needs, develop plans, and
train personnel. Funds could not be used for security
equipment that would reasonably be necessary for protection
from neighborhood crime.
The bill also authorizes $50 million for local police
departments to provide additional security in areas where
there is a high concentration of high-risk non-profits.
Sincerely,
American Association of Museums.
American Association of Homes and Services for the aging.
American Hospital Association.
American Jewish Congress.
American Red Cross.
American Society of Association Executives.
American Symphony Orchestra League.
Association of Art Museum Directors.
Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan
Chicago.
National Assembly of Health and Human Services
Organizations.
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities.
Theatre Communications Group.
UJA Federation of New York.
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.
United Way of America.
YMCA of the USA.

S. 2275

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``High Risk Nonprofit Security
Enhancement Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

Congress finds that there is a public interest in
protecting high-risk nonprofit organizations from
international terrorist attacks that would disrupt the vital
services such organizations provide to the people of the
United States and threaten the lives and well-being of United
States citizens who operate, utilize, and live or work in
proximity to such organizations.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish within the Department of Homeland Security a
program to protect United States citizens at or near high-
risk nonprofit organizations from international terrorist
attacks through loan guarantees and Federal contracts for
security enhancements and technical assistance;
(2) establish a program within the Department of Homeland
Security to provide grants to local governments to assist
with incremental costs associated with law enforcement in
areas in which there are a high concentration of high-risk
nonprofit organizations vulnerable to international terrorist
attacks; and
(3) establish an Office of Community Relations and Civic
Affairs within the Department of Homeland Security to focus
on security needs of high-risk nonprofit organizations with
respect to international terrorist threats.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND ISSUE FEDERAL
LOAN GUARANTEES.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``TITLE XVIII--PROTECTION OF CITIZENS AT HIGH-RISK NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS

``SEC. 1801. DEFINITIONS.

``In this title:
``(1) Contract.--The term `contract' means a contract
between the Federal Government and a contractor selected from
the list of certified contractors to perform security
enhancements or provide technical assistance approved by the
Secretary under this title.
``(2) Favorable repayment terms.--The term `favorable
repayment terms' means the repayment terms of loans offered
to nonprofit organizations under this title that--
``(A) are determined by the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Treasury, to be favorable under current
market conditions;
``(B) have interest rates at least 1 full percentage point
below the market rate; and
``(C) provide for repayment over a term not less than 25
years.
``(3) Nonprofit organization.--The term `nonprofit
organization' means an organization that--
``(A) is described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of such Code; and
``(B) is designated by the Secretary under section 1803(a).
``(4) Security enhancements.--The term `security
enhancements'--
``(A) means the purchase and installation of security
equipment in real property (including buildings and
improvements), owned or leased by a nonprofit organization,
specifically in response to the risk of attack at a nonprofit
organization by an international terrorist organization;
``(B) includes software security measures; and
``(C) does not include enhancements that would otherwise
have been reasonably necessary due to nonterrorist threats.
``(5) Technical assistance.--The term `technical
assistance'--
``(A) means guidance, assessment, recommendations, and any
other provision of information or expertise which assists
nonprofit organizations in--
``(i) identifying security needs;
``(ii) purchasing and installing security enhancements;
``(iii) training employees to use and maintain security
enhancements; or
``(iv) training employees to recognize and respond to
international terrorist threats; and
``(B) does not include technical assistance that would
otherwise have been reasonably necessary due to nonterrorist
threats.

``SEC. 1802. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND ISSUE
FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may--
``(1) enter into contracts with certified contractors for
security enhancements and technical assistance for nonprofit
organizations; and
``(2) issue Federal loan guarantees to financial
institutions in connection with loans made by such
institutions to nonprofit organizations for security
enhancements and technical assistance.
``(b) Loans.--The Secretary may guarantee loans under this
title--
``(1) only to the extent provided for in advance by
appropriations Acts; and
``(2) only to the extent such loans have favorable
repayment terms.

``SEC. 1803. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall designate nonprofit
organizations as high-risk nonprofit organizations eligible
for contracts or loans under this title based on the
vulnerability of the specific site of the nonprofit
organization to international terrorist attacks.
``(b) Vulnerability Determination.--In determining
vulnerability to international terrorist attacks and
eligibility for security enhancements or technical assistance
under this title, the Secretary shall consider--
``(1) threats of international terrorist organizations (as
designated by the State Department) against any group of
United States citizens who operate or are the principal
beneficiaries or users of the nonprofit organization;
``(2) prior attacks, within or outside the United States,
by international terrorist organizations against the
nonprofit organization or entities associated with or
similarly situated as the nonprofit organization;
``(3) the symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized
United States cultural or historical institution that renders
the site a possible target of international terrorism;
``(4) the role of the nonprofit organization in responding
to international terrorist attacks; and
``(5) any recommendations of the applicable State Homeland
Security Authority established under section 1806 or Federal,
State, and local law enforcement authorities.
``(c) Documentation.--In order to be eligible for security
enhancements, technical assistance or loan guarantees under
this title, the nonprofit organization shall provide the
Secretary with documentation that--
``(1) the nonprofit organization hosted a gathering of at
least 100 or more persons at least once each month at the
nonprofit organization site during the preceding 12 months;
or
``(2) the nonprofit organization provides services to at
least 500 persons each year at the nonprofit organization
site.
``(d) Technical Assistance Organizations.--If 2 or more
nonprofit organizations establish another nonprofit
organization to provide technical assistance, that
established organization shall be eligible to receive
security enhancements and technical assistance under this
title based upon the collective risk of the nonprofit
organizations it serves.

``SEC. 1804. USE OF LOAN GUARANTEES.

``Funds borrowed from lending institutions, which are
guaranteed by the Federal Government under this title, may be
used for technical assistance and security enhancements.

``SEC. 1805. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION APPLICATIONS.

``(a) In General.--A nonprofit organization desiring
assistance under this title shall submit a separate
application for each specific site needing security
enhancements or technical assistance.
``(b) Content.--Each application shall include--
``(1) a detailed request for security enhancements and
technical assistance, from a list of approved enhancements
and assistance issued by the Secretary under this title;
``(2) a description of the intended uses of funds to be
borrowed under Federal loan guarantees; and
``(3) such other information as the Secretary shall
require.
``(c) Joint Application.--Two or more nonprofit
organizations located on contiguous sites may submit a joint
application.

``SEC. 1806. REVIEW BY STATE HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORITIES.

``(a) Establishment of State Homeland Security
Authorities.--In accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, each State may establish a State Homeland
Security Authority to carry out this title.
``(b) Applications.--
``(1) Submission.--Applications shall be submitted to the
applicable State Homeland Security Authority.
``(2) Evaluation.--After consultation with Federal, State,
and local law enforcement

[[Page S3581]]

authorities, the State Homeland Security Authority shall
evaluate all applications using the criteria under section
1803 and transmit all qualifying applications to the
Secretary ranked by severity of risk of international
terrorist attack.
``(3) Appeal.--An applicant may appeal the finding that an
application is not a qualifying application to the Secretary
under procedures that the Secretary shall issue by regulation
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
title.

``SEC. 1807. SECURITY ENHANCEMENT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CONTRACTS AND LOAN GUARANTEES.

``(a) In General.--Upon receipt of the applications, the
Secretary shall select applications for execution of security
enhancement and technical assistance contracts, or issuance
of loan guarantees, giving preference to the nonprofit
organizations determined to be at greatest risk of
international terrorist attack based on criteria under
section 1803.
``(b) Security Enhancements and Technical Assistance;
Followed by Loan Guarantees.--The Secretary shall execute
security enhancement and technical assistance contracts for
the highest priority applicants until available funds are
expended, after which loan guarantees shall be made available
for additional applicants determined to be at high risk, up
to the authorized amount of loan guarantees. The Secretary
may provide with respect to a single application a
combination of such contracts and loan guarantees.
``(c) Joint Applications.--Special preference shall be
given to joint applications submitted on behalf of multiple
nonprofit organizations located in contiguous settings.
``(d) Maximizing Available Funds.--Subject to subsection
(b), the Secretary shall execute security enhancement and
technical assistance contracts in such amounts as to maximize
the number of high-risk applicants nationwide receiving
assistance under this title.
``(e) Applicant Notification.--Upon selecting a nonprofit
organization for assistance under this title, the Secretary
shall notify the nonprofit organization that the Federal
Government is prepared to enter into a contract with
certified contractors to install specified security
enhancements or provide specified technical assistance at the
site of the nonprofit organization.
``(f) Certified Contractors.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving a notification under
subsection (e), the nonprofit organization shall select a
certified contractor to perform the specified security
enhancements, from a list of certified contractors issued and
maintained by the Secretary under subsection (j).
``(2) List.--The list referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
comprised of contractors selected on the basis of--
``(A) technical expertise;
``(B) performance record including quality and timeliness
of work performed;
``(C) adequacy of employee criminal background checks; and
``(D) price competitiveness.
``(3) Other certified contractors.--The Secretary shall
include on the list of certified contractors additional
contractors selected by senior officials at State Homeland
Security Authorities and the chief executives of county and
other local jurisdictions. Such additional certified
contractors shall be selected on the basis of the criteria
under paragraph (2).
``(g) Ensuring the Availability of Contractors.--If the
list of certified contractors under this section does not
include any contractors who can begin work on the security
enhancements or technical assistance within 60 days after
applicant notification, the nonprofit organization may submit
a contractor not currently on the list to the Secretary for
the Secretary's review. If the Secretary does not include the
submitted contractor on the list of certified contractors
within 60 days after the submission and does not place an
alternative contractor on the list within the same time
period (who would be available to begin the specified work
within that 60-day period), the Secretary shall immediately
place the submitted contractor on the list of certified
contractors and such contractor shall remain on such list
until--
``(1) the specified work is completed; or
``(2) the Secretary can show cause why such contractor may
not retain certification, with such determinations subject to
review by the Comptroller General of the United States.
``(h) Contracts.--Upon selecting a certified contractor to
provide security enhancements and technical assistance
approved by the Secretary under this title, the nonprofit
organization shall notify the Secretary of such selection.
The Secretary shall deliver a contract to such contractor
within 10 business days after such notification.
``(i) Contracts for Additional Work or Upgrades.--A
nonprofit organization, using its own funds, may enter into
an additional contract with the certified contractor, for
additional or upgraded security enhancements or technical
assistance. Such additional contracts shall be separate
contracts between the nonprofit organization and the
contractor.
``(j) Expediting Assistance.--In order to expedite
assistance to nonprofit organizations, the Secretary shall--
``(1) compile a list of approved technical assistance and
security enhancement activities within 45 days after the date
of enactment of this title;
``(2) publish in the Federal Register within 60 days after
such date of enactment a request for contractors to submit
applications to be placed on the list of certified
contractors under this section;
``(3) after consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, publish in the Federal Register within 60 days
after such date of enactment, prescribe regulations setting
forth the conditions under which loan guarantees shall be
issued under this title, including application procedures,
expeditious review of applications, underwriting criteria,
assignment of loan guarantees, modifications, commercial
validity, defaults, and fees; and
``(4) publish in the Federal Register within 120 days after
such date of enactment (and every 30 days thereafter) a list
of certified contractors, including those selected by State
Homeland Security Authorities, county, and local officials,
with coverage of all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the territories.

``SEC. 1808. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide grants to
units of local government to offset incremental costs
associated with law enforcement in areas where there is a
high concentration of nonprofit organizations.
``(b) Use.--Grant funds received under this section may be
used only for personnel costs or for equipment needs
specifically related to such incremental costs.
``(c) Maximization of Impact.--The Secretary shall award
grants in such amounts as to maximize the impact of available
funds in protecting nonprofit organizations nationwide from
international terrorist attacks.

``SEC. 1809. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND CIVIC AFFAIRS.

``(a) In General.--There is established within the
Department, the Office of Community Relations and Civic
Affairs to administer grant programs for nonprofit
organizations and local law enforcement assistance.
``(b) Additional Responsibilities.--The Office of Community
Relations and Civic Affairs shall--
``(1) coordinate community relations efforts of the
Department;
``(2) serve as the official liaison of the Secretary to the
nonprofit, human and social services, and faith-based
communities; and
``(3) assist in coordinating the needs of those communities
with the Citizen Corps program.

``SEC. 1810. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND LOAN
GUARANTEES.

``(a) Nonprofit Organizations Program.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Department to carry out
the nonprofit organization program under this title,
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
``(b) Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grants.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Department for local law
enforcement assistance grants under section 1808, $50,000,000
for fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
``(c) Office of Community Relations and Civic Affairs.--
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department for
the Office of Community Relations and Civic Affairs under
section 1809, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and such sums
as may be necessary for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
``(d) Loan Guarantees.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated in each of fiscal years 2005,
2006, and 2007, such amounts as may be required under the
Federal Credit Act with respect to Federal loan guarantees
authorized by this title, which shall remain available until
expended.
``(2) Limitation.--The aggregate value of all loans for
which loan guarantees are issued under this title by the
Secretary may not exceed $250,000,000 in each of fiscal years
2005, 2006, and 2007.''.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

The table of contents under section 1(b) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(b)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``TITLE XVIII--PROTECTION OF CITIZENS AT HIGH-RISK NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS

``Sec. 1801. Definitions.
``Sec. 1802. Authority to enter into contracts and issue Federal loan
guarantees.
``Sec. 1803. Eligibility criteria.
``Sec. 1804. Use of loan guarantees.
``Sec. 1805. Nonprofit organization applications.
``Sec. 1806. Review by State Homeland Security Authorities.
``Sec. 1807. Security enhancement and technical assistance contracts
and loan guarantees.
``Sec. 1808. Local law enforcement assistance grants.
``Sec. 1809. Office of Community Relations and Civic Affairs.
``Sec. 1810. Authorization of appropriations and loan guarantees.''.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the
High-Risk Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act of 2004 together with my
colleague Senator Mikulski. Since 9/11, al-Qaida has attacked a series
of so-called ``soft targets'' around the globe including hotels,
synagogues, social centers and facilities of the Red

[[Page S3582]]

Cross. This grim reality is forcing such soft targets here in the
United States to confront the need for very expensive security
enhancements to their facilities. This legislation will help non-profit
organizations--those soft targets least able to afford these security
enhancements--to do the work that they need to do such as the building
of concrete barriers and the ``hardening'' of windows and doors.
On February 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet provided the
following testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Until al-Qaida finds an opportunity for the big attack, it
will try to maintain its operational tempo by striking
``softer'' targets. And what I mean by ``softer,'' Mr.
Chairman, are simply targets al-Qaida planners may view as
less well protected. . . . Al-Qaida has also sharpened its
focus on our Allies in Europe and on operations against
Israeli and Jewish targets.

Also on February 11, 2003, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller testified
as follows before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

Multiple small-scale attacks against soft targets--such as
banks, shopping malls, supermarkets, apartment buildings,
schools and universities, houses of worship and places of
recreation and entertainment--would be easier to execute and
would minimize the need to communicate with the central
leadership, lowering the risks of detection.

The record has sadly confirmed the words of Directors Tenet and
Mueller. Al-Qaida has been responsible for a series of attacks against
soft targets including numerous synagogues, A Red Cross building, train
stations, hotels airports, restaurants and night clubs. These targets
have been in countries throughout the world including Spain, Germany,
Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco and Turkey.
In the face of this very real terrorist threat, these soft targets
have an obligation to take the necessary steps to better protect
themselves and all who visit their facilities. These additional
security measures place an especially heavy burden upon non-profit
corporations with limited resources. Effective security measures do not
come cheap.
This legislation would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security
to make available in FY 2005 up to $100 million in assistance to non
profits which demonstrate a high risk of terrorist attack. In choosing
which projects to fund, the secretary will give preference to those non
profit organizations he determines to be at the greatest risk of
international terrorist attack based upon the following criteria:
(1) Specific threats of international terrorist organizations; (2)
Prior attacks against similarly situated organizations; (3) The
vulnerability of the specific site; (4) The symbolic value of the site
as a highly recognized American institution; or (5) The role of the
institution in responding to terrorist attacks.
Applicant organizations would submit request to state homeland
security authorities that would identify and prioritize high-risk
institutions. Qualifying requests would be forwarded to the Secretary
of Homeland Security who would allocate resources based on his
assessment of the risk. Payments would be made from the Department of
Homeland security directly to the contractors who will do the work.
For those programs that do not get their security projects funded,
Federal loan guarantees would also be available so that they can take
out loans on favorable terms. The bill also authorizes $50 million for
local police departments to provide additional security in areas where
there is a high concentration of high-risk non-profits.
Mr. President, the threat of terrorism is placing an enormous burden
on non-profit organizations that face a higher risk of terror attack
due to their affiliation of function. This bill is an important step
towards helping these non-profits meet these new and expensive security
needs. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in addressing this
overlooked front in the war on terror.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2276. A bill to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to make
grants to Amtrak, other rail carriers, and providers of mass
transportation for improvements to the security of our Nation's rail
and mass transportation system; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, two and a half years ago, the United
States was caught unprepared when it came to aviation security. The
results were devastating.
Since then, we have greatly improved our aviation security, and we
have begun to improve our port security. We have a long way to go in
both of these areas.
But, we have a longer way to go to secure our rail system--both
passenger, freight, and local transit.
In October 2001, the Commerce Committee passed a rail security bill
to authorize $1.77 billion over two years for Amtrak. We knew that the
United States must not be caught off-guard when it comes to our
passenger and freight rail systems.
Unfortunately, the bill never became law.
And, now, we have received another warning. In March, terrorists blew
up commuter trains in Madrid killing nearly 200 people and injuring
1,400. We must heed this warning and address the vulnerability of
America's rail systems. We must act now.
Today, I am introducing legislation that will authorize funding for
more police, canine dogs, and surveillance equipment on Amtrak and
local transit systems. The bill will authorize $500 million per year
for five years. One-third of the funding will be spent on Amtrak based
on passenger ridership and the remainder of the funding will be spent
on securing rail and transit.
This is important for the entire nation, but it is especially
important for California. California has the second highest Amtrak
ridership in the country. Almost 9 million passenger trips began or
ended in California during fiscal year 2003. Amtrak operates an average
of 68 intercity and 300 commuter trains per day in California.
The freight rail system is also important for goods movement.
California's ports receive over 40 percent of all of the goods that are
shipped into the United States. Many of the imports are shipped by rail
through California and to the rest of the nation. If there were a
terrorist attack, the impact on our economy would be devastating.
Finally, local communities throughout California have mass transit
systems. For example, Muni, in San Francisco, is the 7th largest
transit system in the nation. There is light rail in Los Angeles,
Sacramento, and San Diego. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
has buses that go directly to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
which has weapons research.
It is vitally important to ensure that our nation's entire
transportation system is secure. It is time we stopped ignoring our
rail systems.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 2277. A bill to amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112),
to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts
affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Reservation; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
provide a technical correction that would once again allow binding
arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting the land
within the Salt River Pima-Mariposa Indian Community (SRPMIC). A
companion bill is being introduced today by Congressman Hayworth.
The SRPMIC located in Scottsdale, AZ, one of the most diversified
economic development portfolios in Indian country. Blessed with a prime
location in metropolitan Phoenix, the Tribe has nearly a dozen business
enterprises including a sand and gravel operation, a cement company,
two golf courses, and a shopping center. The tribe wants to continue
diversifying their economy in the hopes of becoming economically self-
sufficient. This legislation is intended to help them achieve this
goal.
This bill would make technical corrections to title 2l5, U.S. Code,
Section 416a(c) relating to ``binding arbitration of disputes.''
Recently, in an effort to consolidate and streamline various rules,
regulations, and laws, some sections of Title 25, U.S. Code, Section 81
were repealed that affected the Bureau of Indian Affairs. An unintended
consequence of this consolidation was that the definition for leases,
which included sublease, substitute lease, and master lease, was
altered. Simply put, this legislation would reinstate the

[[Page S3583]]

prior definition for leases on the reservation to include subleases,
substitute leases, and master leases. Without this clarification, the
tribe fears that potential tenants may be leery to invest on tribal
land.
This legislation may seem minor, but it would go a long way toward
helping the SRPMIC achieve the economic self-sufficiency it is working
toward. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
work for its speedy passage.
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Breaux):
S. 2279. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect
to maritime transportation security, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, less than 1 year ago, we wrapped up work
on the port security bill that was signed into law as the Maritime
Security Act of 2002, MTSA. That act mandated and outlined changes that
are needed to shore up security in our ports, and established for the
first time a system to coordinate, plan and implement port security at
U.S. seaports. While this was landmark legislation, much still needs to
be done with respect to the implementation of the requirements mandated
by this law.
I am very dissatisfied with the current Administration's disinterest
in paying for port security, and would point out that we are
approaching a crisis, as Federal mandates are being rolled out for
security without Federal support. I have tried over and over to focus
the attention of the Administration on this crucial need and pushed to
no avail in the Senate to get the resources necessary to address this
problem. But to date, I have gotten little support. In addition to
appropriating much needed funds for port security, it has become
apparent that keeping up with security needs at our ports is an ever
evolving task, and that we may have to refocus our efforts and push
harder to ensure that we coordinate our policies and maximize the
limited resources that we have in this area.
Today, in order to keep up with these needs, I am introducing the
``Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004'', along with Senator
McCain, and Senator Breaux. I am pleased to have worked on this with
Senator McCain, the Chairman of our Committee, as I often remark, while
he has no coastline, he has worked with those of us who do have ports
to work on these crucial port security issues. I am also pleased to
introduce this legislation with Senator Breaux, for he has truly been
one of the leading advocates of the importance of maritime shipping and
the merchant marine in the U.S. Senate. He has done invaluable work for
us on the Commerce Committee, and is a true expert in the field. He
will be sorely missed for his expertise on all maritime issues,
although I am sure, that in the future, he will still be the Captain of
some small boat, yacht, or maybe even a ship.
Even though the Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies charged with
the implementation of these measures have aggressively taken initial
steps necessary to set up our future structure for seaport security
there is still much to do, and effective action needs to occur to help
coordinate and crystallize security policies and objectives. The
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004 would attempt to mandate a
coordinated Federal approach to several areas of concern in port
security. It would also attempt to set performance standards for
certain areas in port security and add a few enhancements to last
year's legislation. Most importantly the bill would require a user fee
to be established to help pay for the port security mandates.
Specifically, this bill would impose in rem liability to secure
payment of penalties and fines under the Act and to help ensure
compliance with the security requirements imposed by the MTSA. The bill
would also include provisions to increase security in waterside cargo
areas, and ensure that cargo contents of imported marine cargo
containers would be required to be cleared within 5 days of entering a
U.S. port, or alternatively removed after 5 days without being cleared,
to a regulated warehouse where it would be opened and reviewed to
verify its contents. This would in no way change any claim to
possession of the goods. Importantly, the bill would require DHS to
evaluate the policies and practices of sealing empty containers.
According to the Federal Maritime Commission, over 4 million containers
were imported into the United States empty. At a recent hearing, a
representative from the ILWU longshoremen's union pointed out that
treatment of empties and the sealing practices of these containers
varied from locale to locale. This bill would require an analysis of
current practices at U.S. ports in order to determine what steps need
to occur in order to make sure that the transport of empty containers
does not present a threat of terrorism, and whether a Federal policy is
justified in this area.

The bill would require the Administration to produce a coordinated
plan for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating maritime intelligence
information collected by Federal agencies on ships, cargo, crew members
and passengers. This intelligence is used to determine which ships,
cargo, or crew warrant further inspection. This section of the bill
requires further development of a maritime intelligence system to
collect and analyze information concerning the crew, passengers and
cargoes carried on vessels operating in waters under the jurisdiction
of the United States. This mandate essentially restates existing law
since it appears that the agencies have actually grown further apart
since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The
provision in this bill would require a plan on how the Administration
will coordinate collection and analysis of maritime information, and
how agency personnel might be co-located to maximize resources and
coordinate analysis. This plan must also indicate when long range
vessel tracking will be integrated into this intelligence information.
Additionally, the plan would require the government to analyze private
sector resources to evaluate how they could be used to help monitor and
differentiate legitimate moves of trade from those actions and players
that are more suppositious. The Federal Government does not have a lot
of experience monitoring commercial maritime activity, and I believe
they will have to employ private sector expertise to assist in this
endeavor.
The report shall also consider the abilities of the Department of
Navy to collect and analyze commercial maritime information. The U.S.
Navy probably has the most resources dedicated to the evaluation of
commercial shipping activities, but are precluded from sharing this
information. In light of our need for better information on commercial
shipping, this policy has to be reevaluated. A maritime intelligence
system needs to be set up to work together so that Federal agencies,
State, local and the private sector can coordinate their law
enforcement activities. Maritime intelligence on commercial ocean
shipping is currently gathered by the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and
other agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission under separate
systems. Only the Coast Guard and the Navy currently work together. We
lag far behind in this area, and each agency is operating independent
of others. We are not getting the full picture of what is happening out
there. It is crucial that we have the best information available so
that we can target our relatively limited resources with maximum
efficiency. Further, the information has to be disseminated in a
fashion to maximize its utility, while still protecting that
information which needs to be kept confidential. Collection and
analysis of commercial maritime information is a key element of our
port security that needs more focus and has to be addressed if we are
to adequately protect our Nation.
Importantly, the bill will require the Administration to come up with
cargo security plans to evaluate targeting systems to determine whether
they are effective in deterring and protecting against potential acts
of terrorism from cargo. In the event that targeting is inadequate
protection, DHS would be required to increase the amount of cargo being
non-intrusively inspected or x-rayed by two over the next year. The
bill would also require the consolidation of intermodal cargo security
programs that have the same security goals while establishing criteria
and

[[Page S3584]]

performance goals for these security programs, which are currently
operating completely independent of each other, and require certain
other cargo security program enhancements. Voluntary cargo security
programs are not the answer to the important problem of securing our
Nation from terrorist attacks. Firm standards and goals must be in
place to ensure that items that we know we don't want in marine
containers are not actually in marine containers. The legislation will
also require a report on the amount of actual inspections that are
being done at foreign seaports.
While the Container Security Initiative was rolled out with great
fanfare to work with foreign ports to inspect cargo before they get to
U.S. ports, the question remains whether we are actually getting much
bang for the buck. The fundamental question that needs to be addressed
is whether foreign nations have been willing to use their security
screening equipment for our benefit, and to what degree have they been
willing to screen cargo for the benefit of our Nation. The legislation
will require a report to determine whether this program needs
adjustment, or is a cost-effective measure to ensure safe cargo
movements into the U.S., and to update us on the progress in the
installation of a system of radiation detection at U.S. ports.
Additionally, this legislation will redirect our efforts to help
ensure that we can verify that security is in place to prevent an act
of terrorism, and not place us in a position of having to rely on
documentation and the attestations or documentation of third parties in
order to determine whether we need to take actions to protect the
public. The Administration has not even started to implement the
certification program required to certify ``secure systems of
transportation,'' 46 U.S.C. 70116, and they must get going on this
vital initiative. Otherwise, it would only take one good liar to breach
our system of defense. Although I understand we cannot inspect every
piece of cargo, we have a credible system in place to actively increase
cargo inspections, and implement a system that would ultimately allow
us to reopen U.S. ports to commerce, in the event of an attack.
Additionally, the bill also would require a report from the Coast
Guard on the benefits of utilizing joint operational centers at United
States seaports to implement area security plans. This report should
incorporate lessons learned from the three centers that have already
been established, such as ``Operation SeaHawk'' in Charleston, SC, and
consider which security programs could be effectively fused into these
joint operational centers. The Commandant of the Coast Guard would be
required by this bill to report on the effectiveness of these centers
for port security and determine if it would be beneficial and cost
effective to establish centers in additional areas that pose a
significant security risk, and to utilize them to implement area
security plans.
The bill will also make sure that port security grants are reviewed
and approved, as was mandated under the terms of the MTSA, and all
grants are subject to the review of the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port, the regional Maritime Administration representative, and other
Transportation Security Administration security officials as well as
other DHS security experts, before the grants are approved. This grant
program is not open-ended, it is intended to help the private sector
and State and municipal governments achieve compliance with Federally
approved facility plans and area maritime security plans, and the
changes to the statute will ensure that the grant program operates the
way we intended it to operate.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration and the State
Department to evaluate existing foreign assistance programs to
determine whether the existing aid programs can be utilized to help
foreign nations achieve compliance with the international standard set
for port security. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to set up a
mechanism to review the practices of foreign ports to ensure that they
have implemented adequate security measures, and ultimately, they can
take steps that would result in the closure of commerce from ports in
non-compliance with international security standards. It is in the best
interests of everyone potentially impacted by such a policy
implication, if we review our foreign aid programs to determine whether
aid can be used to implement the necessary security measures.
The bill also requires the Maritime Administration to work with the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, and other DHS port
security agencies such as TSA, Coast Guard and Customs to determine how
to supplement their training programs to include a greater
familiarization with commercial maritime practices. Port security law
enforcement is much different in the aftermath of September 11, and
officials involved in regulation and policing shipping will now have to
approach it from a different perspective, and to be able to identify
anomalies and irregularities, in order to best focus our limited police
resources over an immense volume of trade. It is my understanding that
the Maritime Administration has been utilizing resources at the U.S.
Merchant Marine Academy and working with FLETC to formalize port
security training. I think that this change will help our Federal
agencies bolster their existing training programs, and achieve a
greater understanding of potential security issues that could arise,
and will be a healthy addition to work already done by the Maritime
Administration and FLETC.
The bill rewrites the DHS mandate to conduct research and
development, and would require the Science Directorate within DHS to be
more accountable to Congress for those actions they are taking to
develop the types of technology necessary to address security at our
seaports. Importantly, the bill also requires the Coast Guard to
evaluate the security risks and policies very carefully of nuclear
facilities on or adjacent to navigable waterways to ensure that we have
security policies in place to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring
from on or under navigable waterways. Most nuclear facilities are on or
adjacent to navigable waterways, and I want the Coast Guard to exercise
the highest degree of security in their treatment of these facilities
and the threat posed as a result of maritime commerce or the proximity
to navigable waterways.
Most importantly, this bill attempts to address the fundamental issue
that will face the nation as we implement the MTSA--will sufficient
funding be in place to assure that our ports and agencies will robustly
pursue security, or we will have to rely on sham security programs, or
efforts severely restricted by funding that result in de minimus or
desultory security efforts. When the Senate and House conferenced on
the port security bill in the fall of 2002, the Senate conferees
insisted on establishing direct funding for port security programs
through a user fee, identical to the airline security fee, which would
help defray the significant costs for the new port security mandates.
The Administration declined to dedicate any resources for port
security, and they declined to support the Senate's user fee. Unable to
reach agreement with the House conferees and the Administration, I
agreed to authorize just the necessary funds, but the President was
required by law to report to Congress within 6 months on a funding
proposal to assist States and their ports in complying with security
mandates for Federal security plans. That report has never been
prepared and is 9 months overdue.

When the President's budget for FY 2004 came out, after the U.S.
Coast Guard had estimated that it would take $7.4 billion of funding in
order to comply with the port security requirements, there was no
funding for port authority compliance in that year's budget resolution.
I offered an amendment to the FY 2004 Budget Resolution which was
unanimously accepted to add $1 billion to help defray the first year
costs of port security--ultimately it was dropped from Conference. Two
weeks later, the President was presented with a direct opportunity to
fund port security programs: Congressional consideration of his
emergency supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the war in Iraq
and bolster homeland security. Again, the Administration funding
request included no funding for port authorities to help them comply
with the Federal mandate, so I offered an amendment to add $1 billion
to the supplemental specifically to help ports meet the new security
mandates. Despite unanimous approval in

[[Page S3585]]

the Senate 3 weeks earlier, the amendment was opposed by the
Administration and defeated on the Senate floor on a straight party
line vote.
Last year, I made another effort to address the port security funding
inadequacies during consideration of the FY 2004 Homeland Security
Appropriations bill. Again, the Administration proposed no funding for
port security grants in their 2004 request, so I offered an amendment
to the bill to direct $300 million specifically to port security grants
without increasing the overall cost of the bill. The Administration
opposed the funding increase, and the amendment was defeated largely
along party lines with only three Republicans supporting the amendment.
Until this year's budget the President has not requested one dime
specifically for port security. He has opposed efforts to mandate the
funds be raised from the users of the system, and this year's budget
request is for only $46 million. Despite opposition from the White
House, Congress has directed appropriations that have resulted in
grants of $450 million to ports to help ensure compliance with the
Federal security mandates, and so I know that this issue is an area of
major concern. Ultimately, the funding issues must be addressed, and
this bill proposes a user fee to pay for the costs of compliance of
port security. I had considered the possibility of authorizing the
Administration to either generate funds for port security via a user
fee, or alternatively mandate that funds be directly transferred from
funds collected by Customs duties, but because of jurisdictional issues
determined not to do so. The maritime industry supports this approach,
and I am not opposed to this approach, but want only to ensure, that
one way or another, we have the necessary funding in place to set up
the system of port security that this nation deserves. Simply put,
there is just too much at stake to hope that security emerges.
This bill seeks to continue the work to correct the security and
terrorism prevention needs at our maritime borders. There is much to be
done and there is a continued need for government and industry
cooperation. This bill works on some of that need, yet the major need
is funding for port security, which I hope that we will be able to
address in the Senate very soon.
I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill to be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2279

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents
Sec. 2. In rem liability; enforcement; pier and wharf security costs.
Sec. 3. Maritime information.
Sec. 4. Intermodal cargo security plan.
Sec. 5. Joint operations center for port security.
Sec. 6. Maritime transportation security plan grants.
Sec. 7. Assistance for foreign ports.
Sec. 8. Federal and State commercial maritime transportation training.
Sec. 9. Port security research and development.
Sec. 10. Nuclear facilities in maritime areas.
Sec. 11. Transportation worker background investigation programs.
Sec. 12. Security service fee.
Sec. 13. Port security capital fund.

SEC. 2. IN REM LIABILITY; ENFORCEMENT; PIER AND WHARF
SECURITY COSTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 70117 as 70120; and
(2) by inserting after section 70116 the following:

``Sec. 70117. In rem liability for civil penalties and
certain costs

``(a) In General.--Any vessel subject to the provisions of
this chapter, which is used in violation of this chapter or
any regulations issued hereunder shall be liable in rem for
any civil penalty assessed pursuant to section 70120 and may
be proceeded against in the United States district court for
any district in which such vessel may be found.
``(b) Reimbursable Costs.--
``(1) In general.--Any vessel subject to the provisions of
this chapter shall be liable in rem for the reimbursable
costs incurred by any valid claimant related to
implementation and enforcement of this chapter with respect
to the vessel, including port authorities, facility or
terminal operators, shipping agents, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, and other persons to whom the management
of the vessel at the port of supply is entrusted, and any
fine or penalty relating to reporting requirements of the
vessel or its cargo, crew, or passengers, and may be
proceeded against in the United States district court for any
district in which such vessel may be found.
``(2) Reimbursable costs defined.--In this subsection the
term `reimbursable costs' means costs incurred by any service
provider, including port authorities, facility or terminal
operators, shipping agents, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or other person to whom the management
of the vessel at the port of supply is entrusted, for--
``(A) vessel crew on board, or in transit to or from, the
vessel under lawful order, including accommodation,
detention, transportation, and medical expenses; and
``(B) required handling under lawful order of cargo or
other items on board the vessel.

``Sec. 70118. Enforcement by injunction or withholding of
clearance

``(a) Injunction.--The United States district courts shall
have jurisdiction to restrain violations of this chapter or
of regulations issued hereunder, for cause shown.
``(b) Withholding of Clearance.--
``(1) If any owner, agent, master, officer, or person in
charge of a vessel is liable for a penalty or fine under
section 70120, or if reasonable cause exists to believe that
the owner, agent, master, officer, or person in charge may be
subject to a penalty under section 70120, the Secretary may,
with respect to such vessel, refuse or revoke any clearance
required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States (46 U.S.C. App. 91).
``(2) Clearance refused or revoked under this subsection
may be granted upon filing of a bond or other surety
satisfactory to the Secretary.

``Sec. 70119. Security of piers and wharfs

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of law,
the Secretary shall require any uncleared, imported
merchandise remaining on the wharf or pier onto which it was
unladen for more than 5 calendar days to be removed from the
wharf or pier and deposited in the public stores or a general
order warehouse, where it shall be inspected for
determination of contents, and thereafter a permit for its
delivery may be granted.
``(b) Penalty.--The Secretary may impose an administrative
penalty of $5,000 for each bill of lading for general order
merchandise remaining on a wharf or pier in violation of
subsection (a).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment for In Rem Liability Provision in
Chapter 701.--Section 2 of the Act of June 15, 1917 (50
U.S.C. 192) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Act,'' each place it appears and
inserting ``title,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) In rem liability.--Any vessel subject to the
provisions of this title, which is used in violation of this
title, or any regulations issued hereunder, shall be liable
in rem for any civil penalty assessed pursuant to subsection
(c) and may be proceeded against in the United States
district court for any district in which such vessel may be
found.
``(e) Injunction.--The United States district courts shall
have jurisdiction to restrain violations of this title or of
regulations issued hereunder, for cause shown.
``(f) Withholding of clearance.--
``(1) If any owner, agent, master, officer, or person in
charge of a vessel is liable for a penalty or fine under
subsection (c), or if reasonable cause exists to believe that
the owner, agent, master, officer, or person in charge may be
subject to a penalty or fine under subsection (c), the
Secretary may, with respect to such vessel, refuse or revoke
any clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 91).
``(2) Clearance refused or revoked under this subsection
may be granted upon filing of a bond or other surety
satisfactory to the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating.''.
(c) Empty Containers.--Within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall review United States ports and transmit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure a report on the practices and policies in
place to secure shipment of empty containers. The Secretary
shall include in the report recommendations with respect to
whether additional regulations or legislation is necessary to
ensure the safe and secure delivery of cargo and to prevent
potential acts of terrorism involving such containers.
(d) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
701 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking
the last item and inserting the following:

``70117. In rem liability for civil penalties and certain costs
``70118. Enforcement by injunction or withholding of clearance
``70119. Security of piers and wharfs
``70120. Civil penalty''.

SEC. 3. MARITIME INFORMATION.

Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure that provides a preliminary

[[Page S3586]]

plan for the implementation of section 70113 of title 46,
United States Code. The plan shall--
(1) provide the identification of Federal agencies with
maritime information relating to vessels, crew, passengers,
cargo, and cargo shippers;
(2) establish a timeline for coordinating the efforts of
those Federal agencies in the collection of maritime
information;
(3) establish a timeline for the incorporation of
information on vessel movements derived through the
implementation of sections 70114 and 70115 of title 46,
United States Code;
(4) include recommendations on co-locating agency personnel
in order to maximize expertise, minimize cost, and avoid
redundancy;
(5) include recommendations on how to leverage information
on commercial maritime information collected by the
Department of the Navy, and identify any legal impediments
that would prevent or reduce the utilization of such
information outside the Department of the Navy;
(6) include recommendations on educating Federal officials
on commercial maritime operations in order to facilitate the
identification of security risks posed through commercial
maritime transportation operations;
(7) include recommendations on how private sector resources
could be utilized to collect or analyze information, along
with a preliminary assessment of the availability and
expertise of private sector resources;
(8) include recommendations on how to disseminate
information collected and analyzed through Federal maritime
security coordinator while considering the need for
nondisclosure of sensitive security information and the
maximizing of security through the utilization of State,
local, and private security personnel; and
(9) include recommendations on how the Department could
help support a maritime information sharing and analysis
center for the purpose of collecting information from public
and private entities, along with recommendations on the
appropriate levels of funding to help disseminate maritime
security information to the private sector.

SEC. 4. INTERMODAL CARGO SECURITY PLAN.

(a) In General.--In addition to the plan submitted under
section 3, within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure containing the following:
(1) Secure systems of transportation (46 U.S.C. 70116).--A
plan, along with timelines, for the implementation of section
70116 of title 46, United States Code. The plan shall--
(A) provide an update on current efforts by the Department
of Homeland Security could be incorporated into the
certification process outlined in section 70116 to ensure the
physical screening or inspection of imported cargo;
(B) provide a preliminary assessment of resources necessary
to evaluate and certify ``Secure Systems of Transportation'',
and the resources necessary to validate that ``Secure Systems
of Transportation'' are operating in compliance with the
certification requirements; and
(C) contain an analysis of the feasibility of establishing
a user fee in order to be able to evaluate, certify, and
validate ``Secure Systems of Transportation''.
(2) Radiation detectors.--A report on progress in the
installation of a system of radiation detection at all major
United States seaports, along with a timeline and expected
completion date for the system. In the report, the Secretary
shall include a preliminary analysis of any issues related to
the installation of the radiation detection equipment, as
well as a cost estimate for completing installation of the
system.
(3) Non-intrusive inspection at foreign ports.--A report--
(A) on whether and to what extent foreign seaports have
been willing to utilize screening equipment at their ports to
screen cargo, including the number of cargo containers that
have been screened at foreign seaports, and the ports where
they were screened;
(B) indicating which foreign ports may be willing to
utilize their screening equipment for cargo exported for
import into the United States, and a recommendation as to
whether, and to what extent, United States cargo screening
equipment will be required to be purchased and stationed at
foreign seaports for inspection; and
(C) indicating to what extent additional resources and
program changes will be necessary to maximize scrutiny of
cargo in foreign seaports.
(4) Compliance with security standard Programs.--A plan to
establish, validate, and ensure compliance with security
standards that would require ports, terminals, vessel
operators, and shippers to adhere to security standards
established by or consistent with the National Transportation
System Security Plan. The plan shall indicate what resources
will be utilized, and how they would be utilized, to ensure
that companies operate in compliance with security standards.
(b) Evaluation of Cargo Inspection Targeting System for
International Intermodal Cargo Containers.--
(1) In general.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security shall evaluate
the system used by the Department to target international
intermodal containers for inspection and report the results
of the evaluation to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In conducting
the evaluation, the Inspector General shall assess--
(A) the effectiveness of the current tracking system to
determine whether it is adequate to prevent international
intermodal containers from being used for purposes of
terrorism;
(B) the sources of information used by the system to
determine whether targeting information is collected from the
best and most credible sources and evaluate data sources to
determine information gaps and weaknesses;
(C) the targeting system for reporting and analyzing
inspection statistics, as well as testing effectiveness;
(D) the competence and training of employees operating the
system to determine whether they are sufficiently capable to
detect potential terrorist threats; and
(E) whether the system is an effective system to detect
potential acts of terrorism and whether additional steps need
to be taken in order to remedy deficiencies in targeting
international intermodal containers for inspection.
(2) Increase in inspections.--If the Inspector General
determines in any of the reports required by paragraph (1)
that the targeting system is insufficiently effective as a
means of detecting potential acts of terrorism utilizing
international intermodal containers, then within 12 months
after that report, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
double the number of containers subjected to intrusive or
non-intrusive inspection at United States ports or to be
shipped to the United States at foreign seaports.
(c) Report and Plan Formats.--The Secretary and the
Inspector General may submit any plan or report required by
this section in both classified and redacted formats if the
Secretary determines that it is appropriate or necessary.

SEC. 5. JOINT OPERATIONS CENTER FOR PORT SECURITY.

The Commandant of the United States Coast Guard shall
report to Congress, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on the potential benefits of
establishing joint operational centers for port security at
certain United States seaports. The report shall consider the
3 Joint Operational Centers that have been established at
Norfolk, Charleston, San Diego, and elsewhere and compare and
contrast their composition and operational characteristics.
The report shall consider--
(1) whether it would be beneficial to establish linkages to
Federal maritime information systems established pursuant to
section 70113 of title 46, United States Code;
(2) whether the operational centers could be beneficially
utilized to track vessel movements under sections 70114 and
70115 of title 46, United States Code;
(3) whether the operational centers could be beneficial in
the facilitation of intermodal cargo security programs such
as the ``Secure Systems of Transportation Program'';
(4) the extent to which such operational centers could be
beneficial in the operation of maritime area security plans
and maritime area contingency response plans and in
coordinating the port security activities of Federal, State,
and local officials; and
(5) include recommendations for the number of centers and
their possible location, as well as preliminary cost
estimates for the operation of the centers.

SEC. 6. MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLAN GRANTS.

Section 70107(a) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Homeland Security
for Border and Transportation Security shall establish a
grant program for making a fair and equitable allocation of
funds to implement Area Maritime Transportation Security
Plans and to help fund compliance with Federal security plans
among port authorities, facility operators, and State and
local agencies required to provide security services. Grants
shall be made on the basis of the need to address
vulnerabilities in security subject to review and comment by
the appropriate Federal Maritime Security Coordinators and
the Maritime Administration. The grant program shall take
into account national economic and strategic defense concerns
and shall be coordinated with the Director of the Office of
Domestic Preparedness to ensure that the grant process is
consistent with other Department of Homeland Security grant
programs.''.

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN PORTS.

Section 70109 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' in subsection (b) and
inserting ``The Administrator of the Maritime
Administration''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Foreign Assistance Programs.--The Administrator of
the Maritime Administration, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, shall identify foreign assistance
programs that could facilitate implementation of port
security antiterrorism measures in foreign countries. The
Administrator and the Secretary shall establish a program to
utilize those programs that are capable of implementing port
security antiterrorism

[[Page S3587]]

measures at ports in foreign countries that the Secretary
finds, under section 70108, to lack effective antiterrorism
measures.''.

SEC. 8. FEDERAL AND STATE COMMERCIAL MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
TRAINING.

Section 109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002 (46 U.S.C. 70101 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Federal and State Commercial Maritime Transportation
Training.--The Secretary of Transportation shall establish a
curriculum, to be incorporated into the curriculum developed
under subsection (a)(1), to educate and instruct Federal and
State officials on commercial maritime and intermodal
transportation. The curriculum shall be designed to
familiarize those officials with commercial maritime
transportation in order to facilitate performance of their
commercial maritime and intermodal transportation security
responsibilities. In developing the standards for the
curriculum, the Secretary shall consult with each agency in
the Department of Homeland Security with maritime security
responsibilities to determine areas of educational need. The
Secretary shall also coordinate with the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in the development of the
curriculum and the provision of training opportunities for
Federal and State law enforcement officials at appropriate
law enforcement training facilities.

SEC. 9. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 70107 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (i) and inserting the
following:
``(i) Research and Development.--
``(1) In general.--As part of the research and development
program within the Science and Technology directorate, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct investigations,
fund pilot programs, award grants, and otherwise conduct
research and development across the various portfolios
focused on making United States ports safer and more secure.
Research conducted under this subsection may include--
``(A) methods or programs to increase the ability to target
for inspection vessels, cargo, crewmembers, or passengers
that will arrive or have arrived at any port or place in the
United States;
``(B) equipment to detect accurately explosives, chemical,
or biological agents that could be used to commit terrorist
acts against the United States;
``(C) equipment to detect accurately nuclear or
radiological materials, including scintillation-based
detection equipment capable of signalling the presence of
nuclear or radiological materials;
``(D) improved tags and seal designed for use on shipping
containers to track the transportation of the merchandise in
such containers, including `smart sensors' that are able to
track a container throughout its entire supply chain, detect
hazardous and radioactive materials within that container,
and transmit that information to the appropriate law
enforcement authorities;
``(E) tools, including the use of satellite tracking
systems, to increase the awareness of maritime areas and to
identify potential terrorist threats that could have an
impact on facilities, vessels, and infrastructure on or
adjacent to navigable waterways, including underwater access;
``(F) tools to mitigate the consequences of a terrorist act
on, adjacent to, or under navigable waters of the United
States, including sensor equipment, and other tools to help
coordinate effective response to a terrorist action; and
``(G) applications to apply existing technologies from
other areas or industries to increase overall port security.
``(2) Implementation of technology.--
``(A) In general.--In conjunction with ongoing efforts to
improve security at United States ports, the Director of the
Science and Technology Directorate, in consultation with
other Department of Homeland Security agencies with
responsibility for port security, may conduct pilot projects
at United States ports to test the effectiveness and
applicability of new port security projects, including--
``(i) testing of new detection and screening technologies;
``(ii) projects to protect United States ports and
infrastructure on or adjacent to the navigable waters of the
United States, including underwater access; and
``(iii) tools for responding to a terrorist threat or
incident at United States ports and infrastructure on or
adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States,
including underwater access.
``(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through
2009 to carry out pilot projects under subparagraph (A).
``(3) Administrative provisions.--
``(A) No duplication of effort.--Before making any grant,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate with
other Federal agencies to ensure the grant will not be used
for research and development that is already being conducted
with Federal funding.
``(B) Accounting.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
by regulation establish accounting, reporting, and review
procedures to ensure that funds made available under
paragraph (1) are used for the purpose for which they were
made available, that all expenditures are properly accounted
for, and that amounts not used for such purposes and amounts
not expended are recovered.
``(C) Recordkeeping.--Recipients of grants shall keep all
records related to expenditures and obligations of funds
provided under paragraph (1) and make them available upon
request to the Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security for
audit and examination.''.
(b) Annual Report.--Within 30 days after the beginning of
each fiscal year from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009, the Director of the Science and Technology Directorate
shall submit a report describing its research that can be
applied to port security to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, the House of Representatives
Committee on Science, and the House of Representatives Select
Committee on Homeland Security. The report shall--
(1) describe any port security-related research, including
grants and pilot projects, that were conducted in the
preceding fiscal year;
(2) describe the amount of Department of Homeland Security
resources dedicated to research that can be applied to port
security;
(3) describe the steps taken to coordinate with other
agencies within the Department to ensure that research
efforts are coordinated with port security efforts;
(4) describe how the results of the Department's research,
as well as port security related research of the Department
of Defense, will be implemented in the field, including
predicted timetables;
(5) lay out the plans for research in the current fiscal
year; and
(6) include a description of the funding levels for the
research in the preceding, current, and next fiscal years.

SEC. 10. NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN MARITIME AREAS.

(a) Waterways.--Section 70103(b) is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
``(5) Waterways located near nuclear facilities.--
``(A) Identification and security evaluation.--The
Secretary shall--
``(i) identify all nuclear facilities on, adjacent to, or
in close proximity to navigable waterways that might be
damaged by a transportation security incident;
``(ii) in coordination with the Secretary of Energy,
evaluate the security plans of each such nuclear facility for
its adequacy to protect the facility from damage or
disruption from a transportation security incident
originating in the navigable waterway, including threats
posed by navigation, underwater access, and the introduction
of harmful substances into water coolant systems.
``(B) Rectification of deficiencies.--The Secretary, in
coordination with the Secretary of Energy, shall take such
steps as may be necessary or appropriate to correct any
deficiencies in security identified in the evaluations
conducted under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Report.--As soon as practicable after completion of
the evaluation under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
transmit a report, in both classified and redacted format, to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and the House of
Representatives Select Committee on Homeland Security--
``(i) describing the results of the identification and
evaluation required by subparagraph (A);
``(ii) describing the actions taken under subparagraph (B);
and
``(iii) evaluating the technology utilized in the
protection of nuclear facilities (including any such
technology under development).''.
(b) Vessels.--Section 70103(c)(3) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(F);
(2) by striking ``facility.'' in subparagraph (G) and
inserting ``facility; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) establish a requirement, coordinated with the
Department of Energy, for criminal background checks of all
United States and foreign seamen employed on vessels
transporting nuclear materials in the navigable waters of the
United States.''.

SEC. 11. TRANSPORTATION WORKER BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
PROGRAMS.

Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, shall transmit a report to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure--
(1) making recommendations (including legislative
recommendations, if appropriate or necessary) for
harmonizing, combining, or coordinating requirements,
procedures, and programs for conducting background checks
under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, section
5103a(c) of title 49, United States Code, section 44936 of
title 49, United States Code, and other provisions of Federal
law or regulations requiring background checks for
individuals engaged in transportation or transportation-
related activities; and

[[Page S3588]]

(2) setting forth a detailed timeline for implementation of
such harmonization, combination, or coordination.

SEC. 12. SECURITY SERVICE FEE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States
Code, as amended by section 2, is further amended by adding
at the end the following:

``Sec. 70121. Security service fee

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Security fee.--Within 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall assess and
collect an international port security service fee on
commercial maritime transportation entities that benefit from
a secure system of international maritime transportation to
pay for the costs of providing port security services. The
amount of the fees assessed and collected under this
paragraph and paragraph (2) shall, in the aggregate, be
sufficient to provide the services and levels of funding
described in section 70122(c).
``(2) International transshipment security fee.--The
Secretary shall also assess and collect an international
maritime transshipment security user fee for providing
security services for shipments of cargo and transportation
of passengers entering the United States as part of an
international transportation movement by water through
Canadian or Mexican ports at the same rates as the fee
imposed under paragraph (1). The fee authorized by this
paragraph shall not be assessed or collected on
transshipments from--
(A) Canada after the date on which the Secretary determines
that an agreement between the United States and Canada, or
(B) Mexico after the date on which the Secretary determines
that an agreement between the United States and Mexico,

has entered into force that will provide equivalent security
regimes and international maritime security user fees of the
United States and that country for transshipments between the
countries.
``(b) Schedule of Fees.--In imposing fees under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall ensure that the fees are reasonably
related to the costs of providing services rendered and the
value of the benefit derived from the continuation of secure
international maritime transportation.
``(c) Imposition of Fee.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 9701 of title 31
and the procedural requirements of section 553 of title 5,
the Secretary shall impose the fees under subsection (a)
through the publication of notice in the Federal Register and
begin collection of the fee within 60 days of the date of
enactment of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2004, or as soon as possible thereafter. No fee shall be
assessed more than once, and no fee shall be assessed for
international ferry voyages.
``(2) Means of collection.--The Secretary shall prescribe
procedures to collect fees under this section. The Secretary
may use a department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States Government or of a State or local government to
collect the fee and may reimburse the department, agency, or
instrumentality a reasonable amount for its services.
``(3) Subsequent modification of fee.--After imposing a fee
under subsection (a), the Secretary may modify, from time to
time through publication of notice in the Federal Register,
the imposition or collection of such fee, or both. The
Secretary shall evaluate the fee annually to determine
whether it is necessary and appropriate to pay the cost of
activities and services, and shall adjust the amount of the
fee accordingly.
``(4) Limitation on collection.--No fee may be collected
under this section except to the extent that the expenditure
of the fee to pay the costs of activities and services for
which the fee is imposed is provided for in advance in an
appropriations Act.
``(d) Administration of Fees.--
``(1) Fees payable to secretary.--All fees imposed and
amounts collected under this section are payable to the
Secretary.
``(2) Information.--The Secretary may require the provision
of such information as the Secretary decides is necessary to
verify that fees have been collected and remitted at the
proper times and in the proper amounts.
``(e) Receipts Credited as Offsetting Collections.--
Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, any fee collected
under this section--
``(1) shall be credited as offsetting collections to the
account that finances the activities and services for which
the fee is imposed;
``(2) shall be available for expenditure only to pay the
costs of activities and services for which the fee is
imposed; and
``(3) shall remain available until expended.
``(f) Refunds.--The Secretary may refund any fee paid by
mistake or any amount paid in excess of that required.
``(g) Sunset.--The fees authorized by subsection (a) may
not be assessed after September 31, 2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
701 of title 46, United States Code, as amended by section 2,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``70121. Security service fee''.

SEC. 13. PORT SECURITY CAPITAL FUND.

(a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States
Code, as amended by section 11, is further amended by adding
at the end the following:

``Sec. 70122. Port security capital fund.

``(a) In General.--There is established within the
Department of Homeland Security a fund to be known as the
Port Security Capital Fund. There are appropriated to the
Fund such sums as may be derived from the fees authorized by
section 70121(a).
``(b) Purpose.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available to
the Secretary of Homeland Security--
``(1) to provide financial assistance to port authorities,
facility operators, and State and local agencies required to
provide security services to defray capital investment in
transportation security at port facilities in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter;
``(2) to provide financial assistance to those entities
required to provide security services to help ensure
compliance with Federal area maritime security plans; and
``(3) to help defray the costs of Federal port security
programs.
``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) Funds derived from security fees.--From amounts in
the Fund attributable to fees collected under section
70121(a)(1) and (2)--
``(A) no less than $400,000,000 (or such amount as may be
appropriate to reflect any modification of the fees under
section 70121(c)(3)) shall be made available each fiscal year
for grants under section 70107 to help ensure compliance with
facility security plans or to help implement Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plans;
``(B) funds shall be made available to the Coast Guard for
the costs of implementing sections 70114 and 70115 fully by
the end of fiscal year 2006;
``(C) funds shall be made available to the Coast Guard for
the costs of establishing command and control centers at
United States ports to help coordinate port security law
enforcement activities and implementing Area Maritime
Security Plans, and may be transferred, as appropriate, to
port authorities, facility operators, and State and local
government agencies to help them defray costs associated with
port security services;
``(D) funds shall be made available to the Under Secretary
of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security
for the costs of implementing cargo security programs,
including the costs of certifying secure systems of
transportation under section 70116;
``(E) funds shall be made available to the Under Secretary
of Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security
for the costs of acquiring and operating nonintrusive
screening equipment at United States ports; and
``(F) funds shall be made available to the Transportation
Security Administration for the costs of implementing of
section 70113 and the collection of commercial maritime
intelligence (including the collection of commercial maritime
transportation information from the private sector), of which
a portion shall be made available to the Coast Guard and the
Customs Service only for the purpose of coordinating the
system of collecting and analyzing information on vessels,
crew, passengers, cargo, and intermodal shipments.
``(2) Transshipment fees.--Amounts in the Fund attributable
to fees collected under section 70121(a)(3), shall be made
available to the Secretary to defray the costs of providing
international maritime transshipment security at the United
States borders with Canada and Mexico.
``(d) Utilization Reports.--The Commandant of the Coast
Guard and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report
annually to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on utilization of amounts
received from the Fund.
``(e) Letters of Intent.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, or his delegate, may execute letters of intent to
commit funding to port sponsors from the Fund.''.
(f) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
701 of title 46, United States Code, as amended by section
11, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``70122. Port security capital fund''.

____________________