[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]]


       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.

  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''.

                          ____________________