[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8550-S8565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. 2701. A bill to provide incentives for the sharing of homeland
security information, promote the development of an information sharing
network, provide grants and other support to achieve communications
interoperability, and establish an Office of Information Sharing, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today with Senator Collins to
introduce legislation that would promote the sharing of homeland
security information across all levels of our Government, and to
provide funding and support necessary to enable our first responders to
communicate better with one another than they are able to do now during
a terrorist attack.
I am delighted that the chairman of the Governmental Affairs
Committee, Senator Collins, is my lead cosponsor on this legislation,
and that another member of the committee, Senator Akaka, is a
cosponsor, as is Senator Clinton.
One of the most painful and enduring lessons we should have learned
from the September 11 attacks is that information about terrorist
activities must be shared among Federal and other agencies to protect
the American people's security. Unfortunately, almost 3 years after the
attacks we have still not seen the kind of improvement and information
sharing at all levels we need to have.
The widely respected, nonpartisan Markle Foundation, in alliance with
the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, has looked at this problem at length and
concluded that an entirely new approach is needed to the sharing of
security information.
According to the Markle Foundation, the cold war paradigm that
strictly limited access to information is simply ill-suited to the
challenges we face today in an age of terrorism. Sharing information
among relevant law enforcement agencies and other public agencies is
vital to protecting our people's security precisely because we cannot
predict from which direction the first signs of potential attack will
come as we pretty much could during
[[Page S8551]]
the cold war. Yet the Federal Government has still developed neither a
comprehensive strategy nor actual policies to change the 50-year-old
cold war paradigm. We have to catch up quickly to win the war on
terrorism.
Equally troubling is that too many first responders still lack,
believe it or not, the basic ability to talk to one another when
responding to emergencies, including, of course, a terrorist attack,
because their equipment does not communicate directly. We use a
complicated term called ``interoperability'' to describe this
situation.
One of the most painful parts of the September 11 attacks in New York
was the loss of more than 300 New York City firefighters and other law
enforcement personnel who perished inside the collapsing Twin Towers of
the World Trade Center. The look-backs at that day, probably including
the one we will hear tomorrow from the September 11 Commission, lead a
lot of people to conclude that we lost a lot of New York's finest--
firefighters, police officers, other public servants--because they
could not communicate with one another on the equipment they had. That
is no longer acceptable.
The legislation we are introducing today addresses those challenges.
First, we authorize $3.3 billion over 5 years to provide reliable and
consistent funding to help law enforcement agencies around the country
find solutions to this so-called interoperability problem. We create an
Office of Information Sharing within the Department of Homeland
Security to develop and implement a national strategy to achieve that
goal. It simply is outrageous that those who are in uniform every day
to protect our security cannot communicate with one another in a time
of emergency because we have not given them good enough equipment to do
that.
Second, our legislation would require the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in conjunction with the intelligence community and other
Federal agencies, to establish a broad information exchange network
modeled after the Markle Foundation recommendations which would break
out of the cold war paradigm and allow full sharing of security
information.
Third, our legislation requires implementation of performance
measures and genuine incentives to encourage employees to implement the
changes that are necessary.
As part of the continuing fight to keep America safe from terrorism,
the test of our generation, all the cultural, technological, and
administrative barriers that impede the flow of critically important
homeland security information among different levels of Government and
among agencies at the same level simply must be broken down. That
requires an act of will and leadership, and then it requires funding.
It is not going to come cheaply, but security of the American people
never does come cheaply. We have the best military in the history of
the world because we have invested in it. We are only going to have the
best security at home from terrorism if we invest with similar
generosity.
A nonpartisan task force of the Council on Foreign Relations
recommended that the Nation spend double what Senator Collins and I are
proposing in this bill to ensure dependable interoperable
communications. What we are asking seems like a lot of money, but it is
half of what an independent group thinks is necessary to protect our
Nation. This legislation will help us develop a new structure, a new
paradigm of information sharing to guarantee that first responders and
preventers can communicate effectively with one another and with other
governmental agencies when they respond to terrorist attacks or any
other emergencies that threaten the safety or well-being of people
throughout our country.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the legislation
Senator Collins and I are introducing today be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2701
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 ``Homeland Security
Interagency and Interjurisdictional Information Sharing Act
of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The effective use of information is essential to the
Nation's efforts to protect the homeland. Information that
may prove important to those efforts, however, is often
widely dispersed and may be uncovered or held by any of a
number of Federal agencies, by 50 States or by the Nation's
650,000 local law enforcement officers who form the front
lines of the war against terrorism, among others. Finding
ways to share this information in an efficient and timely
manner with those who need it is central to both preventing
and responding to potential terrorist attacks on our Nation.
(2) Current approaches to information sharing are woefully
inadequate and largely ad hoc. State and local officials
frequently report that they do not receive adequate homeland
security information from Federal officials, nor is there a
consistent, easy way for State and local officials to
effectively provide homeland security information in their
possession to Federal officials. Federal agencies have often
not shared information even with other Federal agencies, and
State and local governments have few formalized means to
share information with other States and localities.
(3) There are a number of barriers, both structural and
cultural, to the more effective sharing of homeland security
information including--
(A) a lingering cold war paradigm that emphasizes
information security and maintaining strict limits on access
to information;
(B) mistrust among historically rival agencies and between
Federal and State officials; and
(C) few incentives to reward Government employees who share
information outside their agencies.
(4) A further barrier to information sharing among police,
firefighters and others who may be called on to respond to
terrorist attacks and other large-scale emergencies is the
lack of interoperable communications systems, which can
enable public safety agencies to communicate and share
important, sometimes critical, information in an emergency.
(5) A new approach to the sharing of homeland security
information (a new ``information architecture'') is urgently
needed to overcome these barriers and to meet the homeland
security needs of the Nation. One useful model for such a
network is the Systemwide Homeland Analysis and Resource
Exchange Network (SHARE) proposed by the Markle Foundation in
reports issued in October 2002 and December 2003. Like the
envisioned SHARE Network, a new approach, to be successful,
must be comprehensive, encompassing the many participants, at
many levels of government, who strive to protect the
homeland, and the system should be largely decentralized,
permitting participants throughout the system to exchange
information directly in a timely and effective matter without
having to go through a central hub.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Homeland security information.--The term ``homeland
security information'' means information relevant to, or of
potential use in, the prevention of, preparation for, or
response to, terrorist attacks upon the United States.
(4) Network.--The term ``Network'' means the Homeland
Security Information Sharing Network established under
section 4.
SEC. 4. HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING NETWORK.
(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
Homeland Security Information Sharing Network.
(2) Functions.--The Network shall--
(A) to the maximum extent possible, consistent with
national security requirements and the protection of civil
liberties, foster the sharing of homeland security
information--
(i) among offices and divisions within the Department;
(ii) between the Department and other Federal agencies;
(iii) between the Department and State, local, and tribal
governments;
(iv) among State, local, and tribal governments; and
(B) provide for the analysis of homeland security
information obtained or made available through the Network.
(b) Cooperative Developments.--In developing the Network,
the Secretary shall work with representatives of other
governmental entities that possess homeland security
information or will otherwise participate in the network,
including the Intelligence Community, the Department of
Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Department of Health and Human Services, and State, local
government and tribal officials.
(c) Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit status reports
on the development and implementation of the Network to--
(A) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives; and
(C) the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
[[Page S8552]]
(2) Contents.--The status reports shall include--
(A) a detailed description of the work completed to date
with attached relevant documents produced in the development
of the Network, including documents describing the strategy
for the Network and the Network's design or architecture; and
(B) a detailed timetable and implementation plan for
remaining work.
(3) Submission.--Status reports under this subsection shall
be submitted--
(A) not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act;
(B) not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(C) at 1-year intervals thereafter.
SEC. 5. HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION COORDINATING COUNCIL.
(a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``TITLE XVIII--HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION COORDINATING COUNCIL
``SEC. 1801. HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION COORDINATING
COUNCIL.
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `homeland
security information' means information relevant to, or of
potential use in, the prevention of, preparation for, or
response to, terrorist attacks upon the United States.
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other Federal
departments and agencies in possession of homeland security
information, as identified by the President, shall establish
the Homeland Security Information Coordinating Council (in
this section referred to as the `Coordinating Council').
``(2) Composition.--The Coordinating Council shall be
composed of--
``(A) a representative of the Department;
``(B) a representative of the Department of Justice;
``(C) a representative of the Central Intelligence Agency;
``(D) a representative of the Department of Health and
Human Services;
``(E) a representative of any other Federal department or
agency in possession of homeland security information, as
identified by the President; and
``(F) not fewer than 2 representatives of State and local
governments, to be selected by the Secretary.
``(3) Responsibilities.--The Coordinating Council shall--
``(A) develop, monitor, and update procedures and protocols
for sharing homeland security information among Federal
departments and agencies;
``(B) develop, monitor, and update procedures and protocols
for sharing homeland security information with State and
local governments so as to minimize the difficulties of State
and local governments in receiving information that may
reside in multiple departments or agencies;
``(C) establish a dispute resolution process to resolve
disagreements among departments and agencies about whether
particular homeland security information should be shared and
in what manner;
``(D) review, on an ongoing basis, current issues related
to homeland security information sharing among Federal
departments and agencies and between those departments and
agencies and State and local governments;
``(E) where appropriate, promote the compatibility and
accessibility of technology, including computer hardware and
software, used by Federal departments and agencies to
facilitate the sharing of homeland security information; and
``(F) ensure that there is coordination--
``(i) among Federal departments and agencies that maintain
homeland security information;
``(ii) multi-organization entities that maintain homeland
security information, including the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center and Joint Terrorism Task Forces; and
``(iii) the Homeland Security Information Network, in
actions and policies relating to the sharing of homeland
security information.
``(c) Administration.--The Department shall provide
administrative support to the Coordinating Council, which
shall include--
``(1) scheduling meetings;
``(2) preparing agenda;
``(3) maintaining minutes and records; and
``(4) producing reports.
``(d) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall designate a
chairperson of the Coordinating Council.
``(e) Meetings.--The Coordinating Council shall meet--
``(1) at the call of the Secretary; or
``(2) not less frequently than once a month.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
TITLE XVIII--HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION COORDINATING COUNCIL
``Sec. 1801. Homeland Security Information Coordinating Council.''.
SEC. 6. INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE SHARING OF HOMELAND SECURITY
INFORMATION.
(a) Agency Performance Measures.--
(1) Performance plan.--Consistent with the requirements of
section 1115 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary
shall prepare an annual performance plan that establishes
measurable goals and objectives for information sharing
between the Department and other appropriate entities in
Federal, State, local, and tribal governments. The plans
shall identify action steps necessary to achieve such goals.
(2) Performance report.--Consistent with the requirements
of section 1116 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary
shall prepare and submit to Congress an annual report
including an evaluation of the extent the Department's
information sharing goals and objectives were met. The report
shall include the results achieved during the year relative
to the goals established in the previous year's performance
plan.
(3) Performance management.--The Secretary shall
incorporate the performance measures in the performance plan
required under paragraph (1) into the Department's
performance appraisal system. These performance measures
shall be used in evaluating the performance of appropriate
managers and employees. If appropriate, determinations for
performance awards, bonuses, achievement awards, and other
incentives for Departmental managers and employees shall
include consideration of these performance measures.
(b) Incentives Programs.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--AWARDS TO PROMOTE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION
SHARING
``Sec. 4521. Awards to promote homeland security information
sharing
``(a) In this section--
``(1) the terms `agency' and `employee' have the meanings
given under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 4501,
respectively; and
``(2) the term `homeland security information' means
information relevant to, or of potential use in, the
prevention of, preparation for, or response to, terrorist
attacks upon the United States.
``(b)(1) The head of an agency may pay a cash award to,
grant time-off without charge to leave or loss of pay, or
incur necessary expense for the honorary recognition of, an
employee who--
``(A) develops and implements innovative policies,
practices, procedures, or technologies to foster appropriate
sharing of homeland security information with other agencies
and with State, local, and tribal governments; and
``(B) through such innovations, achieves measurable
results.
``(2) A cash award under this section may not exceed the
greater of--
``(A) $10,000; or
``(B) 20 percent of the basic pay of the employee.
``(3) A cash award may not be paid under this section to an
individual who is appointed to, or who holds--
``(A) a position to which an individual is appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
``(B) a position in the Senior Executive Service as a
noncareer appointee (as such term is defined under section
3132(a); or
``(C) a position which has been excepted from the
competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.
``(4) Consistent with paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an awards
program specifically designed to recognize and reward
employees (including managers) of the Department of Homeland
Security. An employee of the Department of Homeland Security
may not receive an award under paragraph (1).
``(5) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this section, and annually for 5 years thereafter, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Select Committee
on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report detailing the implementation of
programs under this section, including--
``(A) the number of managers and employees recognized;
``(B) the type of recognition given;
``(C) the number and dollar amount of awards paid to
individuals holding positions within each pay grade, pay
level or other pay classification;
``(D) the relationship between awards under this program
and other incentive or awards programs; and
``(E) the extent to which the program is assisting in
overcoming cultural and other barriers to sharing homeland
security information.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--AWARDS TO PROMOTE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION
SHARING
``4521. Awards to promote homeland security information sharing.''.
SEC. 7. OFFICE OF INFORMATION SHARING.
(a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 801
the following:
``SEC. 802. OFFICE OF INFORMATION SHARING.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(1) Communications interoperability.--The term
`communications interoperability'
[[Page S8553]]
means the ability of public safety service and support
providers, including law enforcement, firefighters, and
emergency management, to communicate with other responding
agencies and Federal agencies if necessary, through
information technology systems and radio communications
systems, and to exchange voice, data, or video with one
another on demand, in real time, as necessary.
``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Office of Information Sharing.
``(3) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State that--
``(A) has submitted a plan under subsection (d)(3); and
``(B) the Secretary determines has not achieved adequate
statewide communications interoperability.
``(4) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of
Information Sharing established under subsection (b).
``(5) Public safety agencies.--The term `public safety
agencies' means law enforcement, firefighters, emergency
technicians, public health officials, and such other persons
that the Secretary determines must communicate effectively
with one another to respond to emergencies.
``(b) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established the Office of
Information Sharing within the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness, which shall be
headed by a Director of Information Sharing appointed by the
Secretary.
``(2) Administration.--The Secretary shall provide the
Office with the resources and staff necessary to carry out
the purposes of this section, including sufficient staff to
provide support to each State, consistent with the
responsibilities set forth in paragraph (3).
``(3) Responsibilities.--The Office established under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) foster the sharing of homeland security information
among State and local governments and public safety agencies,
and regional consortia thereof, and between these entities
and the Federal Government by--
``(i) facilitating the creation of regional task forces
with representation from State and local governments and
public safety agencies and from the Federal Government to
address information sharing needs; and
``(ii) facilitating the establishment of 24-hour operations
centers in each State to provide a hub for Federal and State
and local government intelligence and public safety agencies
to share information;
``(B) foster the development of interoperable
communications systems by State and local governments and
public safety agencies, and by regional consortia thereof,
by--
``(i) developing and implementing a national strategy to
achieve communications interoperability;
``(ii) developing and maintaining a task force that
represents the broad customer base of State and local
governments, public safety agencies, as well as Federal
agencies, involved in public safety disciplines such as law
enforcement, firefighting, public health, and disaster
recovery, in order to receive input and coordinate efforts to
achieve communications interoperability;
``(iii) promoting a greater understanding of the importance
of interoperability among all levels of Federal, State and
local government;
``(iv) facilitating collaborative planning and partnerships
among Federal, State, and local government agencies in all
States where necessary;
``(v) facilitating the sharing of information on best
practices for achieving interoperability;
``(vi) identifying and working to overcome the cultural,
political, institutional, and geographic barriers within the
public safety community that can impede interoperability
among public safety agencies, including among Federal
agencies;
``(vii) developing appropriate performance measures and
systematically measuring the Nation's progress toward
interoperability;
``(viii) coordinating with other offices in the Department
and other Federal agencies providing grants for
communications interoperability or for other equipment and
training necessary to prevent, respond to, or recover from
terrorist attacks, including the development of common
guidance for such grants and consistent technical advice; and
``(ix) making recommendations to Congress about any changes
in Federal law necessary to remove barriers to achieving
communications interoperability;
``(C) provide technical assistance to State and local
governments and public safety agencies, and regional
consortia thereof, on the design of regional information
sharing networks and technology needed to support such
governments, agencies, and consortia;
``(D) provide technical assistance to State and local
governments and public safety agencies, and regional
consortia thereof, on planning, interoperability
architectures, acquisition strategies, and other functions
necessary to achieve communications interoperability;
``(E) in conjunction with the Directorate for Science and
Technology--
``(i) provide research, development, testing, and
evaluation for public safety communications technologies and
equipment;
``(ii) evaluate and validate new technology concepts, and
promote the deployment of advanced broadband communications
technologies; and
``(iii) encourage the development of flexible and open
architectures and standards, with appropriate levels of
security, for short- and long-term solutions to
interoperability; and
``(F) in coordination with State and local governments,
develop a system for collecting and distributing best
practices in homeland security.
``(c) Baseline Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director, shall conduct a nationwide assessment to determine
the degree to which communications interoperability has been
achieved to date and to ascertain the needs that remain for
interoperability to be achieved.
``(2) Reports.--The Secretary, acting through the Director,
shall submit to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives--
``(A) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this section, a report of the findings of the assessment
required by subsection (c); and
``(B) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this section, a plan for achieving all necessary
communications interoperability throughout the Nation.
``(d) Preparedness Grant Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, through the Office, shall
make grants to--
``(A) eligible States for initiatives necessary to achieve
interoperability within each State, including--
``(i) statewide communications planning;
``(ii) system design and engineering;
``(iii) procurement and installation of equipment;
``(iv) operations and maintenance of equipment; and
``(v) testing and technology development initiatives; and
``(B) local governments (including a consortium of local
governments), and public safety agencies within eligible
States, to assist with any aspect of the communications life-
cycle, including--
``(i) planning, system design, and engineering;
``(ii) procurement and installation of equipment;
``(iii) operations and maintenance of equipment; and
``(iv) testing and technology development.
``(2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
Office coordinates its activities with other entities of the
Department and other Federal entities so that grants awarded
under this subsection, and other grant programs related to
homeland security, fulfill the purposes of this Act and
facilitate the achievement of communications interoperability
nationally.
``(3) Eligibility.--
``(A) Submission of plan.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, each eligible State, or local
governments or public safety agencies within an eligible
State, shall submit a communications interoperability plan to
the Secretary that--
``(i) addresses any aspect of the communications life
cycle, including planning, system design and engineering,
procurement and installation, operations and maintenance, and
testing and technology development;
``(ii) if the applicant is not a State, includes a
description of how the applicant addresses the goals
specified in any applicable State plan or plans submitted
under this section; and
``(iii) is approved by the Secretary.
``(B) Incorporation and consistency.--A plan submitted
under subparagraph (A) may be part of, and shall be
consistent with, any other homeland security plans required
of the submitting party by the Department.
``(4) Award of grants.--
``(A) Considerations.--In approving plans and awarding
grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider--
``(i) the nature of the threat to the eligible State or
local jurisdiction;
``(ii) the location, risk, or vulnerability of critical
infrastructure and key national assets;
``(iii) the number, as well as the density, of persons who
will be served by interoperable communications systems;
``(iv) the extent of the partnerships, existing or planned,
established between local jurisdictions and agencies
participating in the development of interoperable
communications systems, and their coordination with Federal
and State agencies;
``(v) the extent to which the communications
interoperability plan submitted under paragraph (3)
adequately addresses steps necessary to implement short-term
or long-term solutions to communications interoperability;
``(vi) the extent to which eligible States and local
governments, in light of their financial capability,
demonstrate their commitment to expeditiously achieving
communications interoperability by supplementing Federal
funds with non-Federal funds;
``(vii) the extent to which grants will expedite the
achievement of interoperability in the relevant jurisdiction
with Federal, State, and local agencies; and
``(viii) the extent to which grants will be utilized to
implement advanced communications technologies to promote
interoperability.
``(B) Coordination.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall ensure that any grant made under this
subsection is
[[Page S8554]]
coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, contiguous local
governments, and within State and regional entities.
``(C) Local funding.--If the Secretary makes grants awards
to States, the Secretary shall--
``(i) make it a priority to ensure that funding or
resources reach local governments; and
``(ii) require applicants to demonstrate how such funding
will reach local governments.
``(D) Allocation.--In awarding grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that--
``(i) not less than .75 percent of the total amount
appropriated for grants in any fiscal year shall be awarded,
subject to clause (ii), to each eligible State, including the
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
``(ii) not less than .25 percent of the total amount
appropriated for grants in any fiscal year shall be awarded
to the territories of the United States, including American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,
and the United States Virgin Islands.
``(E) Process.--In awarding grants under this subsection,
the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practical, employ
a peer review process such as that used to review
applications awarded under the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, and
such sums as are necessary each fiscal year thereafter, for
the operations of the Office, and for other entities within
the Department whose activities facilitate the purposes of
this section and the Homeland Security Interoperability Act
of 2004.
``(2) Preparedness grant program.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out the grant program under
subsection (d)--
``(A) $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(B) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(C) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(D) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
``(F) such sums as are necessary each fiscal year
thereafter.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101) is amended by striking the item relating to
section 801 and inserting the following:
``801. Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness.
``802. Office of Information Sharing.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my good
friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in introducing
legislation that will strengthen our capabilities to prevent and
respond to acts of terrorism. The bill we are introducing will improve
communications among the various levels of Government and will assist
our State and local first responders in upgrading their communications
equipment. I thank Senator Lieberman and his staff for their efforts in
putting together this very important legislation and for working with
me to make this bill a bipartisan effort.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the phrase ``connect the
dots'' gained a prominent place in our national lexicon. The agencies
charged with intelligence gathering, analysis, and enforcement did not
have structures in place that would have enabled them to effectively
share information and coordinate responses. The dots were there, but
our intelligence and law enforcement personnel were, in far too many
cases, unable to connect them.
The heroism of our first responders on September 11 will never be
forgotten. Their devotion to duty, their courage, and their training
saved a great many lives that terrible day. Yet we now know that the
lack of a unified command structure, the uneven and in some cases
outright absence of interdepartmental coordination and incompatible
communications equipment may have prevented them from saving even more
lives, and it cost many first responders their own lives.
Throughout the Nation on that day, there was another problem. False
reports of car bombings and other terrorist acts spread quickly,
overwhelming the immediate efforts and response, preventing a full
comprehension of what had actually occurred, and causing needless fear.
Our frontline civilian and military agencies struggled to improvise a
defense against an attack of unknown nature and scope. As the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the 9/11 Commission:
We fought many phantoms that day.
The enemy we are fighting is no phantom. It is real, and it is
deadly. From the agencies of the Federal Government down to the State
and local levels, we have dedicated personnel who can defeat that
enemy. We must enable them to work together more effectively in this
great cause. We cannot expect them to connect the dots if so many dots
are hidden from view.
Although the Department of Homeland Security has made remarkable
progress in forging cohesive strategies, State and local officials
still tell Senator Lieberman and they still tell me that they have
difficulty in obtaining needed information from Federal agencies and
that they lack a reliable way to convey their own information to
Federal officials.
Turf battles, unfortunately, are still being fought among some
agencies. There still is no effective system in place for State and
local governments to share information with one another.
From computer systems to emergency radios, the technology that should
allow these different levels of government to communicate with each
other too often is silenced by incompatibility. Clearly, the barrier to
a truly unified effort against terrorism is a matter of both culture
and equipment. This legislation will help break down that barrier.
A General Accounting Office report on interoperable communications
released last week notes that the lives of first responders and those
they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot
communicate effectively. That is the crux of the matter that the
Lieberman-Collins bill seeks to address. A substantial barrier to
effective communications, according to the GAO, is the use of
incompatible wireless equipment by many agencies and levels of
government when they are responding to a major emergency.
Among the GAO recommendations are that Federal grants be used to
encourage States to develop and implement plans to improve
interoperable communications and that the Department of Homeland
Security needs to establish a long-term program to coordinate these
same communications upgrades throughout the Federal Government. Our
legislation would do much to implement these sensible recommendations.
It is vitally important that we assist the States in getting the
right communications technology into the hands of their first
responders. That would be accomplished by the interoperability grant
program in this legislation. I believe that grant program is the most
important feature of our legislation.
At a homeland security conference held in my home State of Maine in
May, one of the most persistent messages that I heard from Maine's
first responders concerned the lack of compatibility in communications
equipment. It remains a substantial impediment to their ability to
respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack. For a State
like mine that has three deepwater cargo ports, two international
airports, key defense installations, hundreds of miles of coastline,
and a long international border, compatible communications equipment is
essential. Yet it remains an illusive goal.
Maine's firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical
personnel do an amazing job in providing aid when a neighboring town is
in need. Fires, floods, and accidents are local matters in which they
have great expertise and experience. Their defense of the front lines
in the war against terrorism, however, is a national matter. Maine's
first responders, along with first responders across the country, are
doing their part, but they need and deserve Federal help.
The grant program established by our bill would guarantee every State
a share of interoperability funding and makes additional funding
available for States with special needs and vulnerabilities. It is
designed to get this vital funding to first responders quickly, in
coordination with a statewide plan.
At that Maine conference, I was joined by Under Secretary Asa
Hutchinson. He, perhaps, best described the mutual responsibilities of
this Federal-State partnership when he said:
We cannot secure the homeland of America from Washington,
D.C.
In other words, we have to rely on State and local officials and on
our first responders.
There is no question, however, that the security of the homeland
requires
[[Page S8555]]
the involvement, leadership, and expertise of Washington, DC, and, yes,
it also requires our financial commitment.
As Senator Lieberman mentioned, a recent study by the Council on
Foreign Relations estimates the total cost of nationwide communications
compatibility at $6.8 billion. Our legislation authorizes $3.3 billion
over 5 years. That is a reasonable and necessary contribution by the
Federal Government to this important partnership.
The legislation will also help to foster a culture of information
sharing through all levels of government and across all boundaries.
It directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a homeland
security information-sharing network that will expedite the gathering,
analysis, and distribution of information that is relevant to
preventing or responding to terrorism anywhere in the Nation. The
council established by this legislation will bring together
representatives from all the relevant Federal agencies, and from State
and local governments as well, to develop, monitor, and update
procedures to enhance information sharing.
This bill would make an important contribution to the security of our
Nation and the safety of our people. It would help us clear the
barriers that now prevent agencies at all levels of government from
cooperating and communicating to the fullest extent, whether those
barriers are due to a lack of coordination or whether they are due to
technology and incompatible equipment.
At the risk of piling one cliche on top of another, it is apparent to
me that in order to connect the dots, we must think outside the box.
Our enemy is cunning and remorseless. We must be clever and
resourceful. This legislation is designed to foster innovative thinking
by rewarding it, through a program that provides cash awards or other
forms of recognition to agency employees who solve a homeland security
problem. We already use pay-for-performance awards to recognize Federal
employees who devise ways to deliver Government services more
effectively and efficiently. We certainly can do the same for employees
who think up ways to make our country safer.
The new Office of Information Sharing this legislation would
establish in the Department of Homeland Security will continue the
substantial progress being made by addressing specific issues related
to improving cooperation among the various levels of government. A key
element of improved cooperation will be getting technology, computer
systems and communications equipment in particular, to work across the
frontiers of government agencies.
The security of our Nation and the safety of our people require that
we clear the barriers that prevent agencies at all levels of government
from cooperating and communicating to the fullest extent. There is an
additional reason why this is important.
Effective information-sharing is the best way in which we can protect
ourselves from harm as we protect the civil liberties we cherish. We
need borders that are closed to our enemies, but that remain open to
our friends. We need to be able to travel safely, but also freely. We
need to be able to protect ourselves against threats from abroad, but
we also need to engage in open and vigorous trade. The greatest threats
to these freedoms are the fear, suspicion and doubt that come from not
knowing as much as we can about the enemy and from having the best,
most coordinated defense possible.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to
build a better and stronger homeland security partnership.
I hope the legislation that Senator Lieberman and I have introduced
will enjoy widespread support.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senators
Lieberman and Collins in introducing the Homeland Security Interagency
and Interjurisdictional Information Sharing Act of 2004, a piece of
legislation critical to improving the communication capabilities of
first responders and among all levels of government.
One of the most important lessons our Nation learned on September 11
is that information sharing, both between agencies and levels of
government and between emergency first responders, is critical to the
prevention of and response to a terrorist attack on our homeland. There
has been much talk about breaking down stove pipes and fully equipping
our heroic first responders in the past 3 years, but this bill points
out those goals have not yet been met.
The world watched as firefighters perished in the World Trade Center
because their radios could not function inside the buildings and they
did not have updated information about the imminent collapse of the
towers. Ten months later it was reported that officers responding to a
shooting at Los Angeles International Airport missed crucial
information because they were not using the same radio frequency.
Yet almost all cities and counties in the United States still lack an
interoperable communications system today and many still lack the
infrastructure to provide 100 percent coverage for the radio systems
they do have. In my home State of Hawaii, first responders are unable
to communicate through radios in 25 percent of the island of Hawaii
because of a combination of lack of infrastructure and diverse
geography.
This problem can be solved, but it will require a commitment of not
only funding but planning, communication and cooperation. The current
SAFECOM initiative, which is supposed to address the interoperability
problem, has failed in most, if not all, of these areas. While this
issue clearly cannot be solved by one agency alone, the cross-
government nature of SAFECOM crippled the program from the start.
SAFECOM is supposed to be funded by multiple agencies meaning that if
one agency is not in agreement with the others it can withhold funding
and slow or stop activities. This formula has proven ineffective.
The Homeland Security Interagency and Interjurisdictional Information
Sharing Act will address these issues. The bill creates an Office of
Information Sharing within the Department of Homeland Security to
develop and implement a national strategy and provide the leadership,
outreach, and technical assistance necessary to achieve
interoperability. The new office would receive a direct line of funding
for its operations as well as to provide grants to States and
localities to develop interoperable networks.
The bill would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
develop a Homeland Security Information Sharing Network. The problem of
informational stove piping will not be eradicated with ad hoc measures
as is the practice today. The administration must institutionalize a
system of sharing critical homeland security information among all
levels of government. We are no longer in a ``need to know'' world. We
must switch to a ``need to share'' mentality.
Three years is too long for the lessons of September 11 to not be
implemented. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation and I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their work
on this issue.
______
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Allen, and Mr.
Lott):
S. 2702. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
repeal the requirement that persons making disbursements for
electioneering communications file reports on such disbursements with
the Federal Election Commission and the prohibition against the making
of disbursements for electioneering communications by corporations and
labor organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First
Amendment Restoration Act of 2004, a companion bill to H.R. 3801, which
was introduced earlier this year in the House by my former colleague,
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. In the last few years, we've seen some
remarkable restrictions placed on the ability of organizations to
exercise their first amendment rights with respect to campaign
contributions. One particular example is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002, or BCRA, which contains some provisions that have always
troubled me. Although in McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld
BCRA's restrictions as constitutional, this is not the first time that
I've disagreed with the Court's conclusions on
[[Page S8556]]
what kind of conduct I think is or is not constitutionally protected.
Specifically, I am concerned with the provisions of BCRA that limit
the ways in which some organizations can contribute funds within
certain time frames before an election. Under BCRA, labor unions and
corporations, which include trade associations and interest groups as
diverse as the ACLU and the NRA, are limited to only contributing PAC
funds within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.
These limitations apply to contributions for what are know as
``electioneering communications,'' which are any broadcast, cable, or
satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal
candidate and that reach 50,000 or more people in the relevant district
or State.
I believe that Congress can go beyond what the Supreme Court's
decision in McConnell v. FEC envisions as what is constitutionally
protected speech and that Congress should provide further first
amendment protections for organizations wanting to make political
contributions. This is why today I am introducing the First Amendment
Restoration Act. This bill would repeal those provisions of BCRA that
limit corporations and labor unions from making any other contributions
than those run through political action committees within the 30- and
60-day periods set out in the act. I am proud to say that Senators Jim
Inhofe, George Allen, and Trent Lott have agreed to cosponsor this
bill. I look forward to the debate on the First Amendment Restoration
Act and on issues of campaign-finance reform in general, as we see how
the restrictions we place on speech really play out in the real world.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. DeWINE):
S. 2705. A bill to provide assistance to Sudan, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 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. 2705
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 ``Comprehensive Peace for
Sudan Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Government of Sudan has engaged in an orchestrated
campaign of genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and has severely
restricted humanitarian and human rights workers' access to
Darfur in an attempt to inflict further harm on the Fur,
Masalit, and Zaghawa people of Darfur and to prevent the
collection of evidence of war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
(2) As a result of this campaign, as many as 30,000 people
have been killed, more than 1,000,000 people have been
displaced within Sudan, and approximately 200,000 have been
made refugees in Chad.
(3) As many as 320,000 people may die unless humanitarian
aid is immediately delivered to the affected individuals.
(4) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
issued a report which ``identified . . . massive human rights
violations in Darfur perpetrated by the Government of Sudan
and its proxy militia, which may constitute war crimes and/or
crimes against humanity''.
(5) The Government of Chad, under President Idriss Deby,
has served an important role in facilitating a renewable
``humanitarian cease-fire'' between the Government of Sudan
and the two rebel groups challenging that Government in
Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan
Liberation Movement, and has been a crucial partner in
permitting humanitarian assistance to reach refugees who have
crossed from Darfur to Chad in the tens of thousands.
(6) The cooperation and mediation of the SPLM is critical
to bringing about a political settlement between the
Government, the Sudanese Liberation Army, and the Justice and
Equality Movement.
(7) Practical implementation of a comprehensive peace
agreement between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan is
impossible without the implementation of a peace agreement
for Darfur.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) SPLM.--The term ``SPLM'' means the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE
CONFLICT IN DARFUR.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United Nations Security Council should immediately
pass a resolution--
(A) condemning the actions of the Government of Sudan in
Darfur; and
(B) setting out specific actions that such Government must
take to avoid the reimposition of sanctions;
(2) the United States Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
should travel to the region to investigate allegations of war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide brought against
the Government of Sudan;
(3) the President should immediately name a new Special
Envoy to Sudan whose responsibilities include support for
conflict mitigation throughout Sudan;
(4) the SPLM should take advantage of the opportunity
afforded by the May 26, 2004, signing of the three protocols
to help broker a political settlement to the conflict in
Darfur;
(5) restrictions pursuant to Executive Order 13067 (50
U.S.C. 1701 note) should not be lifted unless there is peace
in Darfur; and
(6) upon implementation of a peace agreement in Darfur, the
signing of a comprehensive peace agreement between the SPLM
and the Government of Sudan, and full cooperation from the
Government of Sudan on the war against terrorism, the
Government of the United States should immediately begin
discussions of the necessary steps to normalize relations
with Sudan, including the lifting of all economic and
political sanctions.
SEC. 5. ASSISTANCE FOR SUDAN.
(a) Humanitarian Assistance for Chad and Darfur.--The
President is authorized to provide $200,000,000 in fiscal
year 2005 in assistance to meet the humanitarian crisis in
Chad and Darfur pursuant to section 491 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2292) and section 2 of the
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601)
to provide shelter, health, water and sanitation, protection
of vulnerable populations, food, and other appropriate relief
items.
(b) Assistance To Support a Comprehensive North-South Peace
Agreement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
subject to subsection (d), the President is authorized to
provide $800,000,000 in assistance to support a comprehensive
North-South peace agreement in Sudan for purposes including
commercial assistance, infrastructure rehabilitation,
disarmament and demobilization of fighters, and training and
technical assistance to integrate members of the SPLM into
the interim Government of Sudan.
(c) Certification.--The President shall submit a
certification to the appropriate congressional committees not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
and every 180 days thereafter, that the Government of Sudan
has--
(1) ensured that the armed forces and the militias, known
as the Janjaweed, are not attacking civilians;
(2) taken significant demonstrable and verifiable steps to
demobilize and disarm the Janjaweed in Darfur;
(3) ceased harassment of aid workers, including those who
report human rights abuses, and allowed unfettered
humanitarian access to Darfur; and
(4) fully cooperated with the deployment and operation of
the African Union monitoring team for Darfur.
(d) Prohibition and Suspension of Assistance.--
(1) Prohibition.--If the President does not submit the
certification described in subsection (c) then the President
may not provide the assistance authorized in subsection (b).
(2) Suspension.--If, on a date after the President submits
the certification described in subsection (c), the President
determines such Government has ceased taking such actions,
the President shall immediately suspend the provision of the
assistance authorized in subsection (b) until the date on
which the President certifies that such Government has
resumed taking such actions.
SEC. 6. SANCTIONS IN SUPPORT OF PEACE IN DARFUR.
(a) Measures and Sanctions in Support of Peace.--On the
date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, if the President has not submitted the certification
described in subsection (c)(1)--
(1) the President shall implement the measures set forth in
section 6(b)(2) of the Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note);
and
(2) notwithstanding section 428(b) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 236(b)), the Secretary of State shall
prohibit the granting of a visa to--
(A) a senior member of the Government of Sudan;
(B) a senior official of the military of Sudan; or
(C) a family member of an individual described in
subparagraph (A) or (B).
(b) Continuation of Restrictions.--Restrictions against the
Government of Sudan that were imposed pursuant to title III
and sections 508, 512, and 527 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2004 (Division D of Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 143) shall
remain in place until the President makes the certification
described in subsection (c)(1).
(c) Certification.--The certification referred to in
subsections (a) and (b) is a certification submitted by the
President to the appropriate congressional committees not
[[Page S8557]]
later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
and every 90 days thereafter, that--
(A) the armed forces of the Government of Sudan and
militias allied with such Government have not attacked
civilians in Sudan since the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(B) the Government of Sudan is allowing unfettered
humanitarian access to people in Darfur.
SEC. 7. MULTILATERAL EFFORTS.
The Secretary of State shall direct the United States
Permanent Representative to the United Nations to pursue a
Security Council Resolution that condemns the Government of
Sudan for its actions in Darfur and calls for--
(1) accountability for those who are found responsible for
orchestrating and carrying out the atrocities in Darfur; and
(2) member states of the United Nations to--
(A) freeze the assets of senior members of the Government
of Sudan and their families held in each such member state;
(B) cease to import Sudanese oil;
(C) restrict the entry or transit of senior members of the
Government of Sudan and their families through each such
member state;
(D) deny permission for any aircraft registered in Sudan to
take off from, land in, or overfly each such member state;
and
(E) cease selling arms to the Government of Sudan.
SEC. 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report that includes--
(1) plans for and resources needed to assist with the
reconstruction of Sudan to support a comprehensive peace
agreement between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM,
including a description of the effect that the crisis in
Darfur will have on the resources needed;
(2) contingency plans for the delivery of humanitarian
assistance through nonmilitary means should the Government of
Sudan continue to obstruct or delay the international
humanitarian response for the 2,000,000 Sudanese civilians
declared vulnerable in Darfur;
(3) an assessment of the United States military personnel,
platforms, equipment, and their associated costs required
(should other efforts fail) to--
(A) deliver humanitarian assistance to Darfur; or
(B) provide security for the delivery of humanitarian
assistance; and
(4) a strategy for providing medical and psycho-social
assistance to victims of torture and sexual violence in
Darfur.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the President--
(1) for fiscal year 2005, $200,000,000 to carry out the
activities described in section 5(a); and
(2) for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, a total of
$800,000,000 to carry out the activities described in section
5(b).
(b) Reduction of Available Funds.--The amount authorized to
be appropriated under subsection (a)(2) shall be reduced by
$50,000,000 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act
if the President has not made the certification described in
section 5(c) by the end of that 180-day period, and shall be
reduced by an additional $50,000,000 at the end of each 180-
day period thereafter that has ended before the President has
made such certification.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 2706. A bill to establish kinship navigator programs, to establish
kinship guardianship assistance payments for children, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be introducing
legislation that expands the supports and services available to
grandparents and other relatives who are raising children when their
biological parents can no longer take care of them. I am happy to have
worked with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in crafting
this important bill.
Today there is a phenomenon that is quietly changing the face of the
American family and creating new challenges for our Nation's child
welfare system--the growth of kinship care. According to the Census,
more than 6 million children--1 in 12--live in households headed by
grandparents or other relatives.
New York alone has over 409,000 children living in these households.
The majority of these children--54 percent--live with their
grandparents, while the rest live with aunts, uncles, siblings, and
cousins. Sadly, one-fifth of families headed by grandparents are living
in poverty.
While extended families have always stepped in to raise children when
parents could not, over the past two decades we've seen a rise in the
number of children living with grandparents and other relatives. A
study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons found
that the number of children living in grandparent-headed households
increased by 30 percent between 1990 and 2000.
Parents are unable to raise their own children for many different
reasons, and we still have a lot to learn about this trend, but a few
statistics are illuminating: Mothers are the fastest growing segment of
the U.S. prison population. Approximately 7 in 10 women in correctional
facilities have children under age 17. The number of women living with
HIV/AIDS increased from 4,000 in the early 80s to close to 60,000 in
2000.
Many of these women are unable to raise their children and often rely
on their relatives to fill in. Many other parents die or contract
debilitating diseases that also make it impossible for them to fulfill
their parental obligations.
Grandparents and other relatives have stepped forward, often at great
personal sacrifice, to provide safe and loving homes for the children
in their care. This has allowed tens of thousands of children to live
with extended family rather than strangers.
Extended families can provide a sense of belonging and a connection
with their family history. Children are traumatized when they are
separated from their natural parents--being cared for by grandparents
or other relatives can soften that blow.
But kinship families, especially those without formal legal custody
of the children under their care, face a number of unnecessary
barriers. Let me give you an example. Maria Lemmons, of Albany, lost
her daughter, a single mother of 3, in a tragic car crash when Maria
was 67. Maria immediately stepped in to take custody of her
grandchildren, aged 11, 13, and 15. But as you can imagine, she
struggled. Maria was financially secure, but she hadn't raised a
teenager in over 20 years. She needed guidance about parenting and a
support group to help her navigate the tough terrain of parenting.
At the other extreme is Susan Smith. Susan's daughter Cathy almost
lost custody of her son, Jacob, when she became addicted to heroin and
neglected him for days at a time. Susan intervened to take care of
Jacob even though doing so required a significant financial sacrifice.
Susan lives on a Social Security check of less than $300 a month. She
can barely afford her groceries and her medicine. But she was not
willing to let Jacob be raised by a stranger.
At the very least, both of these women need and deserve our
compassion. But I believe they also deserve our support as they assume
the awesome responsibility of raising children. The Kinship Caregiver
Support Act will help women like Maria and Susan in three important
ways.
First, it will establish a ``kinship navigator'' program. This
program will provide funds to social service agencies to establish
toll-free hotlines, websites, and resource guides on the local and
State parenting support available to kinship families. These hotlines
and websites will give grandparents critical information about
enrolling children in school, obtaining SCHIP, Medicaid and other
health insurance, safeguarding their homes for small children, applying
for housing assistance, obtaining legal services, finding childcare,
and identifying parental support groups so that women like Maria have
someone to talk to about their experiences.
The kinship navigator program will promote partnerships between
government agencies, not-for-profit and faith-based organizations to
help them better serve the needs of kinship care families.
The second part of this legislation will make it possible for kinship
families who serve as permanent legal guardians to receive the same
payments that foster families would receive. This is extremely
important because many grandparents want to raise their grandchildren
but, like Susan, simply cannot afford to do so.
States will have the option to use their title IV-E funds to provide
payments to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal
guardianship of the children they've cared for as foster parents.
Families would be eligible if the child has been under the care of the
State agency for at least 12 months and was eligible for foster care
maintenance payments.
[[Page S8558]]
There are a few States, such as Illinois and Maryland, that have
already implemented subsidized guardianship waivers through the Health
and Human Services demonstration project. These States have shown that
subsidized guardianship is a cost-neutral and effective way to keep
families together. My legislation will make it possible for all States
to follow in their path. It values families that care for each other.
The final part of this legislation will require States to notify
grandparents when children enter the foster care system. Unfortunately,
grandparents and other relatives often do not know when their
grandchildren or nieces and nephews come under the care of the State.
By notifying grandparents and other relatives when children enter the
foster care system, we can make it a lot easier for families to stay
together.
I also want to note that in May of this year, the Pew Commission on
Children in Foster Care recommended that children who live with a
permanent legal guardian should receive federal guardianship
assistance. This commission is widely considered to be one of the most
comprehensive investigation of child welfare financing policy in
decades and is chaired by a bipartisan group of child welfare experts,
including legislators, state administrators, family service providers,
judges, foster and adoptive parents, and former foster youth. It is
encouraging that their recommendations are in line with the legislation
I am introducing today.
I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving
in the right direction toward helping the thousands of children and the
relatives that care for them in this country. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to pass this bill in the Senate.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S. 2708. A bill to develop the National Strategy for Homeland
Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to forge a comprehensive and effective strategy for our homeland
security.
Before 9/11, we did not truly perceive the threat of terrorism on our
own soil, and what homeland security efforts we did have underway were
badly divided. Dozens of agencies responsible for pieces of our
homeland security were scattered across the Federal Government, and
were largely unconnected to state and local officials and first
responders on the front lines in our Nation's cities and towns. There
were confusing overlaps and, more critically, treacherous gaps. And
because everyone was responsible for parts of the effort, no one was
ultimately in charge.
We took one large step to remedy these weaknesses by creating the
Department of Homeland Security. The Department brings more than two
dozen of the Federal Government's critical homeland security agencies
and programs under one roof, allowing for unprecedented coordination
and cooperation. It also created a Cabinet Secretary charged with
managing the budgets and personnel of these agencies, and capable of
providing a focal point for homeland programs and issues in the Cabinet
and beyond.
But we knew that in addition to creating a better organization, we
would need to lay out a clear roadmap to galvanize our homeland
defenses--at all levels of government and the private sector. That is
what many of us called for and, regretfully, it is something this
Nation still sorely lacks.
The Administration did produce a ``National Strategy for Homeland
Security'' in July 2002 that correctly identified many of the
challenges we face in preparing to meet the threat of terrorism. But
that document predates the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security and is already out of date. More significantly, it failed to
set priorities, clear deadlines and accountability for the vast array
of homeland security tasks we face.
As the highly regarded Gilmore Commission on terrorism noted in its
final report last December: ``Much is still required in order to
achieve an effective, comprehensive, unified national strategy and to
translate vision into action. Notably absent is a clear prioritization
for the use of scarce resources against a diffuse, unclear threat as
part of the spectrum of threats--some significantly more common than
terrorism. The panel has serious concern about the current state of
homeland security efforts along the full spectrum from awareness to
recovery, worried that efforts by the government may provide the
perception of enhanced security that causes the Nation to become
complacent about the many critical actions still required.''
While it is true that the Department of Homeland Security is
proceeding with some more targeted strategies regarding specific areas
of concern, these cannot replace a comprehensive strategy that sets the
ultimate policies and priorities for our homeland effort.
That is why I am introducing legislation requiring a new homeland
security strategy that can provide the strong, precise national
guidance we need on this critical issue.
In a February 3, 2004 report, the General Accounting Office surveyed
seven existing Federal strategies related to terrorism--including the
National Strategy for Homeland Security--and laid out guiding
principles to improve these strategies. My legislation incorporates
these principles, which stress accountability and prioritization as
requirements for a new homeland security strategy. The new strategy
must include a hierarchy of strategic goals and indicate the specific
activities needed to achieve those goals, as well as the likely costs,
and how such funds should be generated. In other words, the strategy
must make real choices about priorities and resources. The current
strategy identifies many goals, but rarely provides deadlines for
action, standards or performance measures to assess progress, or
details on the resources required for stated initiatives.
The strategy must clearly spell out organizational roles and
responsibilities, including the proper roles of State, local, private
and international actors and the coordinating mechanisms to bring these
actors together. Almost three years after 9/11, we still too often must
ask ``who is in charge?'' of key pieces of our homeland security
agenda. And, critically, the homeland security strategy must address
how it relates to other Federal strategies regarding terrorist threats,
and how the strategies will be integrated.
The legislation also highlights certain substantive areas that should
be addressed, such as a thoroughgoing strategy to maximize information
sharing related to homeland security throughout the Federal Government
and with state and local officials and, where appropriate, the private
sector. The strategy must look at preparing the public health sector to
detect and respond to terrorist attacks, at integrating military
capabilities into our homeland security planning, at building all-
hazards preparedness throughout all levels of government and the
private sector, and securing our critical infrastructure, much of which
is in private hands.
The bill would require that the strategy be written every four years,
with updates every two years and annual progress reports to be
submitted in conjunction with the President's annual budget request.
Recognizing that many Federal agencies outside the Department of
Homeland Security play a critical part in homeland security, it calls
on the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security to help the
Secretary construct the strategy.
Importantly, it would create an independent panel of experts to
review the strategy and offer alternative proposals as appropriate--a
so-called ``Team B'' to provide decision makers with alternative
perspectives and solutions for consideration. This nonpartisan panel,
to be called the Homeland Security Commission, would consist of nine
members appointed by the Secretary in consultation with Congress. The
members would be recognized experts in the field of homeland security
and cannot be current officers or employees of the Federal Government.
This Commission is modeled on the successful National Defense Panel,
which helped guide strategic planning for our military forces. This
Commission can help ensure that we marshal all the best ideas to defend
our homeland and do not fall into complacent, or narrow ways of
thinking about the threats we face. We know that terrorists are always
adapting their strategies and techniques. We must do no less.
[[Page S8559]]
We meet today amid ongoing, and indeed heightened, threats of
terrorist attacks on our homeland. We need not be intimidated, but we
must be prepared. A new and more forceful national strategy will help
energize and organize our resources--at all levels of government and
within the private sector--to meet this threat. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation to give us such a strategy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2708
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 ``National Strategy for
Homeland Security Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Homeland
Security Strategy Commission established under section 4.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
(3) Strategy.--The term ``Strategy'' means the National
Strategy for Homeland Security developed under this Act.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) Development and Submission of Strategy.--
(1) Development.--The Secretary, under the direction of the
President, and in collaboration with the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security and the Homeland Security
Council, shall develop the National Strategy for Homeland
Security for the detection, prevention, protection, response,
and recovery with regard to terrorist threats to the United
States.
(2) Submission to congress.--
(A) Initial submission.--Not later than December 1, 2005,
and not later than December 1st of each year in which a
President is inaugurated, the Secretary shall submit the
Strategy to Congress.
(B) Biennial update.--Not later than 2 years after each
submission of the Strategy under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall submit to Congress an updated version of the
Strategy.
(C) Progress reports.--Each year, in conjunction with the
President's budget request, the Secretary shall provide an
assessment of progress on implementing the Strategy,
including the adequacy of resources to meet the objectives of
the Strategy, and recommendations to improve and implement
the Strategy.
(3) Classified material.--Any part of the Strategy that
involves information that is properly classified under
criteria established by Executive Order shall be submitted to
Congress separately in classified form.
(b) Coordination With the Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security.--The Secretary shall seek the assistance
of the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
the Homeland Security Council to--
(1) coordinate the input of Federal departments and
agencies outside the Department of Homeland Security, which
have homeland security responsibilities; and
(2) work with the Secretary on all aspects of the Strategy.
(c) Contents.--
(1) In general.--The Strategy shall include--
(A) a comprehensive statement of purpose, mission, and
scope;
(B) threat, vulnerability, and risk assessment and
analysis, including an analysis of the threats and
vulnerabilities regarding critical infrastructure, assets,
and operations and a description of the role of the Homeland
Security Institute in conducting such risk assessments;
(C) a statement of desired end-states, including a
hierarchy of strategic goals and subordinate objectives, as
well as specific activities for achieving results and
specific priorities, milestones, and performance measures to
monitor progress toward goals;
(D) an assessment of necessary resources and investments to
achieve strategic goals, including the types of necessary
resources involved and resource allocation mechanisms;
(E) a delineation of organizational roles and
responsibilities across the many entities involved in
homeland security efforts, including--
(i) the proper roles and responsibilities of State, local,
private, and international sectors, and a designation of
coordinating mechanisms; and
(ii) other specific measures to enhance cooperative efforts
between the Federal government and the sectors described in
clause (i); and
(F) an explanation of the relationship between the Strategy
and other Federal strategies addressing terrorist threats,
including how these strategies will be integrated, and
details on subordinate strategies within the Department of
Homeland Security regarding specific aspects of homeland
security.
(2) Additional contents.--In addition to the items listed
in paragraph (1), the Strategy shall include--
(A) policies and procedures to maximize the collection,
translation, analysis, exploitation, and dissemination of
information relating to combating terrorism and the homeland
security response throughout the Federal government, and with
State and local authorities, and, as appropriate, the private
sector;
(B) plans for countering chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear and explosive, and cyber threats;
(C) plans for the coordination with, and integration of,
the capabilities and assets of the United States military
into all aspects of the Strategy, as appropriate;
(D) plans for improving the resources of, coordination
among, and effectiveness of, health and medical sectors for
preventing, detecting, and responding to terrorist attacks on
the homeland;
(E) measures needed to enhance transportation security with
respect to potential terrorist attacks, including aviation
and non-aviation modes of transportation;
(F) measures, based on the risk assessments under paragraph
(1)(B), to identify and prioritize the need for protective
and support measures for critical infrastructure and plans to
secure these key assets;
(G) an assessment of the Nation's ability to prevent,
respond to, and recover from threatened and actual domestic
terrorist attacks, and measures to enhance such preparedness
across all levels of government and the private sector;
(H) measures to secure the Nation's borders from terrorist
threats, including agroterror, while continuing to facilitate
the flow of legitimate goods and visitors;
(I) plans for identifying, prioritizing, and meeting
research and development objectives to support homeland
security needs; and
(J) plans for addressing other critical homeland security
needs.
(d) Cooperation.--At the request of the Secretary or the
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, Federal
agencies shall provide necessary information or planning
documents relating to the Strategy.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
nonpartisan, independent commission to be known as the
Homeland Security Commission.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, including a chair, who shall be appointed by the
Secretary, in consultation with the chairman and ranking
member of--
(A) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
and
(B) the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives.
(2) Qualifications.--Members of the Commission appointed
under paragraph (1)--
(A) shall be recognized experts in matters relating to the
homeland security of the United States; and
(B) shall not be officers or employees of the Federal
Government.
(3) Period of appointment.--Each member of the Commission
shall be appointed to the Commission for an 18-month term,
which shall begin on December 1, 2005.
(4) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as
the original appointment.
(5) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings. A quorum is required to approve any report
issued by the Commission, but a minority of members may
submit an appendix to be included in such report.
(c) Duties.--The Commission shall conduct an independent,
alternative assessment of the optimal policies and programs
to improve homeland security against terrorist threats,
including, to the extent practicable, an estimate of the
funding required each fiscal year to support such policies
and programs.
(d) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission shall be
compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day, including travel time, during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission.
(e) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(f) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chair of the Commission may, without
regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and
terminate an executive director (subject to Commission
confirmation) and such other additional personnel as may be
necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The Chair of the Commission may fix the
compensation of the executive director and other personnel
without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to the
classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates,
except that the rate of pay may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
[[Page S8560]]
(3) Personnel as federal employees.--
(A) In general.--The executive director and all employees
of the Commission shall be employees under section 2015 of
title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81,
83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of such title.
(B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to members of the Commission.
(4) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(g) Administrative Provisions.--
(1) Use of mail and printing.--The Commission may use the
United States mails and obtain printing and binding services
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(2) Support services.--The Secretary shall furnish the
Commission any administrative and support services requested
by the Commission.
(3) Gifts.--The Commission may accept and dispose of gifts
or donations of services or property.
(h) Payment of Commission Expenses.--The compensation,
travel expenses, and per diem allowances of members and
employees of the Commission shall be paid out of funds
available to the Department for the payment of compensation,
travel allowances and per diem allowances, respectively, of
civilian employees of the Department. The other expenses of
the Commission shall be paid out of funds available to the
Department for the payment of similar expenses incurred by
the Department.
(i) Report.--Not later than December 1, 2006, the
Commission shall submit, to the committees referred to under
subsection (b)(1), a report that--
(1) describes the activities, findings, and recommendations
of the Commission; and
(2) provides recommendations for legislation that the
Commission considers appropriate.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 2711. A bill to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a
bill I introduced today to set up a national program to reduce the loss
of life and property due to windstorms.
This bill recently passed the House of Representatives and it will be
addressed and hopefully passed during the Senate Commerce Committee
markup tomorrow.
We all know the catastrophic damage that windstorms can cause. In
fact, the highest level of material damage and loss of life in this
country has been attributed to hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes
and thunderstorms.
My State of Florida, as a coastal State, has been especially
affected.
In 1992, Hurricane Andrew caused losses in excess of $26.5 billion.
And annually the average financial loss due to tornadoes,
thunderstorms and hurricanes is $6.3 billion. So increasing our
understanding of windstorms, assessing the performance of our
buildings, structures and infrastructures during windstorms, reducing
the impact of wind hazards through retrofitting buildings and changing
construction practices and transferring this knowledge to the pubic and
building professionals is desperately needed.
And this bill accomplishes all of those things.
It is a coordinated plan to reduce material losses and human
suffering.
An interagency working group consisting of representatives of the
National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be responsible for
planning and managing this program.
The program will have three goals: Improved understanding of
windstorms, windstorm impact assessment, and windstorm impact
reduction.
How do we achieve this? Data collection and analysis, outreach,
technology transfer, and research and development.
As a result of this program, we will translate existing and future
information and research findings into cost-effective and affordable
practices for design and construction professionals, and State and
local officials.
And this interagency group will provide biennial updates of their
progress to Congress so we know what progress has been made and what
more needs to be done.
We'll also get a broad cross-section of interests involved through an
advisory committee--so that real-life issues are addressed and onsite
expertise is utilized.
And my hope is that the devastation of Hurricane Andrew will never be
experienced again in my State of Florda or in any other State.
This bill and help us achieve that and I urge my collegues' support.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2713. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the
amount of minimum allotments under the Projects for Assistance in
Transition from Homelessness program; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator
Kennedy to introduce a bill that will raise the minimum grant amounts
given to States and territories under the PATH program. The PATH
program provides services through formula grants of at least $300,000
to each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and $50,000 to
eligible U.S. territories. Subject to available appropriations, this
bill will raise the minimum allotments to $600,000 to each State and
$100,000 to eligible U.S. territories.
When the PATH program was established in FY1991 as a formula grant
program, Congress appropriated $33 million. That amount has steadily
increased over the years with Congress appropriating $50 million this
past year. However, despite these increases, States and territories
such as New Mexico that have rural and frontier populations, have not
received an increase in their PATH funds. Under the formula, as it
currently exists, many States and territories will never receive an
increase to their PATH program, even with increasing demand and
inflation. This problem is occurring in my home state of New Mexico as
well as twenty-five other States and territories throughout the United
States.
The PATH program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act
and it funds community-based outreach, mental health, substance abuse,
case management and other support services, as well as a limited set of
housing services for people who are homeless and have serious mental
illnesses. Program services are provided in a variety of different
settings, including clinic sites, shelter-based clinics, and mobile
units. In addition, the PATH program takes health care services to
locations where homeless individuals are found, such as streets, parks,
and soup kitchens.
PATH services are a key element in the plan to end chronic
homelessness. Every night, an estimated 600,000 people are homeless in
America. Of these, about one-third are single adults with serious
mental illnesses. I have worked closely with organizations in New
Mexico such as Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless and I have seen
first-hand the difficulties faced by the more than 15,000 homeless
people in New Mexico, 35 percent of whom are chronically mentally ill
or mentally incapacitated.
PATH is a proven program that has been very successful in moving
people out of homelessness. PATH has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget and has scored significantly high marks in
meeting program goals and objectives. Unquestionably, homelessness is
not just an urban issue. Rural and frontier communities face unique
challenges in serving PATH eligible persons and the PATH program
funding mechanisms must account for these differences.
Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague Senator
Kennedy on this important issue.
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. 2713
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MINIMUM ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE PROJECTS FOR
ASSISTANCE IN TRANSITION FROM HOMELESSNESS
PROGRAM.
Section 524 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290cc-24) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 524. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF ALLOTMENT.
``(a) Determination Under Formula.--Subject to subsection
(b), the allotment required in section 521 for a State and
Territory for a fiscal year is the product of--
[[Page S8561]]
``(1) an amount equal to the amount appropriated under
section 535 for the fiscal year; and
``(2) a percentage equal to the quotient of--
``(A) an amount equal to the population living in urbanized
areas of the State involved, as indicated by the most recent
data collected by the Bureau of the Census; and
``(B) an amount equal to the population living in urbanized
areas of the United States, as indicated by the sum of the
respective amounts determined for the States under
subparagraph (A).
``(b) Minimum Allotment.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the allotment
for a State under section 521 for a fiscal year shall, at a
minimum, be the greater of--
``(A) the amount the State or Territory received under
section 521 in fiscal year 2004; and
``(B) $600,000 for each of the several States, the District
of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
$100,000 for each of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
``(2) Condition.--If the funds appropriated in any fiscal
year under section 535 are insufficient to ensure that States
and Territories receive a minimum allotment in accordance
with paragraph (1), then--
``(A) no State or Territory shall receive less than the
amount they received in fiscal year 2004; and
``(B) any funds remaining after amounts are provided under
subparagraph (A) shall be used to meet the requirement of
paragraph (1)(B), to the maximum extent possible.''.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2714. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003, to provide for negotiation of fair prices
for Medicare prescription drugs; read the first time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Recently, the Majority Leader pulled the class-action
reform legislation from consideration after the Senate failed to invoke
cloture on the bill. We all know he would have had the votes for
cloture if he had not played games with the amendment process. Instead,
he proposed allowing Democrats only five non-germane amendments and
insisted that he choose which amendments could be offered. He insisted
that under no circumstances could we offer a bipartisan bill to
legalize the safe importation of lower-priced prescription drugs from
Canada and other industrialized countries. The Majority Leader no doubt
feared that the re-importation legislation would pass as a result of
the broad bipartisan support it enjoys. But the drug industry didn't
want lower prices, and we were prevented from offering our amendment.
The re-importation bill is just one of many health measures currently
pending in Congress that would help Americans who are struggling with
the high costs of care, drugs, and insurance. These bills have broad
support--some even have Republican lead sponsors--and we should be
considering them here in the Senate. In fact, it is our obligation to
do so. Yet most of these bills continue to languish in committee while
the majority plays procedural games with the amendment process and
spends countless hours on bills and measures that the Majority Leader
knows do not have the votes to pass.
In response, over the past week, we have begun the process of putting
these measures on the calendar. We are doing so to highlight that these
critical bills are available for consideration on the Senate floor, and
to show how important it is to pass them and send them to the President
for his signature as soon as possible.
Today, I would like to discuss a measure I first introduced on the
day the conference report to the Medicare bill passed the Senate. This
proposal was included in a broader piece of legislation that we
introduced that day in response to the conference report, and, on
December 9, I introduced it as a stand-alone measure. It is a very
simple bill. It would strike the prohibition contained in last year's
Medicare legislation that prohibits the government from using the power
of 41 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors.
Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed support for striking
that provision. Senators who supported the conference report have
joined with those who opposed it, such as myself, in cosponsoring my
bill. That's because it just makes sense.
The new Medicare law does almost nothing to rein in skyrocketing
prescription drug costs. In fact, it actually prohibits Medicare from
using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices. We have seen the
VA's success at negotiating lower prices. Similarly, we should use the
power of Medicare's beneficiary population to obtain lower prices for
seniors and people with disabilities. Rather than fragmenting the
population to dilute our ability to negotiate lower costs, we have an
obligation--both to Medicare beneficiaries and to American taxpayers--
to secure the lowest possible prices. That's what my bill would do.
It's time for the Senate to side with seniors and taxpayers over the
drug industry. It's time for the Senate to pass this bill.
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. 2714
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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Price Reduction Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS.
Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to
noninterference) and by inserting the following:
``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--In
order to ensure that each part D eligible individual who is
enrolled under a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan pays
the lowest possible price for covered part D drugs, the
Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other
Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to
negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D
drugs, consistent with the requirements of this part and in
furtherance of the goals of providing quality care and
containing costs under this part.''.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN:
S. 2715. A bill to improve access to graduate schools in the United
States for international students and scholars; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, September 11, 2001, was a day that
changed America forever. It taught us that oceans cannot protect us
from those who are fanatically devoted to harming us. The world has
changed after September 11. The American experience, realities, changed
after September 11. We live with greater uncertainty. We live with
greater fear and concern about attack. We have, even those in this
Chamber, gone through the process of thinking the unthinkable, thinking
about attacks on our soil, on our towns, on our country.
The good news is that in the last 2\1/2\ years since September 11,
America has not experienced another experience like that. It appears as
if the measures we have taken have had some effect. The PATRIOT Act was
passed with overwhelming support. It is now the subject of some debate,
but let's not debate the importance of doing those things that protect
this country from attack. The PATRIOT Act has clearly been part of
that.
The efforts of our President in rooting out the Taliban and getting
rid of Saddam have all had an impact on making this country safer. But
there are no guarantees. Clearly, even today--we have the September 11
Commission report coming out tomorrow; we have the Senate Intelligence
Committee report coming out, reviewing what we did, should have done,
and what we could do better.
The bottom line is we want to make sure this never happens again. The
effort to improve our safety and security is important. This is not a
game. This is not to raise the fear for political purposes; this is the
reality of the world in which we live.
But I do believe there is at least one area where our policy
regarding security and measures we are taking to improve security
should be examined and changed. That is why today I am introducing the
International Student and Scholar Access Act.
Again, we all know there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute
guarantee of absolute security in a free society, so what we do is
measure the level of threat against the loss of certain other values
and then we try to strike a balance. In the area of student visas, I
believe we have pushed security concerns beyond the logical point and
[[Page S8562]]
need to make adjustments to our policy.
This is what I am talking about. America has been home to foreign
students in great numbers for many years. If you go to the University
of Minnesota, you see students from all over the world. The same is
true in our private schools in Minnesota. The University of St. Thomas
has a great international student program. Those are good programs.
What those programs do is provide young people from around the world
an opportunity to study in America, to understand the American
experience, to understand American values, to understand the American
way of life. That is a good thing.
Unfortunately, I believe one of the terrorist hijackers on September
11 was an individual who had a student visa. He did not attend school.
No one followed up. As a result of that, what happened is we looked at
that student visa policy and said: We have to make changes.
I understand that. I understand we have to tighten up standards. I
understand we have to be more careful about those who claim to be
students who come into our country.
But I believe the result of what has been well intentioned--what is
important, the security of our country; nothing is more important than
the role of Government to make sure we are secure--in regard to student
visas has been to push the ball a little too far. I think what we are
seeing now is there are scores of young people who would like to be
part of the American experience, who would like to study in our
schools, who would like to understand American culture and American
values, young people who, 20 or 30 years from now, when they are the
Presidents and Vice Presidents and Ambassadors and Ministers of their
country, would have a relationship, saying: I went to the University of
Minnesota. I went to the University of Maine. I went to the University
of Saint Thomas. I went to Bowdoin College. I understand what you are
about and would like to be a partner with you.
I think we are at a point now where, in reaction to 9/11, what we are
doing with student visas is to have kind of turned it around. Now that
it is a national security issue, I think we are missing the opportunity
for a lot of young people to become part of and understand and share in
the American experience.
So now we have visa processes that are structured in a way that
produces results that I don't think we want. They require that consular
officers in our Embassies spend far too much time on people who do not
threaten this country and excluding too many of them. That does not
leave them enough time to deal with those folks who are a genuine
threat.
It is the equivalent of a police roadblock. We are stopping so many
innocent people that it calls into question if this is a good use of
Government resources and power.
Again, it is in the interest of the United States of America to bring
in the best and brightest foreign students to study in America. These
are people who will lead their nations one day. The experience they
gain with our democratic system and our values gives them a better
understanding of what America is and who Americans are.
I had an opportunity the other day to spend time with a young woman
from Iraq, a Kurd from Kirkuk. She was there to kind of shadow us and
understand a little bit about American--this system of government. I
thought--she had 1 day--just think if we had 4 years of her being here,
or 5 years, and she came to understand this country and its history and
its people and its culture and its ways and its values, and she carried
that in her heart back to her country, with the opportunities we would
have along the way to strengthen those relationships.
We hear so much today about anger at Americans, about hate directed
toward Americans. But this is in a world that, at times, I think may
hate us because they don't know us. They don't know us. They know what
they see on Al-Jazeera or they know what they hear from some political
leader who may disagree with the kind of government and the democracy
and the values we have.
International education represents an opportunity to break down those
barriers. I think some who hate this Nation do so out of ignorance.
Foreign students who return to their nations many times become
ambassadors of good will and understanding.
And don't discount the personal relationships. In our lives, we may
see friends who we met back in college, people we have not seen in 20
years. When we run into those friends, there is a bond. Our young
educated people become our leaders, not just in Government but in
business, in industry, in education. The same is true throughout the
world. The world is not such a big place. It is not such a big place
when you have these human connections.
So these young people go back to their countries, young people who
studied here, who learned of our ways, and they become ambassadors of
good will and understanding, and they speak with credibility about the
freedoms that spur American success.
Foreign students also help our economy. Higher education is a major
service sector export, bringing in $12 billion to the U.S. economy
every year. Competitors, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Australia are gaining market share while the United States is losing.
Total international applications to U.S. graduate schools for the fall
of 2004 declined 32 percent from the fall of 2003. Fifty-four percent
of English as a second language programs have reported declines in
applications.
When you think about the economy, it is not just a tourist economy.
People are coming here to spend money. I had an opportunity to be
involved in a series of meetings with some of my colleagues, chaired by
Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and
bringing in leaders of American industry, the CEOs of some of the
largest corporations in America, to talk about what we have to do to
ensure American competitiveness in this global economy. One of the
issues these CEOs mentioned was the difficulty in having foreign
students come to our country and the impact it has on their
opportunities for success and innovation, and the impact that has on
the American economy.
It is not just a long-term national security issue; it is an economic
development and opportunity issue. We are shortchanging ourselves by
losing access to talent.
The legislation I introduce today is an effort to reverse the decline
in foreign access to U.S. education. My legislation seeks to promote
foreign study in America by urging strategic thinking and by making
commonsense changes to the way we process visa applications.
This legislation would help to clarify the often overlapping roles
between lead agencies that work on international education--the
Departments of State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Education.
It proposes improvements related to SEVIS fees for tracking foreign
students, by prorating fees for short-term students and allowing them
to make payments in their local currencies. There is a process of
payments that are made. If you are here for a short term, you pay as
much as for a long term. It is another barrier, another impediment to
providing an opportunity for foreign students to be here.
It would set goals for more timeliness and certainty in the visa
process. It would press the State Department for commonsense
improvements to give more discretion on personal appearance
requirements and on the duration of security clearances. It would
improve the interoperability between databases of the FBI and the State
Department.
Perhaps the most critical part of my bill deals with the criteria for
student visas. Currently, consular officers have to prove that a
student visa applicant has essential ties which will ensure his or her
return to his or her own country after study is complete. This
requirement poses an unrealistic burden on students who are typically
not yet sufficiently well established in their societies to be able to
demonstrate a likelihood of return. In reality, international students
are often encouraged to stay in the U.S. after they have completed
their studies, by changing their status to that of H-1B, for example.
An observation on this, and let me go just a little bit more about
the legislation, because what it does is it calls for
[[Page S8563]]
a more realistic standard for student visas. That is what we really
need.
My legislation replaces the criteria of expected return with two
other criteria. Students would have to demonstrate that they intend to
come to the U.S. to complete a legitimate course of study, and that
they have the financial means for doing so.
Let me explain why that makes so much more sense. The reality is, if
we have a bright and enterprising student from Africa, from Uganda, or
from Argentina, from Latin America somewhere, the issue we need to be
concerned about is whether they are really coming here to study. The
concern over 9/11 is, you had folks who came here who were using that
to gain entry into this country. Are they coming here to study? Is it a
legitimate course of study? Do they have the means to do so? Are they
coming here for the purpose they intended?
Afterwards, if we have a highly trained and highly qualified college
graduate from Uganda and they do whatever has to be done legally in
terms of dealing with immigration, what is the issue? Why would you not
want to have them here a little longer if they are going to contribute
to the economic growth, to the increase in brainpower, to all the
things that need to be done to make sure America stays competitive in
this new global economy?
America is never going to compete with low-scale wages. We are past
that. There is no way we can compete with China. Mexico can't compete
with China today. America's economic success is tied to innovation and
brainpower. That is our future. What we do to encourage that, certainly
among folks here but also students from other countries who become part
of that pool, who help us become more creative and entrepreneurial, is
important.
I have to say--and I wouldn't be surprised if the Senator from Maine
has not had the same experience--this issue consumes a lot of my time
and that of my case workers back in Minnesota. Time and again they are
asked by Minnesota colleges and universities to make a plea to the
State Department to help process a foreign student's visa. These are
students who want to come to the United States, who have the
intellectual assets that all can gain from, who have scholarships or
other resources to take care of themselves while in America. But
because they don't have spouses or homes in their native lands, they
are rejected for their student visas. What sense does that make? How
does that further the interests of those in the United States? How does
it further the interests of our colleges and universities that benefit
from quality students, benefit from the diversity brought by students
from Africa or from Asia, benefit from having a broader kind of dialog
and exchange about what this world is all about?
I had a particular case of a talented young man from Uganda named
Humphrey. Humphrey had a full ride to St. Thomas University in St.
Paul, MN, which--I note with great pride--my son entered. He had his
orientation just the other day. I have a personal interest in St.
Thomas, but that is not the reason I advocated for Humphrey. Humphrey
was a research assistant with Professor Martin O'Reilly at Uganda
Martyrs University. Dr. O'Reilly stated:
With service for 22 years in African countries, this is the
most impressive student and human being I have ever known. He
is one in a million.
Humphrey is a psychology student. His goal is to return to Africa and
offer counseling services on a continent where the psychological scars
are so deep. We just heard my friend and colleague from Illinois
talking about the brutality, the genocide in Sudan. We know of what
happened in Rwanda. We know the scars that need to be healed. Humphrey
wants to go back and offer services where psychological scars are deep.
Yet his visa application was rejected more than once because he could
not prove to a consular officer that he intended to return to Uganda. I
called that consular officer at one time, not to pressure as a Senator
but just to ask them to take a look at the application. Don't let it
just kind of get processed run of the mill because we have a process
now that makes it difficult for students to come here. Take a look at
it and then make a judgment, if the judgment is pretty clear.
I am happy to say that Humphrey's visa application was finally
accepted and he began study in January. I fear that there are too many
people like him who will not be educated in America. We will lose not
only their wisdom but also the chance to show them what makes America
so great. I believe in the tougher measures we implemented after
September 11, but I think we have to be smarter with how we use these
tools. I think we can strike a better balance between security and the
value of bringing the world here to be educated. And that is in
America's long-term interest.
I urge my colleagues to consider this important issue and to support
this legislation. It is in many ways a national security issue,
national security not just in having a process in place that weeds out
those who shouldn't be here but long-term national security, making
sure that America has those relationships and those contacts with the
future leaders of countries around this world and gives them the
opportunity to be educated here. Right now they are being educated in
other places, in England and France and Germany. We are missing an
opportunity. There is no reason. We can do better than that.
Let us look at this issue. It is still my first term, and I haven't
finished yet. I haven't finished the second year. I know it takes a
while to get things done. But I think the clock is ticking on this
issue. Each and every day we are missing an opportunity. Each and every
day as we see the numbers of international student applications
decline, as we see less and less of the opportunities to establish
those relationships because of the policies we have in place, it cries
out for change.
My legislation offers that change. I hope this body considers it, and
I hope we make the change. As a result, I know we will build a stronger
America. We will build a better America. That is the reason I think we
are all here.
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. 2715
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 ``International Student and
Scholar Access Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States has a strategic need to improve its
student visa screening process to protect against terrorists
who would abuse the system to harm the United States.
(2) At the same time, openness to international students
and exchange visitors serves longstanding and important
United States foreign policy, educational, and economic
interests, and the erosion of such exchanges is contrary to
United States national security interests.
(3) Educating successive generations of future world
leaders in the United States has long been an important
underpinning of United States international influence and
leadership.
(4) Open scientific exchange, which enables the United
States to benefit from the knowledge of the world's top
scientists, has long been an important underpinning of United
States scientific leadership.
(5) The United States has seen a dramatic increase in
requests for Visa Mantis checks designed to protect against
illegal transfers of sensitive technology, from 1,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to 20,000 in fiscal year 2003.
(6) Delays in issuing Visa Mantis security clearances have
discouraged some international scholars from coming to the
United States.
(7) International students and their families studying in
the United States contribute close to $12,000,000,000 to the
United States economy each year, making higher education a
major service sector export.
(8) Delays in obtaining student visas have discouraged many
international students from studying in the United States.
(9) Total international applications to graduate schools in
the United States for fall 2004 declined 32 percent from fall
2003.
(10) The number of international students enrolled in the
United States, which in raw numbers consistently increased
over time and grew by 6 percent during both the 2000-2001 and
2001-2002 school years, leveled off dramatically during the
2002-2003 school year to an increase of only .6 percent.
(11) Concerns related to the anticipated international
student monitoring system known as ``SEVIS'' have contributed
to the decline in the number of foreign applicants to
educational institutions in the United States.
(12) The United States requires a visa system for exchange
programs that maximizes United States national security.
[[Page S8564]]
(13) The United States requires a comprehensive strategy
for recruiting international students as well as enhancing
the access of international students to higher education in
the United States.
TITLE I--NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ACCESS
TO THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 101. STRATEGIC PLAN.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the President, in consultation with United States higher
education institutions, organizations that participate in
international exchange programs, and other appropriate
groups, shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of
the House of Representatives a strategic plan for enhancing
international student access to the United States for study
and exchange activities that includes:
(1) A marketing plan to makes use of Internet and other
media resources to promote and facilitate study in the United
States by international students.
(2) A clear division of responsibility that eliminates
duplication and promotes inter-agency cooperation with regard
to the roles of the Departments of State, Commerce,
Education, and Homeland Security in promoting and
facilitating access to the United States for international
student and exchange visitors.
(3) A mechanism for institutionalized coordination of the
efforts of Departments of State, Commerce, Education, and
Homeland Security in facilitating access to the United States
for international student and exchange visitors.
(4) An effective mandate and strategic plan for use of the
overseas educational advising centers of the Department of
State to promote study in the United States and to prescreen
visa applicants.
(5) Well-defined lines of authority and responsibility for
international students in the Department of Commerce.
(6) A clear mandate related to international student access
for the Department of Education.
(7) Streamlined procedures within the Department of
Homeland Security related to international student and
exchange visitors.
SEC. 102. ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--The President, acting through the
Secretary State and in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit an annual report on the implementation
of the national strategy developed in accordance with section
101 to Congress that would describe the following:
(1) Measures undertaken to enhance international student
access to the United States and improve inter-agency
coordination with regard to international students and
exchange visitors as provided in section 101.
(2) Measures taken to implement section 202.
(3) The number of student and exchange visitors who apply
for visas from the United States, and the number whose visas
are approved.
(4) The average processing time for student and
international visitor visas.
(5) The number of student and international visitor visas
requiring inter-agency review.
(6) The number of student and international visitor visas
approved after submission of the visa applications during
each of the following durations:
(A) Less than 15 days.
(B) 15-30 days.
(C) 31-45 days.
(D) 46-60 days.
(E) 61-90 days.
(F) More than 90 days.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than May 30 of 2005,
and annually thereafter through 2008, the President shall
submit to Congress the report described in subsection (a).
SEC. 103. REFORMING SEVIS FEE PROCESS.
(a) Reduced Fee for Short-term Study.--Section 641(e)(4)(A)
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A)) is
amended in the second sentence, by inserting before the
period the following: ``or the admission of an alien under
section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) for a program that does not exceed
90 days''.
(b) Improving Fee Collection.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to
the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on International
Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on the feasibility of collecting the
fee required by section 641(e) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1372(e))--
(1) in local currency at local financial institutions under
procedures established by the Secretary of State; and
(2) by universities as part of a student's tuition and
fees.
SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of State, Department of Education, Department of Homeland
Security, and Department of Commerce such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the activities described in section
101.
TITLE II--IMPROVING THE VISA PROCESS
SEC. 201. SENSE OF CONGRESS; PURPOSE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) improvements in visa processing would enhance the
national security of the United States by--
(A) permitting closer scrutiny of visa applicants who might
pose risks; and
(B) permitting the timely adjudication of visa applications
of those whose presence in the United States serves important
national interests; and
(2) improvements must include--
(A) an operational visa policy that articulates the
national interest of the United States in denying entry to
visitors who seek to harm the United States and in opening
entry to legitimate visitors, to guide consular officers in
achieving the appropriate balance;
(B) a greater focus by the visa system on visitors who
require special screening, while minimizing delays for
legitimate visitors;
(C) a timely, transparent, and predictable visa process,
through appropriate guidelines for inter-agency review of
visa applications; and
(D) a provision of the necessary resources to fund a visa
processing system that meets the requirements of this title.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to specify
the improvements described in subsection (a).
SEC. 202. VISA PROCESSING GUIDANCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State--
(1) shall issue appropriate guidance to consular officers
in order to--
(A) give consulates appropriate discretion to grant waivers
of personal appearance in order to minimize delays for
legitimate travelers while permitting more thorough
interviews of visa applicants in appropriate cases;
(B) give consulates appropriate discretion to allow
security clearances under the Visas Mantis system to be valid
for the duration of status or program, in order to avoid
repetitive reviews of those visitors who leave the United
States temporarily; and
(C) establish a presumption of visa approval for frequent
visitors who have previously been granted visas for the same
purpose and who have no status violations; and
(2) in consultation with the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy and appropriate representatives
of the United States scientific community, shall issue
appropriate guidance to consular officers in order to refine
controls on the entry of visitors who propose to engage in
study or research in advanced science and technology in order
to ensure that only cases of concern, and not nonsensitive
cases, are subjected to special review.
(b) Timeliness Standards.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the President shall institute
guidelines for inter-agency review of visa applications
requiring security clearances which establish the following
standards for timeliness in international student and visitor
visas:
(1) Establish a 15-day standard for responses to the
Department of State by other agencies involved in the
clearance process.
(2) Establish a 30-day standard for completing the entire
inter-agency review and advising the consulate of the result
of the review.
(3) Provide for expedited processing of any visa
application with respect to which a review is not completed
within 30 days, and for advising the consulate of the delay
and the estimated processing time remaining.
(4) Require the establishment of a process by which the
applicant, or the program to which the applicant seeks
access, can inquire about the application's status and the
estimated processing time remaining.
(5) Establish a special review process to resolve any cases
whose resolution is still pending after 60 days.
SEC. 203. INTEROPERABLE DATA SYSTEMS AT THE FBI.
(a) Responsibilities of the FBI Director.--The Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall take the steps
necessary to ensure that--
(1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation's databases and
systems used in the National Name Check Program are
interoperable with the requisite databases and systems at the
Department of State;
(2) the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are
automated and a common database is set up between the field
offices and headquarters of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; and
(3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation has full
connectivity to the Consular Consolidated Database through
the Open Source Information System.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall report to the Committees on the Judiciary
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on progress in
implementing subsection (a).
SEC. 204. SETTING REALISTIC STANDARDS FOR VISA EVALUATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``having a residence in a foreign country
which he has no intention of abandoning'' and inserting
``having the intention, capability, and sufficient financial
[[Page S8565]]
resources to complete a course of study in the United
States''; and
(2) by striking ``and solely'' after ``temporarily''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 214(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) is
amended by striking ``subparagraph (L) or'' and inserting
``subparagraph (F), (J), (L), or''.
SEC. 205. REPORT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of State shall report to the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives on--
(1) the feasibility of expediting visa processing for
participants in official exchange programs, and for students,
scholars, and exchange visitors through prescreening of
applicants by sending countries, sending universities, State
Department overseas educational advising centers, or other
appropriate entities;
(2) the feasibility of developing abilities to collect
biometric data without requiring a visit to the Embassy by
the visa applicant; and
(3) the implementation of the guidance described in
subsections (a) and (b) of section 202, including the
training of consular officers, and the effect of this
guidance and training on visa processing volume and
timeliness.
SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out to carry out this Act for the consular
affairs function of the Department of State, the visa
application review function of the Department of Homeland
Security, and for database improvements in the Federal Bureau
of Investigations as specified in section 203.
____________________