[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.

                          ____________________