[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 106 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8986-S9020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4567, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first, I thank all Senators for their 
cooperation in the handling of the bill yesterday. We made progress in 
disposing of several amendments. We also achieved a very important 
milestone in the handling of the bill. We have an agreed list of 
amendments that are in order to the bill. This will limit the offering 
of amendments to only those on the list. We appreciate very much 
Senators permitting us to enter that order last evening.
  The bill provides total new budget authority for fiscal year 2005 of 
$33.1 billion to fund the Department. In addition, an estimated $2.9 
billion in collections from offsetting collections from user-financed 
services, Customs duties, and trust funds will be available to finance 
activities of the Department for fiscal year 2005.
  Excluding mandatory appropriations for retired pay of the United 
States Coast Guard, the bill provides $32 billion in discretionary 
spending, consistent with the amount allocated by the full committee 
for this bill. This is $896 million more than the President's fiscal 
year 2005 discretionary spending request; and $2.8 billion more than 
the fiscal year 2004 appropriations level, excluding emergency 
supplemental appropriations and including a $1.6 billion increase in 
the availability of advance appropriations for biodefense 
countermeasures.
  The additional amount above the President's request level is used to 
increase funding to assist State and local first responders, to enhance 
aviation security, to harden critical infrastructures that are 
potential targets to terrorists, and to better secure our ports and 
waterways.
  The bill also attempts to address the most critical outstanding need, 
that of rail and transit security. This proposal includes $150 million 
for rail and transit security grants; $34 million for high explosives 
countermeasures, including $24 million for commuter and passenger rail 
environments; $194 million for protective actions, including protective 
measures for rail; and $15 million for rail inspectors and canine 
explosives detection teams.
  The bill recommends $632 million for management and operations of the 
Department, including $65 million requested by the President to 
continue to consolidate the Department's headquarters operations at the 
Nebraska Avenue Complex.
  To secure our Nation's borders and enforce and investigate customs 
and immigration laws, the bill recommends total appropriations of $8.7 
billion, including $5 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection and $3.4 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. This includes an increase of $50 million more than the 
request level for the Federal air marshals.
  An increase of $64 million is provided for the container security 
initiative. This initiative seeks to enhance the security of an 
indispensable, but vulnerable, link in the chain of global trade: the 
oceangoing shipping container. Proactively screening containers before 
they reach the United States will significantly contribute to efforts 
to secure the borders against dangers that might be introduced through 
commercial trade. A more secure maritime trade infrastructure will 
ensure the continued smooth flow of merchandise through seaports.

  The illegal alien population of the United States has risen to record 
levels. According to the Department, the undocumented alien population 
has grown from approximately 3 million in 1990 to an estimated 9 
million today. This bill provides $107 million in additional resources 
for detaining and removing such individuals from this country.
  The bill also provides $478 million for the Federal Protective 
Service, which is the same as the President's budget request, to ensure 
a safe and secure workplace for Federal employees.
  Also included is $340 million for U.S. VISIT, the new system to 
identify and track foreign visitors and students and to screen for 
possible terrorist or criminal involvement.
  In new budget authority $140 million is provided for Citizenship and 
Immigration Services in addition to the $1.5 billion estimated in 
collections available for these operations.
  For the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, responsible for 
ensuring security across the U.S. transportation system, including 
aviation, railways, highways, and ports, the bill provides total 
funding of $5.2 billion, $184 million more than the President's budget 
request, and $648 million more than the fiscal year 2004 level. In 
addition, it assumes $400 million less than the President's request in 
offsetting aviation security fee collections. While the bill does not 
contain the President's requested legislative proposal to mandate the 
level of fees, it does require the General Accounting Office to 
initiate review activities necessary to resolve the appropriate level 
of fee collections based on calendar year 2000 airline security costs.
  Over 53 percent of the funds made available for TSA are provided for 
Federal screeners at our Nation's commercial airports. This includes 
$2.8 billion for aviation security personnel compensation and benefits, 
and training of passenger and baggage screeners. Also provided for 
aviation security is $161 million for passenger checkpoint support and 
$210 million for the purchase of baggage explosive detection systems.
  For airport security direction and enforcement, $872 million is 
provided, including $293 million for airport information technology 
support, $25 million for Federal flight deck officer training, and $43 
million for air cargo security and enforcement.
  For maritime and surface transportation security activities, the bill 
provides $55 million for transportation worker identification 
credentials; $15 million for rail security efforts; $17 million for 
hazardous materials driver license endorsement program; and $24 million 
for maritime and land security staffing, operational oversight, and 
administration of maritime and land grant functions.

  To further improve transportation security, $181 million is provided 
for research and development of the latest technologies to detect and 
deter terrorist attacks, including $57 million for research and 
development of next generation explosive detection systems, and $75 
million for research and development of new technologies to screen air 
cargo.
  This bill provides nearly $7.5 billion for the United States Coast 
Guard, including $5.2 billion for military pay and operation of bases 
and $1.1 billion for upgrading and replacing the Coast Guard's cutters, 
helicopters and planes.
  Currently, the Coast Guard is deployed in support of operations in 
Iraq, is conducting its new homeland security mission, and is 
maintaining its traditional missions such as marine resource protection 
and drug interdiction.
  The Coast Guard's deepwater recapitalization program is funded at 
$776 million, $98 million more than the President's request level.
  For the United States Secret Service, the President's budget request 
of $1.2 billion is fully funded to support the Service's protective and 
investigative missions.
  For the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, $224 million is 
included to provide preeminent law enforcement training to more than 
20,000 Federal law enforcement professionals in the coming fiscal year.
  To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders, 
a total of $3.7 billion is provided for the new Office of State and 
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, created

[[Page S8987]]

by the Secretary of Homeland Security through the use of his 
reorganization authority. The Department's grant programs have been 
consolidated under this new office. Included in the amount recommended 
is $1.37 billion for State and local basic formula grants, including 
law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; and $1.2 billion for urban 
area security initiative discretionary grants.
  Within the urban area security initiative, specific funds have been 
provided, $150 million for port security grants, $150 million for rail 
and transit security grants, $15 million for trucking security grants, 
and $10 million for intercity bus security grants.
  The bill also provides $700 million for firefighter assistance grants 
and $180 million for emergency management performance grants. Both of 
these programs are continued under the consolidated office as stand-
alone programs.
  The bill provides over $5.6 billion for programs and activities of 
the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and Response which was 
created with the transfer of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
FEMA, to the new Department of Homeland Security.
  This appropriation includes over $231.499 million for preparedness, 
mitigation, response and recovery activities, including $30 million for 
28 strategically located urban search and rescue teams.
  Disaster assistance is funded at $2.151 billion, as requested in the 
President's budget. The President's request of $2.15 billion is based 
on the historical yearly average of $2.9 billion, and relies on an 
anticipated carryover balance from the previous year to meet the needs 
of disaster victims.
  Previously appropriated funds of $2.528 billion, will be available 
for fiscal year 2005 for Project BioShield to spur the development of 
biodefense countermeasures.
  In addition, the bill assumes the transfer of the Strategic National 
Stockpile to the Department of Health and Human Services, as proposed 
in the President's budget.
  For the Department's information analysis and infrastructure 
protection activities, the bill recommends $876 million to identify and 
assess current threats to the homeland, map threat information against 
current vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and take preventive and 
protective action.
  A critical component of IAIP is the development and implementation of 
protective actions for the Nation's critical infrastructures. The bill 
provides $193 million to carry out activities including the buffer zone 
and site security program for protection of chemical facilities, 
nuclear power plants, nuclear spent fuel storage facilities, water 
treatment facilities, bridges, subways, tunnels, and other critical 
infrastructures.
  To identify these critical infrastructures and their vulnerabilities, 
to assess identified risks, and to deploy a database of critical 
infrastructures, the bill provides $65 million.
  The bill provides $92 million to allow for the Department to share 
data with infrastructure owners and operators regarding vulnerabilities 
and for the hosting of departmental applications, network connectivity, 
and critical data storage.
  As part of the effort by IAIP to better secure not only physical 
assets but also cyber assets, the bill includes $67 million to monitor, 
predict, and prevent cyber attacks, to minimize the damage from and to 
efficiently recover from attacks.
  For science and technology, total appropriations of $1.1 billion are 
recommended to support homeland security through basic and applied 
research; to develop prototypes; and to procure technologies to detect, 
destroy, dispose, and mitigate the effects of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Of this amount, the bill provides $346 million for biological 
countermeasures to deter, detect, and mitigate acts of biological 
terrorism against the United States.
  The bill also provides $128 million for nuclear and radiological 
countermeasures for use in operational environments; $52 million for 
the development of technologies to defend against attacks by chemical 
warfare agents or toxic industrial chemicals; and $34 million for high 
explosives countermeasures, including $24 million for rail security 
high explosives countermeasures.
  A total of $75 million is made available for the rapid development 
and prototyping of new technologies in support of homeland security.
  The bill also continues funding of $69 million for the establishment 
of a university-based system to enhance and strengthen the efforts of 
homeland security on our Nation's campuses.
  Funding of $61 million is provided for research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of an anti-missile system for commercial 
aircraft.
  Mr. President, I know other Senators wish to speak on the bill, and 
some want to make opening statements. I think particularly the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia has a statement to make on the 
bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3597

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid 
of Nevada and Mrs. Clinton, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3597.

  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

            (Purpose: Fulfilling Homeland Security Promises)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

               TITLE VI--ADDRESSING KNOWN VULNERABILITIES

  OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

                     CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Customs and Border 
     Protection, Salaries and Expenses'', $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2006, of which not less than 
     $50,000,000 shall be for purchase and deployment of radiation 
     portal monitors, and not less than $50,000,000 shall be for 
     staffing at the northern border in fulfillment of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act and the Enhanced Border Security Act.

                  IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses,'' $11,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for detentions and removals.

                          FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS

       For an additional amount for the Federal Air Marshals, 
     $50,000,000.

                 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


                           aviation security

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration related to aviation 
     security services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation 
     Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597), 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     activities related to screening passengers and carry-on 
     baggage for explosives.

                 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


                       maritime and land security

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration related to maritime 
     and land transportation security services pursuant to the 
     Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 
     115 Stat. 597), $4,000,000, for hazardous materials security 
     grants.

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD


              acquisition, construction, and improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements,'' $324,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, for the Integrated Deepwater Systems 
     program.

   OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS


                        state and local programs

       For additional amounts for ``State and Local Programs,'' 
     $665,000,000: Provided, That of the amounts made available 
     under this heading: $440,000,000 shall be for discretionary 
     grants for use in high-threat, high-

[[Page S8988]]

     density urban areas as determined by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security; $125,000,000 shall be for port security 
     grants; and $100,000,000 shall be for grants for 
     interoperable communications equipment.


      security enhancements for high-risk non-profit organizations

       For discretionary assistance to non-profit organizations 
     (as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986) determined to be at high risk of international 
     terrorist attack, $50,000,000.


                     mass transit and rail security

       For necessary expenses related to mass transit, freight and 
     passenger rail security grants, including security grants for 
     AMTRAK, a backup communications facility for the Washington 
     Area Metropolitan Transit Authority, security upgrades for 
     various rail tunnels, research and development of rail 
     security methods and technology, capital construction, and 
     operating requirements, $350,000,000.


                     firefighter assistance grants

       For an additional amount for ``Firefighter Assistance 
     Grants,'' $46,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2006.

                  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE


                       firefighter hiring grants

       For activities authorized by section 34 of The Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended.

           INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION


                      assessments and evaluations

       For an additional amount for ``Assessments and 
     Evaluations'', $200,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006, of which $100,000,000 shall be available 
     for chemical facility security improvements; of which 
     $100,000,000 shall be available for grants to States, 
     municipalities, or intermunicipal or interstate agencies for 
     security improvements to address known vulnerabilities to 
     water systems.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President of the United States has been 
out on the campaign trail asking the question, is America safer? That 
is a good question. Is America safer? That is a good question. 
President Bush concludes that America is safer. He pats himself on the 
back, wraps himself in the flag, and tells Americans that he is a war 
President and that we should trust him.
  The President is asking himself the wrong question. He asserts that 
America is safer. Well, safer than what? Safer than we were on 
September 11, 2001?
  In August of 2001, while in Crawford, TX, the President read an 
intelligence report providing clear warnings that al-Qaida was 
preparing to attack the United States. Yet, tragically, on September 
11, 2001, Americans were not safe. Therefore, telling Americans that we 
are safer than we were on September 11 is not much of an 
accomplishment. Making America safe is not that simple.
  The President should be asking himself, in the 3 years since the 
terrorist attacks of 9/11 have we been taking the prudent steps 
necessary to address the clear and present dangers that we face right 
now and that we know of right now? Last week President Bush said:

       This election will also determine how America responds to 
     the continuing danger of terrorism--and you know where I 
     stand. Three days after September 11 I stood where Americans 
     died in the ruins of the twin towers. Workers in hard hats 
     were shouting to me, ``whatever it takes.''

  The President said:

       Since that day I wake up every morning thinking about how 
     to better protect our country. I will never relent in 
     defending America, whatever it takes.

  Rhetoric is easy. Rhetoric is cheap. But the followup is hard. If the 
President meant what he said last week he would not be satisfied with a 
bill that cuts funds for first responders. He would not be satisfied 
with a bill that leaves first responders unable to communicate. He 
would not be satisfied with a bill that leaves airline passengers 
worrying about explosives on board, or that fails to adequately invest 
in securing our ports, our chemical facilities, and our trains. We have 
to match talk with action and I hope the people will remember that, 
insist on it, and hold us responsible if we don't do it. And that goes 
for the President as well.
  In response to authorization bills signed by the President but not 
funded, in response to 9/11 Commission recommendations, and in order to 
address well known vulnerabilities not funded in the committee bill, I 
have offered an amendment today that totals $2 billion and includes 
$586 million to equip and train our first responders and to address the 
interoperability radio communications problem. Consistent with the 9/11 
Commission recommendation, all of these first responder funds will be 
allocated based on threat.
  Moreover, I am adding $350 million to help secure our rail and mass 
transit system. Also included is $324 million to expedite the 
modernization of Coast Guard ships, planes and helicopters, bringing 
funding for the Deepwater program to the level recently authorized by 
Congress and signed by the President. Also included is $150 million for 
improved air security for purchasing equipment for screening passengers 
and carry-on baggage for explosives, consistent with 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  How many people realize that we do not have the equipment that checks 
airline passengers for explosives? People may think that we do have it. 
We do not. We have equipment that checks passengers' carry-on for guns, 
metal objects, but not explosives. Now, remember that. Keep that in 
mind. So, included in my amendment is $150 million for improved air 
security for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and carry-on 
baggage for explosives.
  Also, there is $125 million for port security grants, $111 million 
for border security for additional radiation detectors, additional 
border patrol personnel and for improved detention and removal, $100 
million for hiring additional fire personnel, $100 million for securing 
our drinking water systems, $100 million for securing chemical 
facilities. In the Kanawha Valley in south central West Virginia there 
are chemical facilities. There is a great complex of chemical 
facilities, as great as any other in the Western Hemisphere, I would 
say.
  Also included in this amendment is $50 million for grants to secure 
nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, colleges, churches and 
synagogues, and $4 million for hazardous materials and grants.
  This amendment meets critical needs. It addresses vulnerabilities 
that we all know exist. And let there be no doubt. If we know that 
these gaps exist, so do the terrorists know these gaps exist.
  It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reed, the so-called 
``shoe bomber,'' tried to blow up a Miami-bound aircraft over the 
Atlantic Ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Only 
last month, two Russian airplanes simultaneously were blown out of the 
sky most probably by Chechnyan terrorists who carried the explosives on 
board the aircraft. The 9/11 Commission report states clearly and 
succinctly that the threat posed to passenger aircraft by explosives 
being carried onto the plane is real. Yet the President has not 
responded, so the Senate must respond.
  The additional $100 million in this amendment will significantly 
expand the effort to screen air travelers for explosives and chemical 
weapons. We know that newly developed passenger portals can detect 
whether passengers are carrying explosives. These systems have been 
tested, and these systems have been proven to work. We need the money 
to deploy these systems at our Nation's airports. Lives depend on it. 
Those of you who travel on aircraft, your lives depend on it.
  Following the March 11 Madrid railroad bombing, the administration 
issued security bulletins to law enforcement officials and transit 
authorities warning of the danger of similar attacks here at home.
  So that is what we did. We issued security bulletins.
  Crowded trains are inviting targets for terrorists. Busy transit 
stations allow for easy access, anonymity, and quick escape. Yet the 
administration requested no new funding to secure mass transit 
facilities.
  Your lives depend on it.
  We cannot continue to deceive the American people. The American 
people believe they are being made safe. They undoubtedly believe the 
passengers are being examined, tested, and checked for carry-on 
explosives.
  Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson said ``millions of Americans travel by 
rail every day and recent world events highlight the need to ensure 
they are kept safe from acts of terror.'' Yet this White House proposed 
no new funds, just an unfunded mandate. Paper directives and press 
releases will not--will not--stop terrorists bombs.

[[Page S8989]]

  On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee on a bipartisan basis 
approved S. 2453 which authorizes $5.2 billion for transit security. On 
May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on a bipartisan 
basis, approved S. 2273 which authorizes $1.2 billion for additional 
rail security activities.
  On a broad bipartisan basis, these committees have recognized the 
overwhelming need for this Congress and this administration to step up 
to the plate and robustly address the security threat facing our rail 
and transit systems. The President has not responded. The Senate 
absolutely must respond. So my amendment includes $350 million for 
transit security grants.
  Three years now after 9/11, despite hundreds of firemen losing their 
lives in the World Trade Center because they could not receive 
emergency radio messages to evacuate, the Federal Government has 
contributed little to the efforts to solve the interoperability 
communications problem. In fact, the President proposes to terminate 
the Justice Department's Interoperable and Communication Grants Program 
and proposes no funding for fire departments and other first responders 
through the Department of Homeland Security.

  What in the name of Heaven is the President waiting on?
  This amendment provides $100 million for interoperable communications 
equipment. The Senate Commerce-Justice-State bill is expected to 
include $100 million for the COPS Program to improve interoperable 
communications for police departments. Why not make sure that police, 
fire, and emergency medical personnel can communicate with one another? 
The $100 million contained in my amendment meets only a fraction of the 
need. But it is a critical start.
  While States can use their first responder grants to solve the 
interoperability problem, many States have not chosen to use first 
responder dollars to address this problem because of the complexity of 
multijurisdiction and multiagency purchases, and because of competing 
demands on first responder funds. In 2003, according to the Alliance in 
Support of America's First Responders, only 3 percent of the funding 
was dedicated for interoperable communications equipment. A separate 
funding source is required to overcome these hurdles. My amendment 
accomplishes that goal.
  The 9/11 Commission recommends allocating first responder funds based 
on threat rather than on population. My amendment adds $440 million to 
the $875 million currently provided in the Senate bill for urban areas 
security initiative grants. These grants are targeted to cities that 
are determined to be at greatest risk of a terrorist attack, that have 
the highest number of critical assets such as tunnels, bridges, and 
chemical plants, and have population density. We need to get funds to 
places that are most at risk.
  On August 1, the Department had such specific threat information that 
it moved northern New Jersey, Washington, DC, and New York City from 
Code Yellow to Code Orange. We must back up such targeted warnings with 
funds, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Program allows the 
Secretary to send funds where they are needed most--not based on 
formula but based on facts.
  The Council on Foreign Relations report, authored by former Senator 
Warren Rudman, found that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion 
short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next 5 
years. Cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on 
personnel costs alone. Funding urban area security initiative grants is 
the only way to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security can get 
moneys to the cities that are most likely at risk.
  My amendment also provides an additional $46 million for the Fire 
Grant Program to restore the program to current levels and avoid an 
ill-advised funding cut. In the current threat environment, why in the 
world would one slash fire grant funding?
  This year, the Fire Administration received 20,366 applications 
totaling $2.6 billion from local fire departments. The bill provides 
$700 million for the program. As one the pillars of the first responder 
community, it is essential that our firefighters have the best 
equipment and the best training possible, but because of shortsighted 
administration budgets, too many fire departments are being left high 
and dry.
  What about our borders? What about our national borders? The U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Agency, CBP, has a 5-year plan for 
deploying radiation portal monitors at our ports. The plan calls for 
deployment of approximately 2,000 of these monitors at locations around 
the country based on assessment of the nuclear smuggling threat, 
focusing on nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons material, radiation 
dispersal devices, and other illegal or illicit radioactive material. 
Why should we wait for a 5-year plan? The additional $50 million in 
this amendment will allow CBP to deploy radiation portal monitors to 
screen 100 percent of the inbound containerized cargo at 30 additional 
seaport terminals, thus completing the deployment of these monitors at 
America's top 22 seaports and several Southwest border land crossings. 
Let's start now.
  My amendment also addresses the need for more personnel on our 
borders. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the immediate aftermath of the 
September 11, 2001, attacks, calls for a tripling of the number of 
border patrol agents as well as Customs Service and Immigration and 
Naturalization Service inspectors on the northern border. While the 
border patrol has met the PATRIOT Act requirements to increase the 
number of agents on the northern border, the number of Customs and 
Border Protection--CBP--officers remains woefully inadequate. In May of 
this year, the CBP was 1,428 officers short of the goal. I repeat, in 
May of 2004, the CBP--Customs and Border Protection--was 1,428 officers 
short of the goal. Yet, incredibly, the agency has been stuck in a 
hiring freeze ordered by the administration in March. The $50 million 
provided in this amendment will add 439 new CBP officers, getting us 
almost a third of the way toward meeting the PATRIOT Act requirement.
  My amendment also includes $324 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater 
Program. Prior to September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard began to 
modernize its fleet of assets. The program, named Deepwater, called for 
the modernization or replacement of some 100 cutters and 200 aircraft 
over a 20-year period.
  Since the attacks on September 11, the Coast Guard's responsibilities 
have grown substantially. As a result, assets vital to homeland 
security are being used more today than ever in the Coast Guard 
history. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that 
``resource usage--as measured by the number of hours the Coast Guard's 
cutters, boats and aircraft are used to perform its mission--was up 
almost 40 percent from pre-September 11 baseline.''
  The Coast Guard Commandant, in testimony before the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, testified that the 
current condition of the aging fleet threatens Coast Guard mission 
performance. He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining 
readiness spiral.'' Yet the President does not respond. What happened 
to ``whatever it takes''? The President's budget for the Deepwater 
Program will take 22 years to complete. This is 2 years slower than the 
Capital Improvement Program envisioned when Deepwater was conceived 
prior to the tragic events of September 11.

  My amendment provides $324 million above the amount provided in the 
committee bill, the full amount authorized by the Congress and the 
President just 1 month ago. This funding will address the Coast Guard's 
``declining readiness spiral.'' The funding would go to accelerate the 
Coast Guard's highest priorities, which are to enhance safety and 
reliability on the HH-65 helicopter, accelerate the design of the fast-
response cutter for near-shore missions, and complete design of the 
offshore response cutter for the high-endurance missions of the Coast 
Guard. The funding will accelerate the Deepwater Program, finishing it 
in 15 years instead of the administration's 22-year plan.
  We must do more to protect our seaports. The top 50 U.S. ports 
account for 90 percent of all cargo container tonnage entering the 
United States. A 1-month closure of a major port would cost our 
national economy at least $60 billion, but because of the tremendous 
volume of containerized cargo, customs officials are inspecting only 5 
percent

[[Page S8990]]

of the 9 million containers that come into our ports on vessels each 
year.
  The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in 
the first year, and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years 
for the ports to comply with the Federal regulations mandated by the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act which was signed into law by 
President Bush with great fanfare in November of 2002. However, until 
this year's budget submission, President Bush had requested no funds--
none--for port security. Last year, Congress provided $125 million for 
port security grants. Yet, despite telling the people that security is 
his top priority, President Bush proposes to cut port security funding 
by 62 percent. Promises are broken once again.
  Upon adoption of the Levin-Collins amendment last March, the Senate 
version of the resolution assumed that $275 million would be 
appropriated for port security grants in fiscal year 2005. The bill 
before the Senate today provides $150 million. The additional $125 
million in this amendment keeps the port security grant promise that 
was made in the Senate budget resolution.
  The amendment also includes $100 million to secure our Nation's 
drinking water systems. The Nation's water infrastructure includes 
75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 public drinking water facilities, 
16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities, and thousands of 
miles of pipes, aqueducts, water distribution and sewer lines. We have 
a sense of the vulnerability. Why not protect this piece of critical 
infrastructure?
  The amendment also includes $100 million for chemical security 
grants. In March 2003, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge said, ``There 
is no question that when we take a look at a chemical facility, the 
possibility that terrorists could use that economic asset and turn it 
into a weapon is something that we need to be concerned about and are 
concerned about.''
  Apparently that concern has vanished. Since September 11, the 
Department of Homeland Security has done little to enhance security at 
the 66,000 chemical plants across this country. This is frightening, 
when security experts such as Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings 
institution called the threat to chemical plants a ``ticking time-
bomb.''
  When Secretary Ridge testified last year he said that the chemical 
industry was better suited to assess vulnerability and take appropriate 
security measures than the Federal Government. But earlier this year 
the Government Accountability Office submitted testimony to Congress 
saying that ``Despite the industry's voluntary efforts, the extent of 
security preparedness at United States chemical facilities is 
unknown.''
  When Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Under 
Secretary Frank Libutti testified in March before the subcommittee, he 
said the key in working with the chemical industry was ``partnership'' 
between the Federal Government and the private sector. Yet almost in 
the next sentence, he said industry needs to ``belly-up'' when it comes 
to paying for improved security. What kind of partnership is that? We 
should be taking action now instead of rolling the dice hoping that an 
attack against a chemical plant does not happen.
  My amendment also includes $50 million for hiring additional Federal 
air marshals. The administration has failed to meet its goal for hiring 
air marshals. In fact, the administration has allowed the number of air 
marshals to drop by 9 percent this year. With numerous terrorist 
threats against our airlines and a 6-percent increase in the number of 
flights, why allow the number of critical flights covered by Federal 
air marshals to drop?
  Since 9/11, the administration has increased the threat level risk to 
Code Orange six times. On September 1, Secretary Ridge spoke before the 
American Legion's national convention and said:

       Terrorists in the 21st century represent a daunting enemy. 
     They represent no country, no cause, no flag, no people--yet 
     they have access to a steady supply of technologies, and 
     funds, and willing recruits. They are undeniably methodical 
     and maniacal in both their weaponry and will. They seek to 
     use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons . . . and before 
     them lays a map of the world.

  Mr. President, according to the New York Times, on September 7, Vice 
President Cheney said:

       It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on 
     November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the 
     wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and 
     we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the 
     standpoint of the United States.

  What an irresponsible, what an utterly irresponsible statement for a 
Vice President of the United States, or for any public officer, to 
make. Think of that.
  Let's read that again. According to the New York Times, on September 
7, Vice President Cheney said:

       It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on 
     November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the 
     wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and 
     we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the 
     standpoint of the United States.

  How utterly irresponsible. What an irresponsible statement for a 
public officer to make. If the Vice President were all that interested 
in homeland security, rather than political posturing, he would be 
urging his Republican colleagues to support this amendment.
  The President has said he would do ``whatever it takes'' to defend 
America. If the President was being straight with the American people 
when he said that, he would be supporting--he would be supporting--this 
amendment. He would support it. It provides $2 billion for a targeted 
set of programs. It implements several 9/11 Commission recommendations. 
The amendment funds programs that have been authorized by the Congress 
but not funded by the President.
  We cannot make America safer with empty promises. We cannot make 
America safer with duct tape. My amendment funds the bricks and mortar 
of a strong homeland defense. It could save countless lives and it 
offers real security, not just empty rhetoric. What could be wrong with 
spending a little more to protect the American people? What could be 
wrong with keeping a promise? What could be wrong with actually doing 
``whatever it takes''?
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator yields the floor, I, 
during the break--and I called the Senator at his home and told him 
that I read his book, which at the time I read it was No. 2 on the New 
York Times Bestseller List. And I told the Senator that I used this 
book as a text for several townhall meetings I held.
  The Senator wrote this book. I will direct the attention of the body 
to page 112 of the book, ``Losing America.'' I say to the Senator, 
through the Chair, in this book you have one, two, three--about four 
pages of detail of times you personally have tried to increase the 
funding for homeland security. I refer to page 112, where you say:

       On November 14, 2001, the White House opposed the inclusion 
     of $15 billion for homeland security in an economic security 
     package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food 
     safety, $4.6 billion for emergency first responders and 
     computer improvements at the federal level, $3.3 billion for 
     transportation security for airports and ports, $1.1 billion 
     for border security, $2 billion for security at nuclear 
     power, water, and other facilities and mail screening, 
     warning that such spending ``will only expand the size of 
     government.'' All Senate Republicans voted to block the 
     funding. . . .

  Does the Senator recall that?
  Mr. BYRD. I recall it.
  Mr. REID. I refer to this same page:

       On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     unanimously sent the fiscal year 2002 defense appropriations 
     bill to the Senate floor for action. The bill included $13.1 
     billion for homeland security.

  There was a parliamentary point of order raised by the Republicans 
that reduced the funding.
  Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am aware of it.
  Mr. REID. Continuing to quote:

       On June 6, 2002, the Senate passed by a vote of 71 to 22 a 
     supplemental money bill that contained $8.3 billion for 
     homeland security. . . . On June 17, the president's senior 
     advisor recommended a veto of that bill because it contained 
     ``excessive'' homeland security spending.

  Does the Senator recall writing that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, I will continue to quote:


[[Page S8991]]


       In August 2002, the president failed to make an emergency 
     designation for $2.5 billion for homeland security to 
     specifically address shortcomings identified by the Rudman/
     Hart Report on terrorism vulnerabilities. . . . Bush said at 
     the time, ``I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-
     spoken. . . . We'll spend none of it.''

  Does the Senator recall that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I will not list all of these, but suffice it to say, again, 
on January 16, as reported in your book, there was a vote on an 
amendment you had offered to add $5 billion. By a party-line vote that 
was defeated. It had $5 billion. You reduced it to $2 billion. That was 
defeated by a party-line vote.
  On April 2 and April 3, you had amendments which provided $4.8 
billion more than the President requested. All of the amendments were 
defeated.
  On July 24, 2003, I say to Senator Byrd, you--quoting from your 
book--``offered an amendment to the homeland security bill that would 
have provided $292 million for activities such as port security grants, 
grants to train firefighters to respond to a terrorist attack, funds to 
help the Coast Guard provide security at our ports, funds for locating 
terrorism vulnerabilities at chemical plants'' and the amendment was 
defeated on a party-line vote.
  Finally, on September 17, 2003, shortly before we recessed:

     . . . in the House-Senate conference on the same homeland 
     security appropriations bill, [the Senator from West 
     Virginia] again tried to add homeland security money, $1.25 
     billion for port, aviation, Coast Guard, customs, first 
     responders, and chemical facility programs, and [his] 
     amendment failed on a party-line vote.

  Continuing to quote from ``Losing America,'' the Senator from West 
Virginia wrote:

       Nobody can convince me that this White House is serious 
     about homeland security.

  The Senator, of course, recalls that. Does the Senator still believe 
that it appears the administration is not serious about homeland 
security when time after time they refuse to fund these programs that 
are essential to the State of Nevada and the rest of the country? Does 
the Senator agree that they haven't shown any seriousness about this?
  Mr. BYRD. There is no question about it. Time after time, as the 
Senator says, they have turned down amendments of this Senate to 
enhance the security of our people, our facilities, our properties. 
Time after time after time. Our pleas have fallen upon deaf ears. And 
in the nearly 3 years since the tragic events of 9/11, I myself have 
pressed the Senate to provide additional resources for homeland 
security. The administration, the President, including the great Vice 
President we have, consistently opposed these efforts. The President 
went so far as to threaten to veto bills if they included what the 
administration characterized as ``wasteful spending.''
  There are many examples--let me give a few--of funding contained in 
these amendments that certainly would have helped to make America 
safer. In November of 2001, Senate Democrats supported my amendment to 
include $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus 
package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety; $4.6 
billion for State and local law enforcement and fire training and 
equipment and Federal computer improvements; $3.3 billion for 
transportation security, including airport and port security; $1.1 
billion for border security; $2.0 billion for security at nuclear 
power, water, and other critical infrastructure facilities, and for 
mail screening. The White House opposed the effort, warning of 
``permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with 
stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.''
  I could go on with example after example. But I shall simply ask 
unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a litany of these 
projects.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Byrd Amendment

       Provides an additional $2 billion for the following 
     Homeland Security functions:
       $665 million for the Office of State and Local Government 
     Coordination and Preparedness ($440 million for discretionary 
     grants for use in high-threat, high density urban areas; $125 
     million for port security grants; and $100 million for grants 
     for interoperable communications equipment);
       $350 million for Mass Transit and Rail Security;
       $324 million for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program 
     of the Coast Guard;
       $100 million for screening passengers and carry-on baggage 
     for explosives by Transportation Security Administration 
     Aviation Security;
       $100 million for Custom and Border Protection Salaries ($50 
     million for purchase and deployment of radiation portal 
     monitors and $50 million for staffing at the northern 
     border);
       $11 million for detentions and removals by Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement;
       $50 million for Federal Air Marshalls;
       $4 million for hazardous materials security grants of the 
     Transportation Security Administration;
       $50 million to secure high risk non-profit organizations;
       $46 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants;
       $100 million for Firefighter Hiring Grants; and
       $200 million for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
     Protection.

  Mr. BYRD. The President has tried to convince the American people 
that they are safer because he created a new Department of Homeland 
Security. Well, reorganizing the deck chairs of our bureaucracy does 
not make us safer. It takes money. Money.
  I have offered this amendment in the hopes the Senate will accept it 
and that we might take it to conference. This is an opportunity to do 
what we should do in order to save our people and their homes.
  I thank my distinguished friend from Nevada for his contribution to 
this debate. I thank my friend from Mississippi, the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve, the subcommittee making 
appropriations for homeland security. I thank that Senator. He does the 
best he can do and has done the best he can do, but he is limited in 
what he can do. I thank him for his cooperation, for his manner of 
holding the hearings. He has always been very fair. I thank him. I 
thank other members of the subcommittee.
  But we need to do more. My amendment is an opportunity for the Senate 
to do more.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia has offered an amendment that would increase the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, according to the CBO, by $2 billion.
  A variety of accounts are included in the amendment for increases. 
The Customs and Border Protection account, for example, would be 
increased under the Senator's amendment by $50 million for northern 
border staffing and $50 million for radiation detectors at ports of 
entry.
  The bill we have before us already includes a $50 million increase 
for radiation detectors. The Department has met the goal already of 
tripling the number of border patrol agents on the northern border. 
Funds were provided last year in the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill to ensure that more border patrol agents would be deployed on the 
northern border. We have provided significant increases for inspector 
staffing since September 11, 2001. We have included funds, for example, 
for radiation detection equipment and other detection systems along the 
northern border.
  Last year, Congress provided funding for the permanent establishment 
of the first northern border air wing to be located in Bellingham, WA. 
Resources are being made available for a second northern border air 
wing in New York. We expect further funds will be requested to continue 
the expansion of coverage of the northern border in future years. It is 
a challenging undertaking. That border covers over 5,000 miles. It is a 
daunting task. We cannot accomplish in 1 year or with one amendment all 
of the goals we have to enhance and improve the protection of our 
homeland by more sophisticated, more modern deployments along the 
northern border, but we are making and have made important strides. We 
cannot achieve every goal immediately. It is going to take time.
  My suggestion in opposing this amendment is that we are appropriately 
identifying the priorities and making the funds available to achieve 
the goals in a thoughtful, coherent, and successful fashion. The 
administration is proposing increases in these accounts. We have 
accommodated those proposals. We have added to many of

[[Page S8992]]

the proposals over and above what the administration has requested.
  Another example in this amendment offered by my friend proposes a $50 
million increase in the Federal Air Marshal program. The Department has 
worked to supplement resources for these activities by using transfer 
authority to increase resources. The Department has used other Federal 
law enforcement officers to provide additional flight coverage on 
commercial airliners as needed. The committee recognizes in this bill 
the needs of this organization, and we have provided an additional $50 
million in this bill for this next fiscal year for Federal Air Marshals 
out of additional funds provided to this Committee.
  Another account is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Senator's 
amendment would add an additional $11 million for the Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, Alternatives to Detention program. The bill 
already provides $14.2 million--an increase of $11 million--providing 
funding for 30 new positions, as requested by the President, to expand 
the Alternatives to Detention program. This amendment, if we agree to 
it, would expand the program 12-fold in a single year.
  Another account, Transportation Security Administration. The 
Senator's amendment proposes a $104 million increase for the 
Transportation Security Administration for enhanced passenger 
checkpoint screening and hazardous material security grants. Last year, 
our committee proposed and Congress approved $153.2 million for these 
activities. In this bill for next year, we have included $344.3 million 
for passenger and baggage screener training of all newly hired 
screeners and for recurrent and advanced technical training for the 
entire screener workforce to meet proficiency and qualification 
standards. In addition to the training of screeners, funding is 
included for an annual proficiency evaluation of all screeners and 
supervisors to ensure that the screener workforce meets all of the 
qualifications and standards required to perform their duties as 
required by the Aviation Transportation Security Act.

  For this fiscal year, 2004, $33 million was made available for 
airport passenger security checkpoint support. For this next fiscal 
year, in this bill we provide $161 million--$128 million more than last 
year's level and $75 million more than the President's request. This 
bill is meeting the challenge. We are providing the funds that will 
enable the Department of Homeland Security to have well-trained, well-
qualified personnel doing these jobs in our airports, that will meet 
the requirements of the law and also meet the expectations we all have 
to use the airlines for qualified, capable, and dependable workforce 
participants.
  The additional funding we have provided above the President's request 
is available also to deploy explosive trace detection portals, taking 
advantage of new technologies that are being developed which help 
ensure that we do the best possible job, the most thorough job of 
making sure people are not getting on the airplanes with explosive 
materials. This is something the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia has made a point of in our hearings and in statements on the 
Senate floor--the challenge that is provided by these dangers. We are 
doing what ought to be done by providing the funds to take advantage of 
new technology, to encourage development of new technology to help us 
meet these goals.
  The Senator's amendment also proposes a $324 million increase in the 
Coast Guard's Deepwater capitalization budget. I am excited about the 
Deepwater Program and the plans the Coast Guard has for modernizing and 
improving its fleet. This needs to be done. In testimony in our 
hearings, we learned that some of our Coast Guard cutters have hulls 
that are rusting away. Some are dangerous to operate. They are a threat 
in some cases to the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard. We 
cannot tolerate that. So it is time for us to make new investments in 
refurbishing and building new ships and boats for the Coast Guard, and 
other equipment, such as helicopters. The whole point is the bill we 
presented to the Senate, though, funds each asset requested in the 
budget within the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction, and 
improvement account. It has requested funds it can reasonably and 
efficiently use in the next fiscal year, and our committee has 
recognized and agreed with this need to address the top priorities of 
the Coast Guard sooner rather than later.

  So we have increased the funding for reengineering the HH-65 
helicopter and have moved forward the plan design of the offshore 
patrol cutter.
  You cannot build a ship, though, before it is designed. You cannot 
modernize before you have the preliminary work done. So what we are 
doing is providing the funds that can be used by the Coast Guard to 
advance the construction program and to modernize their fleet.
  The bill before us has already increased the Deepwater account $98 
million above the President's request. We are bordering on overdoing it 
already, but I am satisfied these additions are necessary and they are 
justified. Going to the level proposed in this amendment is overdoing 
it.
  In the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
Preparedness, the distinguished Senator's amendment would add over $700 
million to the First Responder Grant Programs.
  Some Senators have suggested that we carefully review the Hart-Rudman 
report, which I did when I was asked to serve as chairman of this 
subcommittee and talked with my good friend, the former Senator from 
New Hampshire, who helped write that report to get his thoughts and to 
find out all I could about their suggestions.
  What they suggested was there was a $98 billion unfunded need for 
first responders, but the report says this: The budget estimates are 
preliminary and the estimates they make in their report are 
preliminary. It depends upon other factors. And the report ``cannot be 
more precise in the absence of systematic national requirements 
methodology and that the development of such a methodology is badly 
needed.''
  Rather than bank on a number that was reached up and brought out of 
thin air, the administration has gone to a more authoritative 
Commission that was given the responsibility of doing what they said, 
and that is to develop a methodology.
  That has been done and suggested by the Commission, the Gilmore 
Commission. It is an advisory panel to assess domestic response 
capabilities for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
  The Gilmore Commission's final report, which was issued in December 
of 2003, includes the following statement:

       Prognostication about the amount of funding that the 
     Federal Government should provide in the near future is 
     premature at best. Recent calls for the funding upward of 
     $100 billion is, in our view, not the wisest approach. 
     Federal funds have started to flow. Absent a more clear 
     articulation of an end state and the levels of preparedness 
     sought to be achieved with some reasonable way to measure our 
     efforts, any attempts to establish an overall price tag is 
     mere speculation and could be politically unwise.

  I agree with that. We have carefully reviewed at our hearings the 
testimony of experts, those who are in the administration as well who 
have responsibilities for administering these programs. We have 
questioned them. We have cross-examined them to find out what the facts 
are, what are the needs.
  There is adequate funding in the pipeline, I suggest, now for first 
responder grants. A pipeline is only so big. You can stuff it full of 
money and you stop the flow. We do not want to do that. So I think we 
have to be careful about how much we direct the administration to spend 
and make sure it can be efficiently used, effectively used, and will 
achieve the goals we all share.
  I am hopeful the Senate will agree that we should not overdo it. We 
do not need to overspend, and overspending is not going to make us a 
safer or more secure Nation. Throwing money at complex, technical 
problems will not produce the results we need for a safer and more 
secure homeland.

  Having said those things in an effort to put in context the proposal 
that is before the Senate from the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, and my views, at least, of why we should support the 
committee's recommendation, additionally, I am constrained to observe 
that because of the Congressional Budget Office assessment that this 
amendment would call for spending $1.889 billion in additional funds, 
over and above the $32 billion that is already included in this bill, 
it is beyond the allocation of the committee, as agreed to by the 
Senate

[[Page S8993]]

Committee on Appropriations yesterday. And because it exceeds that 
allocation, I am constrained to make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I had the good fortune, when I was home this 
past break, to meet all the sheriffs of Nevada. They have a lot of 
problems with the unfunded mandate because of the homeland security----
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, haven't I made a point of order? Doesn't 
that require a ruling of the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been made against the 
pending amendment.
  Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I did not hear the point of order as it was 
being made, but I understand it has been made.
  Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I 
move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. But I also ask 
unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there may be a few minutes for 
debate of the point of order and/or the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to there being some 
opportunity for debate for those who may want to debate it. I hope we 
can move to a vote on the motion to waive, and it should not be 
delayed. I understand the Democrats have a luncheon they are looking to 
attend some time around quarter of 1. I hope we can vote before then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There 
will be time for debate on the motion to waive.
  Is there a sufficient second on the yeas and nays?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be brief. I met with the chief law 
enforcement officers of the counties of Nevada. Without any hesitation, 
they said they are having tremendous difficulties meeting their 
responsibilities because of the unfunded mandates that have been 
required as a result of this homeland security problem that faces all 
America.
  As an example, I say to the two managers of the bill, one big problem 
we have is inoperability. They cannot communicate with each other 
through their radio, not only police, but they cannot speak to the fire 
officials. That is something that needs to be done. That is not covered 
in this bill.
  With the additional funding that is requested by the Senator from 
West Virginia, we could start that program, something that is so 
important and needs to be done, and the sheriffs and law enforcement 
officers of Nevada need that very badly. Inoperability of 
communications is important. With regard to the gates and the 
screening, one reason we have these tremendously long lines all over 
America is we do not have enough people to do the work.
  We need to hire some more people. I appreciate what the Senator from 
Mississippi said, that we are doing more training. We need to 
accelerate this significantly.
  I say to my friends, the managers of this bill, we, of course, are 
faced with the problem--the Senator from Mississippi says, well, the 
committee is funding what the administration requests. That is the 
whole problem. They are not requesting enough. The fact that they are 
meeting what the administration has suggested is not appropriate. There 
is a lot more that needs to be done and I again refer to ``Losing 
America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency,'' which shows 
in script, beginning on page 98, but specifically this morning I 
referred to pages 112 through 115, where we have tried time and again 
to see if we could get funding for problems that are so important to 
this country, programs that deal with seaports, airports, border 
security, nuclear facilities, first responders, and we have been turned 
down every time.
  Last year, when we approved funding for Iraq early in the year of $69 
billion, later in the year of $87 billion in supplemental funding, 
could we not spend $2 billion rather than in Iraq and use it at home 
and take care of the law enforcement officers in Nevada, take care of 
all the other requests we have to make our homeland more secure?
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to Byrd 
amendment No. 3597 and extend my appreciation to the Senator for 
offering this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No specific debate time was allocated.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the 
work he has done. Nothing I have said is in any way any criticism of 
his work. I commend him for producing a balanced bill. Given the 
constraints under which we are being forced to operate, he has done his 
best. I have no criticism of him whatsoever, but I would argue that $2 
billion is not that large for the very short list of programs in this 
amendment that address vulnerabilities that are well known. Indeed, 
most of these programs have been authorized by the Congress and the 
President and this amendment tries to provide the authorized funding.
  Regarding the Deepwater Program, the Coast Guard authorization bill 
Public Law 108-293 authorizes $1.1 billion for the Coast Guard's 
Deepwater Acquisition Program. My amendment provides an additional $324 
million to meet the authorization level for this critical activity.
  It was the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, which authorized a 
tripling of the number of border patrol agents and legacy immigration 
and Customs agents on the northern border. That law was passed nearly 3 
years ago and this administration has failed to provide the funds to 
meet the authorization. My amendment adds $50 million so we can get 
nearly one-third of the way toward meeting the requirements of the law.
  The Maritime Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-295, created 
the Port Security Grant Program. It called upon the Coast Guard to 
provide estimates of the costs for that program. The Coast Guard has 
estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year and $5.4 
billion will be needed over the next 10 years for the ports to comply 
with the Federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act which was signed into law by President Bush with great 
fanfare in November 2002.
  Despite the President's paucity of funding requests to implement the 
law, the Congress has stepped up to the plate and has appropriated a 
total of $493 million towards these grants.

  The Senate version of the budget resolution assumed that $275 million 
will be appropriated for port security grants in fiscal year 2005. The 
bill before us today provides $150 million. By adopting this amendment, 
the Congress still will have provided over 4 years only $768 million of 
the Coast Guard's first-year cost estimate of $1.125 billion for port 
security grants, but the additional $125 million in this amendment will 
meet the assumption for port security grants made in the Senate budget 
resolution.
  On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee, on a bipartisan basis, 
reported S. 2453 which authorizes $5.2 billion over the period of 
fiscal year 2005-2007 for transit security activities under its 
jurisdiction. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on a 
bipartisan basis, reported S. 2273 which authorizes more than $1 
billion for rail security activities under its jurisdiction over the 
period of fiscal year 2005-2009. My amendment provides $350 million in 
security grants to rail and transit systems. Combined with the funds 
provided in the committee-reported bill, we still fall more than 
halfway short in meeting the requirements of these bills. The 
authorization bills and the laws written and passed by this Congress by 
overwhelming margins and signed into law by the President clearly 
demonstrate a far greater funding

[[Page S8994]]

need than that contained in my amendment. My amendment, which would 
implement several 9/11 Commission recommendations, is but a small step 
in meeting the homeland security requirements authorized already by the 
Congress.
  The President has said he would do whatever it takes. However, his 
budget takes a hike when it comes to actually funding homeland 
security.
  I note that, and I agree with Chairman Cochran, we must operate 
within limits on spending, but the limits must be set at a level that 
allows the Congress to fund homeland security programs that address 
clear dangers. We are debating an amendment that provides $2 billion 
for securing our homeland. In the last 3 years, the President has 
signed three tax cuts. These tax cuts increased our Federal deficit for 
fiscal year 2005 by $232 billion. Where were the limits? Where were the 
limits on the tax cuts? Where are those voices who say we are overdoing 
it in this amendment? Where were they when it came to the tax cuts? Did 
we overdo the tax cuts?
  The President increased our deficits for fiscal year 2005 by $232 
billion in tax cuts, but we cannot afford $2 billion today for securing 
our rail systems, for securing our chemical plants, or making sure a 
terrorist does not blow another plane out of the sky.
  In summary, in the nearly 3 years since the tragic events of 9/11, I 
have pressed the Senate to provide additional resources for homeland 
security and the President consistently opposed those efforts. He went 
so far as to threaten to veto bills if they included what the 
administration characterized as wasteful spending. Let me give a few 
examples of funding contained in those amendments that certainly would 
have helped make America safer.
  In November of 2001, Senate Democrats supported my amendment to 
include $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus 
package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety, $4.6 
billion for State and local law enforcement and fire training and 
equipment and Federal computer improvements, $3.3 billion for 
transportation security, including airport and port security, $1.1 
billion for border security, $2.0 billion for security at nuclear 
power, water, and other critical infrastructure facilities, and for 
mail screening. The White House opposed the effort, warning of 
``permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with 
stimulus and that will only expand the size of Government.''
  On November 28, 2001, Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge 
wrote to me and said, ``. . . no additional resources to protect the 
homeland beyond what the President has already requested are needed at 
this time.''
  Senate Republicans, under pressure from the White House, objected to 
the ``emergency designation'' for the homeland security funding and 
voted to block the funding.
  On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported, by 
a vote of 29-0, the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill. This 
bill included $13.1 billion for homeland security programs, $8.7 
billion above the President's request. In a meeting with congressional 
leaders, President Bush threatened to veto the Defense appropriations 
bill that contained the additional homeland security funding.
  On December 6, 2001, Senate Republicans, voted against the 
``emergency designation'' for the homeland security funding. As a 
result, homeland security funding was reduced by $4.6 billion, from 
$13.1 billion to $8.5 billion.
  Under further pressure from the White House, conferees further 
reduced homeland defense funding from $8.5 billion to $8.3 billion, a 
level that was still $3.9 billion above the President's request. In 
reducing the funding from $13.1 billion to $8.3 billion, funding was 
reduced for bioterrorism and food safety, border security, airport 
security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal 
security.
  In June of 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 71-22, the Senate passed a 
supplemental appropriations bill that included $8.3 billion for 
homeland security. The funding was allocated based on a series of five 
bipartisan hearings held by the Senate Appropriations Committee when 
the committee heard testimony from Governors, mayors, police, fire 
fighters, emergency medical and other first responders, port security 
specialists and other experts in the field of counterterrorism, seven 
cabinet officers and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
  On June 17, 2002, the President's senior advisors recommended a veto 
of the Senate version of the supplemental bill because it included what 
they asserted was excessive homeland security spending.
  Under pressure from the White House, the conferees agreed to reduce 
homeland defense funding from $8.3 billion to $6.7 billion. Funding was 
reduced for food safety, for cyber security, for solving the first 
responder radio interoperability problem, for nuclear security, for 
increased lab capacity to determine whether biological or chemical 
weapons have been used in a potential attack, for airport security, 
port security, and water security.
  Then, in August of 2002, the President refused to spend $2.5 billion 
that Congress had approved for homeland security. The President chose 
not to make the emergency designation, asserting that the contingency 
emergency fund contained wasteful spending.
  In making that decision, the President blocked funding for homeland 
defense programs that would have specifically addressed known 
shortcomings including: firefighting grants; security improvements at 
our nuclear plants and labs; grants to make police and fire 
communications equipment interoperable in response to weaknesses 
identified on September 11; port security grants; airport security 
funding, including funds for more Federal air marshals; Coast Guard 
funding; law enforcement resources for State and local governments for 
police equipment and training; FBI funding for counter terrorism and 
information technology enhancements; urban search and rescue teams; 
cyber security improvements to protect our economy; food and water 
security, including funds for addressing the threat of mad cow disease; 
border security; dam and reservoir security; and Customs Service funds 
to increase the number and quality of the inspections of the six 
million cargo containers that come into this country each year.
  President Bush announced at his economic forum in Texas that he was 
rejecting the $2.5 billion bipartisan homeland security funding 
package. President Bush said, ``I made my opposition clear. We were 
pretty plain-spoken. . . I understand Congress's position, and today, 
they're going to learn mine. We'll spend none of it.''
  In connection with the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations 
legislation, the White House said, ``the administration strongly 
opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending to the package.'' On 
January 16, 2003, Senate Republicans fell in line behind the President 
and voted 45-51 to defeat an amendment that I offered to add $5 billion 
for homeland security activities for port security, airport security, 
border security, nuclear security, and for implementing the President's 
smallpox vaccine plan.
  My amendment included $300 million for mass transit security. Perhaps 
if that amendment had been adopted, we would be better prepared today 
to prevent a terrorist attack on our subways, buses and trains.
  On January 29, 2003, the President, in his State of the Union message 
to the Congress said, ``Whatever action is required, whenever action is 
necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American 
people.''
  Three months later, on April 2 and 3, 2003, the White House opposed 
all five amendments that I prepared for consideration on the fiscal 
year 2003 emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental to increase 
funding for homeland security programs. In total, the amendments would 
have provided $9 billion, $4.8 billion more than the President 
requested. All of the amendments were defeated on virtual party-line 
votes. Funding was rejected for radiation and portal monitors, for 
grants to public transit agencies for security of transit facilities 
against chemical, biological, and other terrorist threats, for grants 
to improve communications within and among first responders, for funds 
for the Coast Guard to implement the Automated Identification System 
and other tracking systems to

[[Page S8995]]

actively track and monitor vessels operating in United States waters, 
for port security, and for the FBI.
  Then, in July of 2003, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 
Homeland Security appropriations bill to add $1.75 billion for homeland 
security programs. The amendment was defeated 43-50. The amendment 
included funds to implement several authorization laws that the 
President had signed shortly after 9/11, but then failed to either 
adequately fund or fund at all, including the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act of 2002, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and 
the USA PATRIOT Act. Once again, funding was rejected for mass-transit 
security, for securing the northern border, for air-cargo security, for 
port security and for first responders.
  In the September 2003 conference on the fiscal year 2004 Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, I tried again to add $1.25 billion to the 
bill, and the effort was defeated on party-line vote of the conferees 
of 8-9. The amendment would have added $375 million for port security 
grants, $400 million for aviation security, $66 million for 
implementation of port security enhancements required by the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act, $34 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater 
Program, $125 million for 1,300 additional Customs inspectors at the 
borders, $200 million for first responder grants, and $50 million to 
enhance security at chemical facilities.
  I urge that the Senate waive the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Nevada 
made a couple of points that I think require response. One was that no 
funds are available in this bill for local law enforcement and other 
first responders for interoperable communications and other new 
technologies. The Senator is correct, we are not directly funding local 
law enforcement officials interoperable communications needs, but they 
are eligible for funds provided to States in this bill by the Office of 
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to help 
improve technologies, communications equipment, training, and other 
activities that are important to enhance the capabilities of the first 
responders, whether they are fire departments, law enforcement 
officials, or the like.
  We are providing funds in broad grant programs to States and 
localities in order for them to have the ability to make the decisions 
at a local level in determining what their greatest needs may be.
  In addition, the National Sheriffs Association, for example, has 
developed a nationwide program for other sheriffs' departments--the 
Pegasus Program--I know some sheriffs in my State are actively involved 
in helping convince others they ought to take advantage of that 
program. I know another program in my State that has gotten Federal 
funds from the Justice Department and is available on the Mississippi 
Gulf Coast now, a new interoperable communications system, computer 
based, where laptop computer capability will be available in patrol 
cars, other vehicles, and in police stations, in sheriffs' departments 
along the Mississippi Gulf Coast so they can keep up with what each 
jurisdiction is doing. They will know if an arrest has been made of 
someone who may have escaped from a jail in one of the adjoining 
counties.
  All of these law enforcement officials along the coast will be able 
to have access to that information immediately because of this new 
system.
  So opportunities are available to local jurisdictions to take 
advantage of new programs that are being developed and made available 
to help achieve the goals that my friend talks about. We all share 
those goals.
  One other point on that subject. The committee provides in this bill, 
$30 million ``for direct technical assistance to State and local 
governments.'' And, of this amount, $20 million, it says in the report 
on page 57, ``is for the Interoperable Communication Technical 
Assistance program to enhance interoperability of public safety 
communications.'' So technical assistance is available directly from 
funds that are in this bill to achieve the goals to which the Senator 
from Nevada has alluded.
  We are encouraging the Department to consider designating a lead 
organization within the Department to provide technical assistance for 
interoperable communications. I think we are meeting our challenge in 
this area under the restraints that we have to impose. We can't fund 
everything directly. We don't want to get in the business of choosing 
one communications system over another, and I haven't meant to do that 
by pointing out two in my State that I happen to know about. We are 
letting local jurisdictions make those decisions. We do not have to 
make those decisions as Members of the Senate. We are not competent to 
make those decisions. So I don't want to start writing into our bill a 
specific communication system and then funding it and trying to make it 
available to all of the jurisdictions throughout the United States. We 
would run out of money quickly if we tried to do that.
  But I think we are meeting the challenge, and I hope Senators will 
agree and will support the point of order and vote against the motion 
to waive the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi knows how much 
I care about him and respect him. But $20 million for interoperability 
is so short of what is needed. The 9/11 Commission Report states, among 
other things:

     . . . high risk urban areas such as New York City and 
     Washington, D.C., should establish signal corps units to 
     ensure communications connectivity between and among civil 
     authorities, local first responders, and the National Guard. 
     Federal funding of such units should be given high priority 
     by Congress.

  The city of New York alone is more than $20 million. The State of 
Nevada is around $6 or $7 million. So $20 million is a literal drop in 
the bucket. I repeat, if we can, through supplemental funding, provide 
$69 billion, $87 billion in 1 year in supplemental funding for Iraq, 
couldn't we spend a few dollars for America to be safer? It appears 
this administration does not believe we should.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor and to speak 
in support of the amendment offered today by my colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd. As Members of Congress, our most sacred duty is 
protecting our fellow Americans. We do this in several ways, of course, 
by supporting our troops at home and abroad, by our oversight of the 
intelligence community, and now, with the creation of the Department of 
Homeland Security, with an annual appropriation to fund the security 
activities of the various agencies that make up DHS, and to fund grant 
programs to States, localities, and private industry to make certain 
that citizens of the United States are protected from terrorist 
attacks, life-threatening accidents, and acts of God.
  In the last 3 years I have sat down with hundreds of first responders 
around my State of West Virginia, as well as local elected officials 
and experts from my State's core industries, to discuss what they were 
doing to protect West Virginians, and to hear from them directly where 
they needed help from the Federal Government. I am sure that each of my 
colleagues has had similar meetings. While I would not presume to know 
specifically what was said at these meetings, I would be willing to 
wager that no member of Congress heard anything other than ``We have 
huge unmet security needs and we need Federal resources to make our 
country safer.''
  When we created the Department of Homeland Security, and when we 
authorized many billions of dollars in additional funding to protect 
this Nation, I am sure we convinced some people that we had learned the 
harsh lessons of September 11. In fact, I think we have done well 
making increased safety and security priority issues for the Federal 
Government and for all Americans. Unfortunately, we have fallen short 
on addressing these needs, and the Byrd amendment is a very good

[[Page S8996]]

step in the right direction. This amendment would not do everything 
that needs to be done for Congress to be able to say we are delivering 
the goods to our first responders, State and local officials, and to 
the industries that make up our critical infrastructure, but it would 
be a much-needed boost for all those trying to make America safer.
  I commend Senator Byrd for making his usual strong, principled stand 
on this matter. Let me be clear, too, that I do not believe the funding 
levels in the underlying bill reflect any lack of understanding of the 
scope of the problem on the part of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. The chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, my 
friend, Senator Cochran, has done very well with the amount he was 
given to distribute. The problem is, quite simply, that the 
administration's past policy choices--and the need to adequately 
support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan--have left Senator Cochran 
and his fellow appropriators with too little to do this all-important 
job.
  It is not a question, let me reiterate, of our Republican colleagues 
or the President not wanting to see our Nation adequately protected. I 
do question, I am sad to say, the idea that it is vitally important to 
make unaffordable tax cuts permanent, but it is not more immediately 
important to secure our chemical facilities, our railroads, our 
electricity grid, or provide training and technical assistance to our 
firefighters and emergency medical personnel.
  I hope that my colleagues will see just how important this is. It 
would be a tragedy beyond measure if we failed to do the right thing 
when we had the chance, and only provided funding, for instance, to fix 
the problem of interoperable radios after another tragedy where first 
responders were at risk because they could not talk to each other.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the Byrd amendment because I 
think that it includes important investments in our homeland security. 
For example, the amendment includes over $500 million for 
interoperability for our first responders. It includes $125 million for 
port security grants so that we can increase our surveillance of the 
thousands of containers that enter our country. And it includes $111 
million for border security. Overall, the amendment provides $2 billion 
in 11 key areas that desperately need increased funding.
  In its current form, this amendment does not include any offsetting 
reductions to pay for the new investments. If this amendment is adopted 
today--and I hope that it will be--I intend to work with the conferees 
to offset these increases by reducing funds that have been earmarked 
for Iraqi reconstruction. I believe this expenditure should be offset 
with these other spending cuts.
  Iraq is a nation that sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the 
world. My view is that Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction.
  Last year, this Congress acted in an expedited way to appropriate 
$18.4 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. And yet, 10 months later, most 
of that money is still unspent. Less than $1 billion has been actually 
expended and only about $7 billion has been obligated.
  Therefore, I support Senator Byrd's amendment and I will vote for it 
today. But my intention is to push for the rescission of those 
unobligated Iraqi reconstruction funds and use them to offset the 
needed security investments that have been identified by Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the motion to waive with respect to the Byrd amendment occur at 2 p.m. 
this afternoon; provided further that the amendment be temporarily set 
aside in order for Senator Dodd to offer the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is 
contemplated--we think it will work out--is we will have two votes at 2 
o'clock. The majority has not had an opportunity to look at the 
amendment of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Michigan, Mr. Dodd and Ms. Stabenow. But as soon as they do, I think we 
will be able to vote at 2 o'clock. In the meantime, until that happens, 
we agree to the unanimous consent of the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3604

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3604.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the amount provided for first responder programs, 
                        and to provide offsets)

       On page 19, line 17, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and insert 
     ``$11,552,000,000.

       On page 21, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the 
     following:


                     Firefighter Assistance Grants

       For necessary expenses for programs authorized by sections 
     33 and 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229 and 2229a), to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006, $4,000,000,000, of which $3,000,000,000 
     shall be available for necessary expenses for programs 
     authorized by section 33 of such Act and $1,000,000,000 shall 
     be available for necessary expenses for programs authorized 
     by section 34 of such Act: Provided, That not to exceed 5 
     percent of the amount provided for the programs under each 
     such section shall be available for program administration.
       On page 22, line 3, strike ``$180,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$660,000,000''.

       On page 28, line 21, strike ``$181,440,000'' and insert 
     ``$690,994,000''.
       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. The total amount appropriated by title III for 
     the Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness 
     and Response under the headings ``preparedness, mitigation, 
     response, and recovery'', ``administrative and regional 
     operations'', and ``public health programs'' is hereby 
     increased by $2,845,766,000.
       Sec. 516. The Secretary of the Treasury shall take such 
     action as is necessary to reduce benefits provided by the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to 
     individuals with an adjusted gross income of $1,000,000 or 
     more that will result in an increase in revenue sufficient to 
     offset the increased funding provided for the first responder 
     and other programs by this amendment.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my good friend from 
Michigan, Senator Stabenow, we are once again offering an amendment 
which deals with the underlying issue of this debate, and that is the 
adequacy of our resources to the homeland security effort.
  In recent days we have heard the Vice President of the United States 
suggesting that we ought not enter the mindset of a pre-9/11. I 
couldn't agree more. It is a dangerous thing for this country to forget 
what our Nation went through 3 years ago come Monday. Certainly, what 
we are suggesting with this amendment we are offering--Senator 
Stabenow, myself, and Senator Kennedy--is to put some real resources, a 
real effort behind the homeland security effort.
  We have put this amendment together not based on our conclusions 
individually of what ought to be a part of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act. Rather, we draw upon the tremendous work done by a 
former colleague of ours, Senator Warren Rudman, and his report that 
was produced by experts in conjunction with the Council on Foreign 
Relations. A significant amount of time was spent to assess the 
adequacy of our first responders and whether we have in place across 
this country 3 years after the brutal attacks of 9/11 the resources, 
the personnel, the equipment, and the training necessary to provide the 
protections this country needs if, Lord forbid, we are attacked again 
by terrorists.
  That report concludes that we are woefully inadequate to meet those 
challenges with which we are confronted. It lays out in detail 
suggestions as to what needs to be done in

[[Page S8997]]

order to make us better prepared to respond to those situations. So we 
are offering this amendment in the same spirit in which our colleague 
from West Virginia offered his amendment. It is out of a deep concern 
we are not doing enough to protect our Nation from the risk of a 
terrorist attack.

  Last June, former Senator Warren Rudman, with a very distinguished 
panel of experts, produced a report sponsored by the Council on Foreign 
Relations. Their report concluded that we must spend at least $98 
billion over the next 5 years in order to provide a reasonable degree 
of security here at home.
  The Council on Foreign Relations report was not just another study 
thrown together over a few days; it was authored by a friend and former 
colleague from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman. He assembled a very 
distinguished group of Americans to serve on a task force which wrote 
the July 2003 report. The task force members included Richard Clarke, a 
former counterterrorism adviser for three Presidents. It also included 
Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
under President Reagan; George Shultz, President Reagan's Secretary of 
State; Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of 
Health under President Clinton; William Webster, who served both as the 
Director of the CIA and the FBI in the 1980s and 1990s, among many 
others.
  Regrettably, 1 year later, the urgent recommendations of this very 
distinguished panel--a very comprehensive study--have been almost 
totally ignored by the leadership of the Congress and the executive 
branch. According to the Rudman report:

       Estimated combined federal, state and local expenditures . 
     . . would need to be as much as tripled over the next five 
     years to address the unmanned need. Covering this funding 
     shortfall using federal funds alone would require a five-fold 
     increase from the current levels.

  So, depending upon the level of State and local funding available, 
the Federal Government should be committing between $15 and $25 billion 
per year according to the Council on Foreign Relations. If $15 billion 
to $25 billion a year is what it takes to get the job done, that is 
what we ought to be providing. Unfortunately, the bill before the 
Senate only commits about $3.4 billion a year, which is a fifth of what 
is really needed to support our first responders.
  The amendment Senator Stabenow and I are offering would commit a full 
$20 billion necessary in fiscal year 2005 and would set us on the path 
toward meeting the Council on Foreign Relations' recommendations for 
first responder investments over the next 5 years. I realize $20 
billion a year is a lot of money. I would like to put that number into 
context, if I may.
  First, I don't believe that any of my colleagues who served with 
Warren Rudman or know Warren Rudman would call him free spending. In 
fact, when one hears the words ``deficit hawk,'' you often think 
immediately of Warren Rudman. He led the Concord Coalition in the mid 
1990s with another friend and former colleague, the late Paul Tsongas 
of Massachusetts. He fought tirelessly for deficit reduction and 
balanced budgets while serving in the Senate. He also lent his name to 
the landmark 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act, of which I was honored to be a cosponsor at the 
time. So when Warren Rudman says we need to be spending $20 billion a 
year for our Nation's first responders, I think we need to take his 
advise very seriously.
  When George Shultz, when Mr. Webster, when Admiral Crowe and others 
make these recommendations, we are not talking about people who do not 
know what they are talking about. We are talking about some of the most 
serious public servants of the last two or three decades, people who 
have taken a serious look at our needs, a serious look at the threats 
facing us, in a bipartisan way, and have urged this Congress to do a 
better job in seeing to it that the American public is protected from 
the dangers of a terrorist attack by insisting that our first 
responders receive the necessary tools they ought to have in order to 
respond.
  We should also keep in mind that the current Department of Defense 
budget is about $400 billion per year--that is more than a billion a 
day we are investing on our military security. If we would allocate an 
additional $20 billion a year for first responders, as the Rudman 
report recommends, our amendment would provide only 5 percent of the 
total defense budget. Isn't 5 percent of that budget worth it in order 
to provide more protection to the American citizens at home?

  By the way, that $400 million does not necessarily include the money 
we are spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq alone is $200 billion we 
have already spent in that particular conflict.
  We are also spending billions of dollars, as I mentioned, to sustain 
our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that $20 billion a year 
is a good investment to ensure our urgent homeland security needs are 
going to be met. Again, focusing $20 billion on domestic security would 
represent only a fraction of 1 year's military budget. If we committed 
the entire amount identified in the Warren Rudman report--$98 billion--
it would only be 90 days' worth of military spending in any given year.
  If we as a nation can find the resources we need to ensure our 
military security, and I believe we should, then we must make a similar 
commitment to find the resources we need to ensure that the domestic 
defenders of our Nation are also equipped to provide domestic security. 
We do not send our military personnel into battle without the equipment 
they need to do their jobs, and we should not send our law enforcement 
personnel, our firefighters, our emergency medical technicians, out 
into a field without equipping them with what they need. We do not send 
our military into battle without the training to succeed. We should not 
send our domestic defenders into the field without proper training, 
either. We do not send our military to battle without sufficient human 
resources, and we should not send our firefighters into dangerous 
situations without the backup they need in order to ensure their 
safety.
  In the 3 years since September 11, we have made progress. But we also 
know categorically that we are not doing enough and we need to do more. 
If the choice is between tax cuts that we cannot afford and securing 
the public against the now known threats of terrorism, I believe the 
choice is simple. We must act responsibly to protect the public we 
serve. To not do so and then be attacked, then to not look back and 
wonder why we did not take the necessary steps, would be an indictment 
against this Congress and the people who are unwilling to step up and 
provide the resources we need at the local and State level.
  September 11 was one of the darkest days in our history. We all know 
that. We have heard about it. We all feel it very painfully. The 
simultaneous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well 
as the battle in the airspace over Pennsylvania was the deadliest 
foreign attack ever launched against the citizenry of this great 
country of ours.
  September 11 drew our attention to a fact that experts had known for 
years--namely, that the United States is vulnerable to terrorist 
attacks. Certainly we had experienced acts of terrorism before. Indeed, 
the World Trade Center itself had been attacked by terrorists in 1993. 
We had experienced the horrific attacks in Oklahoma City. We knew 
terrorism was possible anywhere, even in our schools. But it took the 
attacks of September 11 to focus our attention on the magnitude of the 
dangers we face and the people we are up against and what they are 
willing to do in order to do great damage to our country.
  Since September 11, the Federal Government has taken steps to improve 
our Nation's security. I applaud that. The fact we are even debating 
the Homeland Security appropriations bill is a reflection of the 
Federal Government's efforts to meet the challenges posed by the 
threats of terrorism. Yet there is still more that we must do. We can 
heed the recommendations of the Rudman report, which tells us we have 
not done nearly enough to protect the public we serve. That would be a 
major step in the right direction. It tells us that despite the risks 
this Nation faces, despite the real and present dangers, even the real 
likelihood of future terrorist attacks, that we are failing to take the 
steps necessary to protect the American people.

[[Page S8998]]

  The Rudman report also tells us that the Federal Government has not 
made a sufficient commitment to help ensure that our first responders--
our firefighters, our police, and our emergency medical personnel--have 
the training, the equipment, and staffing levels they need to 
effectively respond to what seemed unthinkable but that we now know can 
happen anywhere at any time.
  After talking to State and local emergency management professionals--
fire chiefs, police chiefs, the authors of the Rudman report--I have 
concluded we need to do much more than we have been doing. Local 
authorities asking for Federal assistance are told: We are sorry, but 
this is the best the Federal Government can do right now. Is this 
really the best we can do? I don't think so. I think we can do better.
  In addition, Vice President Cheney has been attacking the Democratic 
candidate on homeland security and warning about the risks of returning 
to a pre-September 11 mindset. I am almost quoting him. But who is 
really in a pre-September 11 mindset? This homeland security has not 
even begun to reflect the post-September risks that have been clearly, 
painstakingly detailed by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, and the 
distinguished panel that compiled this report.
  Three years ago, President Bush asked for and Congress agreed to 
large tax cuts. The rationale at the time was we had a huge surplus and 
could afford a tax cut. However, this year things have changed and 
record surpluses have become record deficits, staggering deficits, the 
largest in our Nation's history on an annual basis, and a national debt 
that is mounting. By the end of this fiscal year, the total Federal 
deficit will be nearly $422 billion. That will be the largest deficit 
in our Nation's history.

  This deficit is being racked up at a time when we have to address 
clear and immediate threats that are before us. However, instead of 
marshaling our resources in a comprehensive, responsible way, the 
administration did something that, in my view, will be recorded in 
history as irresponsible. It committed even more resources for the 
purpose of giving more tax benefits to the most affluent of our 
citizens.
  That was the choice they made--a clear choice to give tax benefits to 
the privileged few rather than taking the steps to make the commitment 
to protect all of us. Our enormous budget deficit has been coupled with 
a huge security deficit. There is now an enormous gap between what we 
are committing to homeland security and what we should be providing to 
State and local first responders.
  We have an opportunity with this amendment to set our priorities 
straight. We can, and we should, reestablish that the priority of this 
Nation is to protect all Americans and not to lavish scarce public 
resources on the privileged few.
  The amendment Senator Stabenow and I are offering would adhere to the 
recommendations of the task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign 
Relations and establish a more responsible and realistic baseline for 
supporting our first responders--our firefighters, our police, and our 
emergency medical personnel.
  To those who say we cannot afford to commit the resources to protect 
our people, I ask: Can we really afford not to do so? It seems to me if 
we can afford trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefit the most 
affluent, then we ought to be able to afford $20 billion this year, 
next year, and the 3 years following to ensure, or to do a better job 
of ensuring, our security.
  According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office 
released last month, the tax cuts approved in the last 3 years 
exacerbate income inequality by boosting the after-tax income of high-
income households far more than that of middle- or low-income 
households. Based on the Congressional Budget Office data, the top 1 
percent of households whose annual incomes average $1.2 million a year 
will receive an average tax cut of approximately $40,000 in the year 
2004. This tax break is more than 40 times--40 times!--the average tax 
break for those in the middle fifth of income distribution.
  With the amendment we are offering today, millionaires are going to 
be asked to take a smaller tax cut than they are already receiving 
under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. With our amendment, these individuals 
would still be able to benefit from significant tax cuts. But by simply 
reducing the 2003 tax breaks for those earning in excess of $1 million 
a year--one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers; which is what our 
amendment does--we would be able to live up to our commitment, our 
obligation, to our Nation's first responders and to the people of this 
country by providing them with the resources to see to it they can 
respond if, God forbid, we are confronted with another terrorist 
attack.
  So we have an offset. I suspect it will be challenged as a violation 
of the Budget Act. But here we are paying for an amendment by reducing 
the tax cut for the most affluent, to see to it that the general public 
can have the kind of protections they need, in order to see to it that 
we are protected against terrorist attacks that may come at a future 
date.
  With that, Madam President, I will yield to my colleague from 
Michigan, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. And she was there the 
last time we offered this amendment. She is a great advocate of these 
efforts to improve our homeland security picture. I am honored to join 
with her in this effort once again this year.
  I yield to my colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I, first, thank my friend and 
colleague from Connecticut for his eloquence and leadership on this 
issue. He proposed this amendment last year, and I was very proud to 
join him in this effort. If we had done this amendment last year, we 
would be having a very different discussion, I believe, right now. So I 
thank the very distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his 
leadership.
  I think it is important we recognize the fact that we have been told 
by the Department of Homeland Security that this is National 
Preparedness Month, which has just been announced. We are told there 
are hundreds of activities planned. The Department is encouraging us to 
encourage families we represent to be prepared individually.
  In the spirit of National Preparedness Month, I think we have a 
responsibility to do exactly the same. That is why I rise to urge my 
colleagues to support the Dodd-Stabenow amendment that will provide 
America's first responders with the equipment and the training they 
need to protect the people of our country.
  As the President often says, we are at war. The threat level has been 
raised to High or Orange six times since it was created. Americans are 
repeatedly warned the terrorists will strike again, that we should be 
vigilant and prepared. The experts and our leaders are certain that we 
remain under the threat of terrorist attack, and certain that we must 
be ready to prevent, hopefully, and, if not prevent, be able to respond 
to an attack.
  However, what remains uncertain is our ability to prepare for and 
defend against potential terrorist threats. That is where our 
Government up until now has failed. We have the opportunity to correct 
that on this bill.
  The experts I speak of, and Senator Dodd spoke of, are a blue-ribbon 
panel of Nobel laureates, U.S. military leaders, former high-level 
Government officials, and other senior experts, brought together by the 
Council on Foreign Relations, led by former Senator Warren B. Rudman, 
and advised by former White House terrorism and cybersecurity chief, 
Richard A. Clarke.
  During the spring of last year, this Independent Task Force on 
Emergency Responders conducted meetings across the Nation with first 
responders and national organizations seeking the answer to one simple 
question: What do you need to keep us safe? What do you need as first 
responders to keep us safe? The answer Senator Rudman received was 
daunting. Unbudgeted needs totaled about $98.4 billion, and these funds 
would only establish a minimum effective response, according to the 
report.
  I would like to detail some of the deficiencies in our preparedness 
that the Rudman report outlined.
  On average, our fire departments have only half the number of radios 
needed on a shift and only enough breathing apparatus for one-third of

[[Page S8999]]

their firefighters. Now, imagine that. I know in Michigan people assume 
firefighters and police officers, emergency responders, have 
communications equipment, that they can talk to each other. I have met 
with police departments where they have said they cannot talk to the 
fire department, and they are in the same town or in the next town. 
This report said, on average, fire departments have only half the 
number of radios needed on a shift.
  They also found police departments across America do not have the 
protective gear to respond to weapons of mass destruction attacks. They 
do not have basic protective gear.
  Why have we ignored this panel's recommendations?
  When the 9/11 Commission recently offered its recommendations--and I 
commend them for their thoughtfulness--Senators of both parties 
immediately took action. In fact, there is now a bipartisan bill that 
incorporates all 41 of the Commission's recommendations, and the 
majority leader has pledged to take up this legislation in the next 
month. I support that. In other words, approximately 2 months after we 
received the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission we are acting.
  Unfortunately, the Rudman report is a year and a half old, and I 
would argue, even though there have been some changes in funding, we 
have basically done nothing to fundamentally respond to the seriousness 
of this report. In fact, what we have seen, in some cases, in order to 
fund homeland security and first responders, other programs have been 
cut. The COPS Program or other programs have been cut to move dollars 
over. And the local police department--it does not matter which pot it 
comes from--what they are looking at is the bottom line: Can they 
afford to add another police officer? Can they afford protective 
equipment? And way too many of the law enforcement leaders in Michigan 
are saying, no, they cannot.
  During a series of 11 meetings I held across Michigan, I met face to 
face with many people I consider to be experts--first responders, 
community leaders in Michigan. They have told me in no uncertain terms 
that they are woefully underfunded and underequipped. Month after month 
they continue to remind me of the fact that they still don't have the 
dollars they need, even though some dollars have trickled down from 
Washington.
  The situation in Michigan is of particular importance to me, of 
course, but this is not only about Michigan. This is a problem and a 
challenge for all of us. This is not a partisan issue. This is about 
how to keep Americans safe all over the country. We have ignored this 
report for too long.
  I thank the Senators from Mississippi and West Virginia, the 
distinguished members who have worked hard on this bill. I know they 
find themselves in a difficult position confronting new threats and 
correcting countless vulnerabilities that were exposed on September 11. 
The legislation before us is a step forward. Unfortunately, I believe 
it is a very small step. We can do better, and we must do better.
  The Dodd-Stabenow amendment will provide $690 million for the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Center; $11.5 billion for the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness State and Local Programs; $3 billion for 
firefighter assistance grants; $660 million for the emergency 
management performance grants; $3.3 billion for the Emergency 
Preparedness and Response directorate; and $1 billion for the staffing 
for adequate firefighter and emergency response grants. In total, the 
amendment would provide an additional $15 billion in assistance for our 
Nation's front-line first responders.
  Perhaps we should elevate the capabilities of our first responders 
above the reconstruction of Iraq. Over the past 2 years, Congress has 
provided $24 billion in American dollars for the reconstruction of 
Iraq. In late June, the Government Accountability Office told us that 
only $3 billion had been spent, leaving $21 billion in a fund for 
reconstruction, substantially more than what we are talking about here. 
I assure my colleagues that if we had had these funds and they had been 
given to our first responders, they would have done more and done more 
quickly, and that would have provided greater safety and the capability 
to deal with terrorist attacks. Those dollars would have been used here 
to keep us safe.
  I am not suggesting we don't need to be supportive in Iraq, but this 
truly is a question of urgency and priorities for the American people. 
I have supported the request by the Department of Defense in support of 
our Troops. I cannot imagine why we are not giving that same sense of 
urgency to the total request to keep us safe here at home.
  Again, the legislation we are now considering is a good step, but 
much more needs to be done. Senator Rudman's efforts have made it clear 
that the safety of the American people requires we do more. We can't be 
doing this around the edges. We have to do what is necessary, as we 
need to do what is necessary for defending ourselves abroad in terms of 
dollars needed for equipment and troops and so on. The very same thing 
should apply here. We should do what is necessary to keep us safe, 
period.
  This Saturday is the third anniversary of 9/11. We know thousands of 
Americans lost their lives on that day. We owe it to their families and 
to all Americans to do everything in our power to defend our country, 
our families from another terrorist attack.

  The Dodd-Stabenow amendment will begin to provide our police 
officers, firefighters, and emergency medical workers with the 
equipment and training they need to do one of the hardest jobs in this 
country--protect their communities and their citizens' lives.
  When it comes to providing funding for our military men and women in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided money for what they need. I 
support that and will continue to. The President has requested numerous 
supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have promptly 
approved those funds. In most cases, Congress provided money in excess 
of what was actually needed at the time. Unfortunately, we have not 
done the same when it comes to homeland security. We would never want 
our troops to fight without the best guns and tanks, but we are willing 
to let our police and firefighters use outdated and inferior 
communications and bomb detection equipment. It makes no sense.
  God forbid we have another terrorist attack in our country. Despite 
numerous Code Orange alerts, we have avoided another tragedy. I commend 
all of those involved in that effort. However, we do know there are 
likely terrorists already in this country and many trying to gain 
entry. We know they want to kill innocent citizens. Therefore, we must 
strengthen our resolve and do whatever it takes to keep us safe. When 
it comes to protecting our children, we should not be penny wise and 
pound foolish.
  We have seen the pictures of the recent horrific terrorist attacks in 
Russia. Our hearts and prayers go out to all who are grieving. Who 
would have thought terrorists would go to such extremes that they would 
kill innocent children in a school? It demonstrates we can be attacked 
anywhere at any time.
  Again, God forbid such a tragedy would happen in our own country, but 
if it did, could we look those grieving parents in the eye and tell 
them we did everything we could to protect their children? Could we 
tell them we did everything we could at the border to keep the 
terrorists out? Could we tell them we had the best bomb detection 
equipment possible? Could we tell them we had the best trained and 
equipped first responders who could act quickly and communicate with 
each other to prevent loss of life?
  I remind my colleagues, when people call 9-1-1, they don't get 
somebody in the Homeland Security Department in Washington, DC. They 
get their local police or fire department. Local police and 
firefighters are ready and waiting respond to a terrorist attack and 
save lives, if it happens.
  I honestly believe if we don't pass this amendment, based on this 
report, we are not doing everything we can do to keep Americans safe. 
That is, frankly, a risk I am not willing to take.
  I urge my colleagues, before they vote on the amendment, to ask 
themselves: Are we doing enough at home to keep us safe? Are we doing 
everything we need to do as quickly as we can? Currently the answer is 
no, with any objective analysis. With the adoption of this amendment, 
the answer can be yes.

[[Page S9000]]

  I urge my colleagues to come together with a sense of urgency, as 
they would if their own families were immediately threatened, because I 
believe they are.
  I urge adoption of the Dodd-Stabenow amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate very much the comments 
being made by the proponents of the amendment. But the fact is, it 
increases funding in this bill by over $15 billion, and there is no 
offset for it.
  There is a provision in the amendment suggesting that taxes be 
increased to pay for the amendment. I don't think it is consistent with 
the Budget Act in terms of offsetting spending. We are confronted with 
an allocation of a limited amount of money to appropriate for all of 
the programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. We are at the 
level of our allocation. So if we approve an amendment that exceeds 
that allocation, we have to reduce other accounts in this bill to pay 
for that amendment.
  This amendment is subject to a budget point of order. It is the 
intention of the manager of the bill to make that point of order and to 
suggest that the Chair sustain that point of order.
  Having said that, let me make a couple of other points about the 
comments that have been made about the fact that we are not doing 
enough. That is easy to say. We all know there is a lot to be done. The 
budget process of the Congress is restricted under its terms because we 
do have constraints on how much we can spend. If we overdo it, for 
whatever the reason, and go beyond the limitations we have imposed on 
ourselves to help ensure guaranteed opportunities for economic growth, 
expansion of the economy and the private sector, and all of the rest, 
we are not doing our job with respect to the integrity of the budget 
process. Any good-sounding program will be met with enthusiastic 
applause if you say: Let's increase that. It would be good for the 
country. Well, of course. But we have to have limits. Those limits have 
been imposed by ourselves, on ourselves, and now some Senators come to 
the Senate floor and say that is not enough for this program because it 
is so important.
  These are important programs. The firefighter assistant grant program 
is very important. That is why we put $700 million in this bill for 
that program. The domestic preparedness grants program is a very 
important program. It contributes to making our country safer and more 
secure. That is why we put $2.8 billion in this bill for those grants. 
They will go to State and local governments. State and local 
governments will decide how they use those funds, consistent with plans 
that have been developed at the State and local level under the 
guidelines of the Department of Homeland Security.
  Emergency management performance grants are involved here. These are 
first responders who work as emergency responders for medical care 
centers, hospitals, and the rest. We have included $180 million for 
those grant programs.
  This amendment goes beyond some of the grant programs. It even 
increases funding for the base program of the Federal Law Enforcement 
Center by $500 million--just $500 million more than has already been 
appropriated for the base program for this center to use.
  Well, my point is, because the amendment asks for spending $15 
billion that we don't have in our allocation, we are constrained to 
make a point of order. I do think we need to recognize that important 
progress is being made. I know in my State the State government 
officials and the local mayors, local board of aldermen, the city 
council persons have done a very important job of identifying their own 
needs, how they can better improve the facilities, the infrastructure, 
the training of personnel, equipping of personnel at the local level, 
and then applying for the grants made available through the new Federal 
programs for homeland security. We are seeing improvements made. I am 
very happy we are making progress in that area.

  My good friend from Connecticut suggests the Hart-Rudman report of 
that task force should be considered, and we have considered that. I 
think one of the first calls I made after I realized I was going to 
serve as chairman of this Appropriations Committee subcommittee was to 
Warren Rudman, my friend from New Hampshire, a former colleague whom I 
respect a great deal. His advice has been very helpful to me.
  That Warren Rudman report was written several years ago, as we 
probably realize. Of course, they wrote a recent paper for the Council 
on Foreign Relations that got a lot of attention. I read an article 
that was published in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine as a 
result of that task force report. That is all helpful to us. We are 
carefully considering suggestions from people with ideas of how we can 
more effectively reorganize our agencies and provide funding for 
different programs that are important, and I think we have made great 
progress. We are definitely wiser, safer, and more secure as a result 
of the efforts by this administration, local and State government 
leaders, with the support of this Congress, in providing generous new 
appropriations for activities that previously were not funded at the 
levels they should have been funded in the Federal budget.
  We are going to continue to make progress--I am optimistic--with the 
further support of this Congress and a strong record of accomplishment 
that will be continued by this administration. We will definitely see 
the results pay off for safer and more secure American citizens.
  Madam President, I am advised that we have the time set for a vote at 
2 o'clock for the Byrd amendment, or a motion to waive the Budget Act 
for the Byrd amendment. It would be my hope that we could set a time 
for voting on the Dodd amendment--or if the point of order that I make 
is sustained after the motion to waive is made--and that we could set 
that vote to occur after the vote on the Byrd amendment. That would be 
my intention.
  I say that to give all Senators notice of the intention of the 
manager of the bill to have that vote occur at 2 o'clock. We hope that 
will be possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I say to the chairman, we will be happy to 
try to work that out. I don't know if other colleagues want to be 
heard. I will find out. If not, I will certainly not oppose the idea of 
having a vote. We will make a motion to waive if the point of order is 
raised. We will work that out.
  If I can, let me, first of all, say that the chairman of the 
subcommittee has been a wonderful friend of mine. I have great respect 
for him. He has a thankless job, in many ways, in trying to deal with 
budget constraints. I am not sure that history is going to judge us 
well if, in fact, we are confronted with one of these dreadful attacks 
and the argument is we were prohibited because the Budget Act would not 
allow us to respond. We had an emergency supplemental adopted to deal 
with the situation in Iraq. Certainly, this Chamber and the other 
responded to it. The American public responded to it.
  Certainly, nothing could be more important. The first and most 
significant obligation that all of us at a Federal level assume when we 
take the oath of office is to protect the citizenry of this country. 
Nothing is more fundamental to our jobs. We all understand that and 
respect it. This is not a request we are making for some social 
spending or education or health, and I argue that there is a good case 
to be made for those. We are talking about fulfilling the most basic 
obligation we have; that is, to protect and defend the people of this 
country. We have been given more than adequate warnings of what those 
who would do us great harm intend to do given the opportunity.
  My colleague from Michigan rightfully points out the tragedy that 
occurred halfway around the globe in Russia only a few days ago. We are 
dealing with similar people. You need only look at your local newspaper 
and reports of how hostages--innocents doing humanitarian work in 
Iraq--are being treated by terrorists who apprehend them and threaten 
their lives. Let there be no doubt of the intentions of those who would 
do us great harm.
  To argue that because there is restraint in the Budget Act that 
prohibits us from coming up with an offset--and again, I know it takes 
a little work to get it done, but I argue strenuously that history will 
look back and say: Why didn't you provide these resources when we knew 
we needed them. We are not making this up out of whole

[[Page S9001]]

cloth. It is not as if the Senator from Michigan and I sat around and 
decided what ought to be done. We are relying on a very significant 
group of people who made some very serious recommendations.

  Once again, I share with my colleagues the members of this panel. 
These are very distinguished people. This report was done a year ago, 
in July of 2003. It is not ancient history.
  I mentioned already, of course, the chairman of this task force, 
Warren Rudman, our former colleague, the author of the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings deficit reduction package, a fiscal hawk during his tenure in 
the Senate, certainly not one who is known as a profligate spender.
  I already mentioned Admiral Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. Margaret Hamburg, vice president for Biological 
Weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Before coming to NTI, she was 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
  Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel laureate, and who currently serves as 
president emeritus and Sackler Foundation Scholar, Rockefeller 
University.
  Donald Marron, chairman of UBS America, as well as Light-Year 
Capital. Previously, he served as chairman and chief executive officer 
of Paine Webber. Certainly no wild spender when we start talking about 
people who looked at these issues.
  I believe I mentioned Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American 
Enterprise Institute.
  George Shultz, former Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, 
Secretary of Labor, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
who is certainly not a wild spender, and who sat and unanimously 
adopted the recommendations my colleague from Michigan and I are 
suggesting.
  Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and 
International Affairs at Princeton University. Prior to her appointment 
at Princeton, she was the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of 
International, Foreign and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.
  Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of Memorial 
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Previously, he served as the Director of 
the National Institutes of Health.
  John Vessey has served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as 
well as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.
  I mentioned Bill Webster as well. He served as Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the Director of the FBI.
  Steven Weinberg is director of the Theory Group of the University of 
Texas. He is a Nobel laureate in physics and a recipient of the 
National Medal of Science.
  The list goes on. These are highly competent people who sat down 
under the leadership of Warren Rudman and said this is what we think we 
need to do. The Senator from Michigan and I know it is a lot of money. 
It is a lot of money--$20 billion a year over the next 5 years, an 
additional $15 billion, included with what is in this budget. But if 
something happens tomorrow, next week, next month, and we are not 
prepared to respond to it, people will ask: What did you do? You have 
been given an opportunity to get ready, to be responsible, to take the 
necessary steps so we would be prepared to respond. And we were told we 
could not because of the Budget Act.
  Imagine if we offered this amendment without offset. We would be 
accused of spending money without coming up with resources to offset 
the obligation. Is it too much to say to one-tenth of 1 percent of our 
population, not to eliminate your tax cut, but reduce it for 1 year in 
order to pay for this? That is the choice.
  We are all confronted with difficult choices. I do not think this one 
is terribly difficult, and I suspect if you asked that one-tenth of 1 
percent of the most affluent of our citizenry whether they are willing 
to give up a tax cut for 1 year in order to enhance the homeland 
security of this Republic, I suspect an overwhelming majority of them 
would say: Do it; do it.

  These are patriots. These are people who understand difficult choices 
need to be made. We are going to be given the chance in the next few 
minutes to waive the Budget Act to make it possible for us to come up 
with the resources to do this. This is the choice with which we are 
going to be confronted, and I do not think history is going to accept 
the argument that the Budget Act somehow could not be waived because we 
could not come up with the resources to do it, because somehow a 
regulation or some provision of law made it difficult for us to do so.
  I think that answer is pathetic. It is inadequate. It is not going to 
be accepted by history or the American public. Yet that is the choice I 
think we ought to be making today.
  Senator Byrd, our colleague from West Virginia, has offered a modest 
increase. My colleague from Michigan and I are offering something that 
is larger. We know that. It may be asking a lot, but I think to do 
anything less is to place our Nation at risk.
  We are once again asking our colleagues to put aside the technical 
arguments that could be raised and do what is right for our country. 
Let's waive the Budget Act. There is a resource to offset this cost. We 
need not add to the deficit of the country to do what needs to be done. 
The people who made these recommendations are distinguished Americans. 
They come from all political walks of life, all parties. They are 
involved in science, national security, and the domestic security of 
our Republic. They have come to the conclusion that this is what we 
ought to do. We ought to listen to them, and we ought to respond to 
them by adopting this amendment and waiving the point of order when it 
is made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut one more time for his eloquence on this point. I was 
thinking, as my colleague was speaking in terms of the choices we have 
to make and whether someone with great means in this country would be 
willing to defer a small portion of a tax cut in order to keep us safe, 
that it does not matter how much your income, you are still vulnerable 
to terrorist attack in this country. And I cannot imagine anybody who 
would not say: Do what you need to do to keep my family safe. Do what 
you need to do to keep my children safe on the way to school or at 
school or after school or at their college or my husband and wife at 
work or me driving down the street. These are serious choices.
  I am constantly amazed at the times we use bureaucracy and budget 
arguments versus the times we ignore them. I very much understand the 
constraints of the appropriations process and the difficulty the 
subcommittee chairman has in operating within the amounts that have 
been allocated. I understand that and appreciate the hard work that 
takes. But I remember also, as a member of the Budget Committee, 
raising questions about why we could be appropriating $87 billion and 
before that $150 billion--over $200 billion--to Iraq that has never 
been in the budget at all, has never been anywhere in the budget. 
Instead of offsetting that in some way, we added it to the deficit, the 
largest deficit in the history of the country.
  We could eliminate everything except the Department of Defense in 
terms of annual spending and equal what this debt is this year. It is 
huge. But when we were focused on Iraq, somehow it was ``whatever it 
takes,'' not only for the troops but in addition to whatever folks felt 
was necessary to rebuild Iraq--to rebuild their roads, their schools, 
and give them a health care system, and all these other items. It did 
not matter whether there was any money appropriated or if there was any 
way to pay for it.
  Monday night, we responded quickly--and I supported so responding--to 
Florida with $2 billion. That was not in the budget. We responded 
because of an emergency.
  We are talking about, in relative terms to the huge allocation in 
defense and the hundreds of billions of dollars now in Iraq, a 
relatively small amount. It is less than 3 months' spending in Iraq to 
keep us safe at home.
  I cannot imagine anybody from any part of this country, any political 
persuasion would not look at this and say: This should pass 
overwhelmingly with a voice vote. Why are we struggling with the 
question of doing everything possible as quickly as possible?

[[Page S9002]]

  I know there have been improvements made, but we are not doing 
everything that needs to be done as quickly as possible.
  I also know that when I talk at home to folks who are on the front 
lines and they tell me, You are taking money out of this pocket and 
putting it in this one, it is not new money. Or that they received 
small amounts, but they are not large increases that have been coming 
to local communities. When we take an officer whose salary is paid by 
the COPS Program and we cut it and then we restore the funding through 
homeland security, it is still only one officer. That is what is 
happening in too many places.
  Again, I agree with my friend from Connecticut that there needs to be 
a sense of urgency about this matter. I understand budget constraints, 
and I understand the limits that have been placed on this particular 
budget. But I suggest it is our responsibility to challenge that and 
together stand up and say the rules do not fit for this situation. That 
is what we are expected to do. We make the rules.
  It is pretty hard for us to say we cannot change them when they do 
not make sense, and particularly when we change them all the time. We 
change them. Depending on whatever the majority folks want to do, we 
change them. Why in the world would we not want to make sure we are 
doing everything possible?
  I remember a week before we left for the August recess and we were 
sitting in 407, all of us together hearing about the new sense of 
urgency and the very specific threats that were present. We watched at 
both conventions the armed fortresses around not only the conventions 
but our hotel. It was amazing. Certainly there were resources those 
communities needed to have to deal with that, but we were told in no 
uncertain terms that it is very likely something could happen between 
now and November 2.
  Then I go home and speak with the sheriffs, the police chiefs, the 
firefighters, the emergency preparedness folks, the folks at the 
emergency rooms at the hospital, and they look at me and say, what are 
you doing? We do not have the resources to do this ourselves.
  I know there are those who believe local communities should bear the 
brunt of this funding. I would argue that when New York and Washington, 
DC, were attacked, they were attacking the country. Regardless of where 
we are attacked in the country, it is our responsibility, the Federal 
Government, to be a serious partner with local communities to make sure 
the resources are there.
  Again, if we are saying we are conducting military actions abroad 
because of the threat and we are being told that there are the threats 
here and they are real, why would we not provide the same approach in 
saying we will do whatever is necessary? That does not mean 
indiscriminately throwing dollars at a situation. It means in a 
thoughtful way using the complete report the Senator from Connecticut 
has spelled out as a basis for why would we not respond. That is all 
this amendment does. It allows us to respond to a thoughtful report, 
just as we are responding to the 9/11 report. I argue very strongly we 
should think long and hard, while this budget is in front of us, about 
whether we can honestly say to the people we represent, as well as our 
own families, that we are doing everything possible, as quickly as 
possible, to keep us safe.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Levin, be also added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am prepared to go into a quorum call at 
this point to chat with our friend from Mississippi as to how he wants 
to proceed on points of order and waivers. I would also like to at 
least give the respective leaders an opportunity to inquire as to 
whether any Members would like to be heard on the amendment before we 
end the time. I assume it will not be much and I would be happy to 
agree on a time certain. I would be happy to make it around the time 
for the vote on the Byrd amendment to accommodate Members' interests.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order against the 
Dodd amendment on the grounds that it violates the Budget Act, section 
302(b) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask that the relevant points of the 
Budget Act be waived and ask for the yeas and nays on that. Also, Madam 
President, I ask that the vote on this follow the completion of the 
vote on the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. First, is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request of the 
Senator?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair to the distinguished manager of the bill, 
would the manager of the bill object to 2 minutes, evenly divided, 
prior to the vote on the Dodd amendment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I would. We have thoroughly debated that.
  Mr. REID. It doesn't hurt to ask.
  Madam President, we have 1 minute to go. I ask consent that the vote 
start now rather than at 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Senator Dole has asked me to advise that 
she is absent from this afternoon's votes due to an emergency visit to 
her home State of North Carolina. As you know, the remnants of 
Hurricane Frances devastated a large portion of western North Carolina 
this week, and Senator Dole felt it was imperative that she make an 
immediate trip to the State to assess the damages and offer assistance 
in whatever manner possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that had she been 
present, Senator Dole would have voted against the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would vote ``no''.
  Mr. REID. I annouce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

[[Page S9003]]



                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Dole
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Specter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 3604

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes 
equally divided to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. How about 30 seconds each?
  Mr. DODD. How about a minute each?
  Mr. COCHRAN. A minute, and I will not use my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi.
  Very briefly, I know Members were at the various luncheons during the 
debate on the amendment we are about to vote on. This is the Warren 
Rudman report prepared in July of 2003. It laid out in a very detailed 
way what needs to be done in order to provide the necessary resources 
for first responders. This was a task force that included Admiral Crowe 
and George Shultz, William Webster, who served as Director of both the 
FBI and CIA, and many others, who said we need to be doing a lot more 
to see to it that our first responders have the necessary resources to 
do the job, Lord forbid we are attacked by terrorists again.
  Now we have included an offset that makes this subject to a point of 
order. But I believe we have to come up with some choices. One choice 
is whether one-tenth of 1 percent of the American taxpayers for 1 year 
could do without a tax cut to pay for the $15 billion to make our 
country more secure. That is what this amendment does.
  I urge my colleagues to waive the point of order.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  Time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Dole
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Specter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could involve my friend in a brief 
dialog, I have come to the floor on many occasions and talked about the 
need for our leadership to cut off these votes. If we are going to 
finish this bill by next Tuesday, we cannot spend an hour on two votes. 
We cannot get the bill done.
  I hope there will be some degree of understanding that this is 
unfair. Republicans do it and Democrats do it. I am not picking on one 
side. We should not have to wait on votes. People have the idea that 
when a vote is called, they will come when they get around to it and 
that we will hold the vote for them, and we do, which is wrong. That is 
my personal opinion.
  If we are going to try to finish this bill by next Tuesday night as 
the leaders want, we are going to have to start cutting off these votes 
at a reasonable time; otherwise, there is no possibility while we are 
standing around here looking at each other while other people are in 
their offices completing phone calls or whatever else they do. It is 
unfair to the Senate, and I think it is unfair to the country.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the point of the Senator is well taken. I 
hope the Senate will consider his remarks very carefully. We need to 
move ahead with dispatch. There is no reason why we should consider 
delaying the consideration of this bill even further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 3596

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3596 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3596.

  Mrs. Murray. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the amount available for port security grants by 
                             $300,000,000)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 515. The total amount appropriated by title III for 
     the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
     Preparedness under the heading ``state and local programs'' 
     is hereby increased by $300,000,000. Of such total amount, as 
     so increased, $1,500,000,000 shall be available for 
     discretionary grants for use in high-threat, high-density 
     urban areas, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, of which $450,000,000 shall be available for port 
     security grants.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer an 
amendment that would help make our communities and our Nation's ports 
safer and more secure.
  I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors 
to my amendment: Senators Bill Nelson, Clinton, Schumer, Mikulski, 
Kennedy, Boxer, Cantwell, Graham, and Landrieu.

[[Page S9004]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appreciate that funding for homeland 
security is significantly higher in this bill than in the President's 
budget request. It should be noted that under the leadership of 
Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd, we have made progress since the 
Rudman report suggested that we are ``dangerously unprepared and 
underfunded for a catastrophic terrorist attack.''
  However, I am still very concerned that the priorities established in 
this bill are not sufficient to meet the challenges we face in 
confronting the terrorists who want to do us harm or the homeland 
security needs throughout the country. It is our duty to protect our 
Nation, and in order to do that we need to make the right investments.
  These decisions are critical to ensuring that the American people, 
the communities they live in, our economy, and our country are safe and 
secure.
  The debate we are having could not be more critical to the defense of 
our country. The bottom line, though, is we have to do more to confront 
terrorists abroad and defend ourselves at home. Nowhere is this more 
true than in the areas of port security and securing our trade lanes. 
This is not only one Senator's opinion; it is the opinion of experts in 
the field and those brave men and women who defend our Nation.
  In a recent interview, the commander of NorthCom said:

       It's just a matter of time before terrorists would attempt 
     a sea-borne . . . a maritime attack on the U.S.

  The 9/11 Commission report stated:

       While commercial aviation remains a possible target, 
     terrorists may turn their attention to other modes. 
     Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in 
     maritime or surface transportation.

  Steven Flynn, perhaps the most preeminent expert in the field, says 
this about our Nation's efforts to better secure our ports: ``This is 
an extremely soft target for America's enemies to exploit'' and that a 
``two-week shutdown of U.S. ports would collapse the global trade 
system. That's what we're talking about.''
  Despite this clear evidence, time after time the White House and the 
rest of the administration have taken the position of limiting 
investments in many of the policies and security initiatives that would 
make our Nation safer.
  I do not say this to criticize Chairman Cochran or his staff, and 
Senator Byrd has been a true champion every single step of the way in 
fighting to improve the security of our Nation. Without their efforts, 
we would be even worse off. But I raise this issue this afternoon to 
reiterate my strong belief that we have a great responsibility to 
better secure our country, and it is my own belief we are not doing 
enough to protect the communities we have been sent here to represent.
  Specifically, we need to do more to identify and address the threats 
to our country before they leave foreign shores. That means better 
intelligence and more personnel dedicated to finding and stopping 
terrorists. And those are the issues this Senate is currently debating. 
But we also need to give the people engaged in antiterrorist activities 
the tools they need to succeed.
  We also need to harden our port facilities, support the Coast Guard 
in fulfilling the missions they have been tasked to perform, and 
facilitate better coordination among Federal agencies, States, and 
local first responders.
  In the last several years, we have made steady but slow progress in 
better securing our port facilities and our trade lanes, and we have 
learned some important lessons through innovative programs such as 
Operation Safe Commerce, the Container Security Initiative, and the 
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.
  Soon the lessons we have learned should be applied in a way to better 
protect our Nation, and with the support of Chairman Cochran and 
Senator Byrd, the report accompanying this bill directs the 
administration to create a national standard for cargo security.
  By February, the Department of Homeland Security is directed to take 
the data, analysis, and lessons learned from these cargo security 
programs and create a plan that will ensure that the cargo headed for 
our shores is safe to bring into our ports.
  As the author of Operation Safe Commerce, I am particularly proud to 
report that despite early reluctance by the administration, we are 
seeing real results through the implementation of this security 
program.
  After more than a year of preparation, we launched Operation Safe 
Commerce. It is a new era of port and cargo security that uses smart 
technology and the best supply chain systems to protect our ports from 
those who would do us harm.
  Only last week, I had the opportunity to visit the port of Tacoma to 
see how Operation Safe Commerce, our three largest container load 
centers, and the private sector partners had answered our call.
  Over the past 5 months, shipments have been tracked from their 
origination point, whether that was in an overseas factory floor or an 
agricultural field, to their final destination. The cargo traveled by 
truck, train, and ship along its journey, and we watched it every step 
of the way. The security was monitored and analyzed at the origination 
point, every subsequent transfer point, and on each mode of 
transportation until it reached the customer.
  When vulnerabilities were found in the supply chain, solutions were 
developed to ensure the integrity of the shipments. In many cases, it 
was discovered that the origination point lacked access, control, and 
general security.
  So now we know that cameras, biometric identification technology, and 
third party inspection are necessary to ensure the product's integrity 
before it is loaded into a container.
  In other cases we found that the integrity of container seals was not 
verified at each point in the supply chain. If the seal had been 
compromised when it arrived here, it is too late. So several 
technologies were recommended to ensure that we know if a seal has been 
broken or a container has been opened.
  It was learned that the identity used by drivers to transfer the 
containers between supply chain points was not always easily verified. 
So the final Operation Safe Commerce report will make recommendations 
to address that as well.
  When the 9/11 Commission published its report, it noted that 
initiatives such as Operation Safe Commerce had just begun to secure 
shipping containers but that an integrated strategic plan had not been 
developed. These early findings prove that Operation Safe Commerce is a 
model for how our Nation can improve port security by identifying 
dangers before they leave foreign shores and helping to ensure that 
cargo is safe when it arrives in the United States.
  This innovative program is an excellent example of industry coming 
together to share experiences and best practices, and I could not be 
more proud that my home ports of Seattle and Tacoma, along with Los 
Angeles, Long Beach, New York, and New Jersey are leading the way to a 
new standard to secure cargo bound for U.S. ports.
  While the hard work of these partners has begun to answer the call in 
defending our Nation and responding to the 9/11 Commission, there is 
still much more that we need to do. As a few of us in Congress, the 9/
11 Commission and experts in the field have called for, we must 
continue working together to develop a cargo security system as a 
national and ultimately international standard. We must provide the 
funding necessary to harden and protect our port facilities and the 
people who live and work near them.
  I am reminded of the challenge we face to secure these critical 
assets every time I come home to Washington State. My office in Seattle 
is located in the Jackson Federal Building. From my office window, I 
can see the third largest container load center in the country, the 
largest passenger ferry system in the continental United States, 
carrying 26 million passengers annually. I can see an ever-increasing 
number of cruise ships that call on Seattle. I can see active commerce 
and thousands of people engaged in trade on a daily basis. I can see 
two professional sports stadiums that hold tens of thousands of people 
and literally thousands of residences and homes of people who live near 
our port facilities.

  Again, this is all in close proximity to the port of Seattle. This 
view is not

[[Page S9005]]

much different than the view of other ports in my State and, frankly, 
all around the country, and that is why I want to make sure all of 
America's ports are safe.
  I know every Senator agrees there is nothing more important than 
protecting our country, and over the next few days I hope we can all 
work together to do a better job for our Nation, for our States, and 
the individual communities we all represent. I know unless we make the 
right decisions in Washington, DC, our security, our economy, and our 
communities will be threatened. That is why today I am offering the 
Murray amendment to triple the level of port security grant funding in 
the underlying bill.
  While the amount contained in the bill for port security grants is 
greater than that included in the House bill, I remain concerned that 
the amount is simply not enough to help our ports with their security 
needs. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has testified that it will 
take more than $7 billion, including $1.5 billion this year, to 
implement the port security plans which were mandated by the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act.
  In the last fiscal year, the Department of Homeland Security received 
nearly $1 billion in requests for port security grants. Since that 
time, Congress has only provided $275 million in port security grants, 
$150 million last year and $125 million this year.
  According to the Coast Guard, that leaves us over $1 billion short of 
our commitment to these vulnerable assets, and according to the 
American Association of Ports Authorities, a minimum of $400 million is 
necessary to safeguard the most critical ports in the country.
  While I have always known the need for extra port security funding, 
the urgency was recently highlighted for me at home in Washington 
State. We have had the terror level raised to Orange six times in the 
past 3 years, and soon ferry systems across the country will be 
required to increase their threat posture due to suspicious activity on 
ferries and at terminals nationwide. While this suspicious activity is 
not necessarily attributable to the action of potential terrorists, the 
steps we are taking are a necessary precaution.
  Protecting our country comes with a price. This means increased 
vehicle inspections, and for the Washington State ferry system that 
means each month an estimated 21,000 additional vehicles will need to 
be inspected before they board our ferries. The ferry system, State 
patrol, and Coast Guard will incur tremendous additional costs to 
secure what is essentially an extension of our highway system that are 
not budgeted for and costs that, frankly, could have been avoided.
  We could have avoided these extra costs with enough funding to secure 
those terminals. It seems penny-wise and pound-foolish to scrimp on the 
port and terminal security so many experts have called for. The Murray 
amendment would provide a $300 million increase in port security 
funding for a total of $450 million in fiscal year 2005. This amendment 
would help put the safeguards in place to ensure that local communities 
are not forced to pick up the tab for a federally mandated security 
measure. This increase is necessary to make an honest attempt to cover 
the Federal share of securing some of the greatest economic engines of 
our economy and the communities that surround them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask for its 
consideration.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my 
support for Senator Murray's amendment to the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill.
  Our Nation's seaports are now the gateway for 95 percent of our 
international trade, and as such they play a vital role in our national 
economy. The volume of domestic and international trade is expected to 
double over the next two decades, as globalization continues to 
increase linkages between the people of different countries.
  Seaports' essential role in our economy makes them a natural target 
for terrorist groups or other entities seeking to inflict harm on the 
United States of America. We know that al-Qaida and other international 
terrorist groups have shown a preference for targets of economic 
importance, and we have seen the economic impact of port closures 
causes by strikes or weather emergencies. We can conclude from this 
that terrorist groups could consider American ports to be viable 
targets, and there are a variety of ways that terrorists could attack a 
port to disrupt activity, cause damage, and kill American citizens.
  It is therefore vital that we take adequate steps to ensure that our 
Nation's ports are appropriately defended. Congress has addressed 
seaport security concerns over the last several years, and we have 
passed several bills that have sought to modify and improve the 
security of American seaports.
  In 1997, I had the opportunity to spend a day working as a customs 
inspector at Port Manatee, FL, where I was able to learn about these 
security challenges firsthand. Several of my Senate colleagues and I 
convinced President Clinton to appoint an interagency commission 
addressing seaport security. This commission's recommendation were 
taken seriously by members of Congress, and we began working on 
legislation.
  In the fall of 2002, we passed the Maritime Transportation Safety 
Act, which raised security standards at American ports. This 
legislation authorized the appropriation of whatever funds were 
necessary to meet the new security requirements. The Coast Guard has 
estimated that meeting these new requirements will cost approximately 
$7.2 billion over the next decade, and that first-year start up costs 
will total roughly $1.4 billion.
  America's port authorities seem to agree with the Coast Guard's 
assessment, since they have requested nearly one billion dollars in 
port security grants. So far only a fraction of this need has been met 
by federal funding. This means that we have essentially handed our 
local port authorities a very large unfunded mandate. If we are going 
to follow through on our commitment to protect our Nation's seaports, 
we must ensure that port authorities have the resources they need to 
meet the security requirements we have established.
  Increasing funding for port security grants will help ensure that our 
seaports are able to prepare for a possible terrorist attack. While 
this amendment does not provide port authorities with the nearly $1 
billion they need, it certainly brings us much closer to that goal.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the Murray amendment because I 
think that it includes important investments in port security. The 
amendment includes $300 million for port security grants so that we can 
increase our surveillance of the thousands of containers that enter our 
country.
  In its current form, this amendment does not include any offsetting 
reductions to pay for the new investments. If this amendment is adopted 
today, and I hope that it will be, I intend to work with the conferees 
to offset these increases by reducing funding that have been earmarked 
for Iraqi reconstruction. I believe these expenditures should be offset 
with these other spending cuts.
  Iraq is a nation that sits on some of the largest oil reserves in the 
world. My view is that Iraq should pay for its own reconstruction.
  Last year, this Congress acted in an expedited way to appropriate 
$18.4 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. And yet, 10 months later, most 
of that money is still unspent. Less than $1 billion has been actually 
expended and only about $7 billion has been obligated.
  Therefore, I support Senator Murray's amendment and I will vote for 
it today. But my intention is to push for the rescission of those 
unobligated Iraqi reconstruction funds and use them to offset these 
needed security investments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment is offered to increase 
funding for port security grants. Specifically, it would increase the 
authority for spending in the bill by $300 million. Senators should 
know the bill already contains funding for port security grants in the 
amount of $150 million, and since fiscal year 2002 we have provided 
funding for this program of almost $500 million, specifically for port 
security grants.
  A lot of progress has been made to upgrade the quality of our 
detection

[[Page S9006]]

processes. We have seen money going for training and equipping of port 
security officials. We are making important and constructive changes in 
procedures to help ensure that we can identify suspicious activity 
around the ports of the country. The Coast Guard is involved, of 
course. As we have talked about earlier today, we are providing for 
modernizing the fleet of the Coast Guard and doing other things that 
help assure that across our country we are going to be able to enjoy a 
safer and more secure environment.
  On Friday, September 10, all of the funds that were appropriated for 
2004, the current fiscal year, $50 million in grants, were awarded. So 
the administration is working expeditiously to carry out the directives 
of the Congress in awarding these funds.
  I may point out that the President's request for this particular 
grant program for this next fiscal year was only $46 million.
  So we have already tripled the amount of money that will be going out 
to State and local officials, security officials, for this program.
  We have one other problem with the amendment as well and that is that 
there is no offset provided as required by the Budget Act. To simply 
add money for a program is not going to be permitted unless an offset 
is provided. So under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, a 
point of order would lie against the amendment.
  Mr. President, at this time I make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for 
purposes of the pending amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate? If there is no further debate, the question 
is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Ms. 
Dole) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Dole
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Specter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 3607

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3607.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

         (Purpose: To provide funds for the American Red Cross)

       On page 25, lines 6 and 7, strike ``$2,151,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended'' and insert ``$2,221,000,000 
     to remain available until expended, of which $70,000,000 is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement under 
     section 502(c) of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Cong.) and shall be 
     made available for a grant to the American Red Cross for 
     disaster relief, recovery expenditures, and emergency 
     services in response to Tropical Storm Bonnie, Hurricane 
     Charley, and Hurricane Frances''.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is an amendment to the 
Homeland Security bill to provide $70 million to the American Red Cross 
for the purposes of their relief efforts as a result of Tropical Storm 
Bonnie and Hurricane Charley, which hit us 4 weeks ago, and Hurricane 
Frances, which hit us this past week.
  The American Red Cross is out of money. Their coffers have run dry. 
They have people all over Florida right now. In order to pay expenses, 
in doing what the American Red Cross does so well, they have had to go 
out and borrow $10 million.
  I just got off of the phone with the national president of the 
American Red Cross.
  I want to show you what else is lurking out there. I did not have 
time to blow this illustration up for everybody, but this is the third 
hurricane, in the last 5 weeks, that is headed to Florida. This 
hurricane, at 11 o'clock this morning, was down here in relation to the 
southeast of Jamaica. Its track will take it right over Jamaica and 
across western Cuba, on a track that is eerily reminiscent of Hurricane 
Charley which hit us 4 weeks ago, and going right out into the warm 
waters of the Straits of Florida, across the Keys. On the track that is 
showing the center line, it would take it right to the southwest coast 
of Florida.
  Now, you can imagine a hurricane of this magnitude. It has 160-mile-
per-hour sustained winds, with gusts to 190 miles per hour. It came 
across Grenada, and 90 percent of all the homes in Grenada are 
destroyed. Let's hope the Good Lord will spare us in our State from 
having a third hurricane hit in a row, as two have already hit, the 
last one of which was so massive that it covered up the entire State of 
Florida with severe winds and just a deluge of rain.
  This amendment is offered, albeit the majority leader, now talking to 
the assistant minority leader, has assured me next week we are going to 
have another emergency supplemental that will take care of FEMA 
expenses and the Department of Agriculture, the Department of 
Transportation, the Army Corps of Engineers--all of those. We are going 
to be looking at a minimum of an additional $2.5 billion--minimum--
because the $2 billion we just passed the night before last is not even 
going to cover the first hurricane.
  So instead of taking the chance that next week's emergency 
supplemental, which will originate in the House, will come to us at the 
last minute in a take-it-or-leave-it situation--I do not want to take 
that chance because of all of those Red Cross volunteers who are down 
there who are so essential to our recovery efforts right now, trying to

[[Page S9007]]

recover from a second hurricane, and not the least of which we will 
need them desperately if we get hit with Hurricane Ivan, now scheduled 
to be in the Florida Keys Monday morning at 8 o'clock.
  Mr. President, I have stated my case. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, has an amendment been reported?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An amendment has been.
  At the moment there does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have not had an opportunity to check 
on the legal authority for appropriations being made directly to the 
American Red Cross, but I have asked my staff to check to see under 
what authority the Senate would be authorized to appropriate funds for 
a private or a charitable organization.
  The American Red Cross, I do not think, is an agency of the Federal 
Government. There has been no request submitted to the Congress from 
the administration to fund volunteer charitable organizations under 
this bill or under any other bill, as far as I know. They, of course, 
render very valuable and very important services not only here but 
around the world. We are all familiar with the good work they do.
  So I am hopeful we can check to see what the authorities are and can 
provide the Senate information on which to base a judgment as to what 
we should do with respect to this amendment.
  It requests, as I understand it--I do not have a copy of the 
amendment. That is why I asked if it had been sent to the desk.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if I might answer some of those 
questions.
  This Senator personally gave the chairman of the committee a copy of 
the amendment about 45 minutes ago. It is my understanding there are 
provisions in this Department of Homeland Security bill for 
appropriations for private entities such as the American Red Cross. 
That is the part of the bill we are amending, to provide $70 million of 
relief money, specifically for disaster relief, recovery expenditures, 
and emergency services in response to Tropical Storm Bonnie, Hurricane 
Charley, and Hurricane Frances.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would be glad to consider the amendment and review it 
carefully. I wonder if there is an offset in the amendment that would 
provide some source for making up the funds. We are limited in our 
allocation of funding under the Budget Act, and we are at the limit. 
Any amendment that adds spending to the bill without offsetting it 
against some other account is subject to a point of order under the 
Budget Act. That was the next part of the process of analyzing this 
amendment. I hadn't gotten any satisfaction on the answer to that 
question. Maybe the Senator knows the answer.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will work with me, I will find 
an offset. If this is the chairman's pleasure, if we can hold this in 
abeyance, we will come back to him with an offset.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the American Red Cross dated September 9, 2004.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           American Red Cross,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 2004.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     U.S. Senate, 716 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: It is very likely that the response by 
     the American Red Cross to back-to-back hurricanes Charley and 
     Frances will be the largest and costliest natural disaster 
     humanitarian effort in the 123-year history of the American 
     Red Cross. In order for the American Red Cross to carry out 
     the duties delegated to it by the federal government under 
     its Congressional Charter, I am respectfully requesting your 
     help in securing $70 million for the American Red Cross 
     Disaster Relief Fund within the Fiscal Year 2005 Department 
     of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (S. 2537).
       Because the needs of Florida residents who have suffered as 
     a result of the two hurricanes is so immediate, Congress 
     quickly provided FEMA with an additional $2 billion. It is 
     critical that further assistance also be provided 
     expeditiously. Because the Homeland Security appropriations 
     bill is expected to reach the President's desk prior to the 
     second emergency supplemental bill, we are asking that 
     funding for the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund be 
     included in it. However, if the second supplemental bill 
     appears to be moving first, then we would ask that all 
     disaster relief funds be stripped from the Homeland Security 
     bill and added to the supplemental bill. The bottom line is 
     that we get the money to the victims and those helping them 
     as quickly as possible--whatever the vehicle. In times of 
     extraordinary need, such as that in Florida today, the Red 
     Cross Disaster Relief Fund requires federal assistance in 
     addition to charitable donations to meet the responsibilities 
     delegated to it by the federal government.
       The response by the American Red Cross to Hurricanes 
     Charley and Frances marks the largest mobilization of Red 
     Cross resources since Hurricane Andrew. It encompasses a 
     geographic area that exceeds all other past disasters, 
     including the 1993 Midwest floods. To date, we have served 
     over four million meals and sheltered close to 300,000 people 
     in response to these back-to-back disasters. We are 
     continuing our expanded efforts to raise money from the 
     American public, who are always willing to aid their 
     neighbors at times like these, but the unprecedented need in 
     Florida clearly requires additional and immediate assistance 
     from the federal government.
       I thank you for your consideration of this request, and the 
     volunteers of the American Red Cross and I look forward to 
     continuing to work with you and your colleagues to ensure 
     that we meet the needs of every disaster victim.
           Sincerely,
                            Rear Adm. Marsha J. Evans, USN (Ret.),
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a lot of Senators who have indicated 
they want to offer an amendment. We have worked through the list, and 
we have a number of people who are going to offer amendments. Senator 
Harkin is going to come over at 5 o'clock or thereabouts. We are 
running into the thing we run into a lot around here. People say: We 
have amendments, but we are not ready yet.
  The two leaders have said they are going to end this bill Tuesday 
night. There are different ways of fulfilling the wishes of the two 
leaders. One way would be to work hard and try to work our way through 
the amendments. It is my understanding, speaking to the two leaders, 
that we are going to be here tomorrow morning and have a couple votes. 
I guess what I am saying is: Staff of the Senators, if they would also 
listen, if there are not going to be amendments offered, let us know.
  It would be in everybody's interest to come over and start offering 
these amendments. I am sorry we don't have it set up so people can come 
over immediately and not have to wait 2 or 3 minutes or even 20 
minutes, but sometimes it works that way. I hope those within the sound 
of my voice will do whatever they can to come and offer their 
amendments. It is 4 o'clock. We don't have anybody here to offer 
amendments.
  Monday is going to be a short day, as it always is, and Tuesday is 
going to be a long day. I believe there is a pretty good sense from the 
two leaders that they are going to do everything they can to finish 
Tuesday night because the Jewish holiday starts on Wednesday. If we go 
even until noon on Wednesday, that means people who have to travel to 
the west coast for religious observance on Wednesday cannot get there 
unless they leave earlier than that. You cannot automatically go to the 
airport and hope a plane is there. The latest plane going to 
California, for people who have to leave this body, is about 10:30 in 
the morning.
  I hope that Senators will come over and we can have two or three in 
line here. Senator Cochran has the theory--and I am confident that he 
is probably right--that as soon as somebody offers the amendment and it 
is debated, we can vote on it. So I hope we have some people show up.

[[Page S9008]]

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I had an opportunity to review the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Florida and to 
consult with representatives of the administration and my staff who 
have helped me analyze this. This amendment, as proposed, would provide 
$70 million to the Red Cross to reimburse them for expenses and enable 
them to provide disaster assistance to hurricane victims and for other 
purposes under their authorization, under their jurisdiction.
  We passed yesterday a $2 billion appropriation supplemental for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency General Disaster Relief Fund. These 
funds are to be used for the emergencies that exist in the State of 
Florida and elsewhere, where the funds in this account had been 
depleted.
  We are told by administration officials, in consultation now, that 
they are considering whether an additional amount may be needed in a 
supplemental that could be submitted to Congress as early as Monday.
  Officials are discussing this with the Red Cross. They are discussing 
this with the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. So we do not know right now exactly how much the Red 
Cross is going to need and whether additional funds need to be added to 
that $2 billion account we have already approved and, if so, how much.
  What I am hoping is we can withhold action on the Senator's amendment 
tonight and continue to stay in touch with officials in the 
administration and with the Senator from Florida and others who are 
interested in this and make sure the funds that are needed, that the 
Red Cross is entitled to, are in some bill. It may be the next 
supplemental is the appropriate bill rather than this annual 
appropriations bill we are considering now.
  I want to cooperate with the Senator and help make sure the disaster 
victims get the help they need and that the State of Florida gets the 
help it needs to recover from this very serious situation.
  Those are my findings and those are my assurances. I hope the Senator 
will understand and not urge we take action on his amendment tonight.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for 
yielding. With the assurances of the chairman and the committee that 
the supplemental that has been promised by the majority leader will be 
coming, with the assurances that the Red Cross would be included within 
such supplemental, then that solves this Senator's concerns. The 
supplemental will have many other items, and by Monday, we will find 
out whether that supplemental is going to have to include the effects 
of this third hurricane that is headed our direction or whether we are 
still looking at the two hurricanes that have already hit us.
  The supplemental we passed two nights ago was merely an emergency 
supplemental to get cash into FEMA. FEMA's well had run dry. They were 
flat broke. They had no more money to pay for the ongoing relief 
efforts. The $2 billion is not enough, and everybody acknowledges that, 
for the first hurricane, much less all of the additional expenses for 
the first hurricane plus the second hurricane. I wanted to protect the 
American Red Cross, which is so vital to the interests of the recovery 
ongoing right now, since their well had run dry as well.

  So with the assurances of the Senator from Mississippi that this new 
supplemental, whenever it comes--and it originates in the House and it 
is usually in a posture of ``take it or leave it'' at the last moment 
for the Senate--that we are not in the situation where we are going to 
be lacking for funds, this Senator is willing to set aside his 
amendment, holding it pending on those assurances from the Senator.
  I thank the Senator for his kind comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
willingness to set his amendment aside. It will be held at the desk, 
and we will consider it in due course if we do not resolve it in the 
supplemental as I expect it to be resolved.
  I assure the Senator that he is correct in the notion that we are 
going to work with him, cooperate with him, and with the people of his 
State and others who benefit from these Red Cross activities.
  I thank the Senator for his cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 3608

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for himself, 
     Mr. Coleman, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Allen, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3608.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit funds from being used to amend the oath of 
 allegiance required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality 
                                  Act)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 515. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section 
     337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the manager and the assistant 
Democratic leader for this opportunity, which will take only a moment. 
This amendment is very simple and straightforward. The idea behind this 
amendment has the support of 34 Members of this body, with the 
principal Democratic sponsor being Senator Schumer in the authorization 
process.
  In this appropriation process, the amendment simply says:

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     amend the oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.

  Said more simply, it assures the oath of allegiance will not be 
changed at any time during the next fiscal year without congressional 
action. The language in this amendment is already in the House version 
of the bill.
  The oath of allegiance is a fundamental statement of what it means to 
be an American. Much of the language in the oath dates back to the 
1790s when Congress first required new American citizens to swear an 
oath of allegiance to the United States.
  Today all new U.S. citizens--and many years there are nearly a 
million such new citizens--take this oath when they are naturalized. 
One of the most inspiring events of my life has been to attend those 
citizenship days in Federal courthouses that take place all over 
America, usually once a month.
  Typically, in the Nashville courthouse or in some other courthouse, 
one might see 75 or 100 men and women and their families who come from 
all over the world. They spent 5 years waiting, learned the English 
language, and learned about U.S. history. They have conducted 
themselves well and they have decided to become citizens of the United 
States. There has been a lot of discussion in this body about the 
importance, especially in these times, of encouraging more focus on 
citizenship and what it means to be an American. The assistant 
Democratic leader and I proposed legislation last year, which passed 
the Senate unanimously, to create summer academies for outstanding 
students and teachers in U.S. history.
  The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and I have introduced 
legislation that would allow our Nation's report card to test eighth 
graders and high school seniors on U.S. history on a State-by-State 
basis because at this time in our history, unfortunately, the

[[Page S9009]]

lowest scores in any subject among seniors in high school in the United 
States is in U.S. history.
  So taking the oath of allegiance and treating it with respect, not 
changing it except by act of the Congress, is an important part of a 
series of steps that we need to take to underscore the importance of 
helping all citizens, and especially new citizens, understand our 
common culture and what it means to be an American.
  If my colleagues will indulge me, I would like to read the oath:

       I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely 
     renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any 
     foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or 
     which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I 
     will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the 
     United States of America against all enemies, foreign and 
     domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the 
     same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States 
     when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant 
     service in the Armed Forces of the United States when 
     required by the law; that I will perform work of national 
     importance under civilian direction when required by the law; 
     and that I take this obligation freely without any mental 
     reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

  That is an oath with strength and decorum. It sounds like something 
that might have been written by a group of rowdy patriots in 
Williamsburg a long time ago.
  Since the late 1990s, under the Clinton administration and it 
continues today, there has been some movement to amend the oath. Under 
current law, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, now 
housed in the Department of Homeland Security, has the authority to 
unilaterally change the oath. That is not right. Congress, this 
Congress, not a Federal agency, has designated the wording of the 
Pledge of Allegiance, of the National Anthem, of the national motto, 
and the content of our national flag. The oath, some of which predates 
all of those other national symbols, ought to be treated with the same 
respect.
  I have a bill pending in the Judiciary Committee, and I am joined in 
that bill by Senator Schumer and many others, including the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who is the manager of this 
bill, which will do just that. While the Senate works its will on that 
bill, this amendment will ensure the oath is not changed unilaterally 
by an agency in the meantime. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me congratulate the distinguished 
Senator from Tennessee for this amendment. I think what this achieves, 
if it is agreed to by the Senate, is that it prevents this oath being 
changed by regulation or fiat by some administration official. If the 
oath is going to be changed, it will have to be changed by law because 
it was established by law, as he points out, in section 337 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
  I am glad to be reminded that I am a cosponsor of his corresponding 
bill, and so are other Senators. I am told that an effort is being made 
to clear the amendment on the other side of the aisle, and we are 
awaiting the advice of the distinguished leader. I am going to ask if 
the Senator will permit us to go into a quorum until we can get a 
response from the other side.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, be temporarily 
laid aside to permit the Senator from California to offer her 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3609

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Feinstein and Senator Harry Reid, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) for herself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3609.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To appropriate $70,000,000 for grants to States, local 
governments, and first responders to purchase or improve communication 
  systems to allow for real-time interoperable communication between 
State and local first responders and to offset this appropriation with 
   a corresponding reduction from the Human Resources Account of the 
              Office of the Under Secretary of Management)

       On page 19, line 17, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that 
     follows through line 22, and insert the following: 
     ``$2,915,081,000, which shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(1) $970,000,000 for formula-based grants and 
     $470,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 
     3714), of which $70,000,000 shall be used by States, units of 
     local government, local law enforcement agencies, and local 
     fire departments to purchase or improve communication systems 
     to allow for real-time, interoperable communication between 
     State and local first responders: Provided, That the amount 
     appropriated under title I for the Human Resources Account of 
     the Office of the Under Secretary for Management shall be 
     reduced by $70,000,000: Provided further, That''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Cochran and Reid for 
giving me this opportunity to send my amendment to the desk. I 
understand I may be interrupted for a unanimous consent request. At any 
time, that is fine. But this is a very important amendment.
  I say to my Republican colleagues who seem to be voting against all 
of our amendments to increase funding for homeland defense, we pay for 
this amendment. We do something very important in this amendment, and 
we pay for it by cutting out a frill that happens to be included in 
this particular legislation. Let me explain what we do. My amendment 
will increase Federal support for local efforts to improve homeland 
security by providing $70 million to State and local agencies for 
interoperable communications. What does that mean, interoperable 
communications? That is so our various first responders can talk to 
each other, can communicate with each other across jurisdictional lines 
as they respond to a tragedy, to an emergency. As I said, we fully pay 
for this amendment, so all we need is a majority vote and we will be 
able to get this help to the police who need it so badly, and to the 
firefighters--the first responders.
  One of the most painful parts of the September 11 attacks in New York 
was the loss of more than 300 firefighters and other law enforcement 
personnel who died inside the collapsing Twin Towers, trying to save so 
many beautiful, innocent lives that also wound up being lost. So many 
of our finest were killed--police officers, firefighters, other public 
servants--because they couldn't communicate with one another on the 
equipment they had. Imagine, they could not communicate in this crisis 
with one another because of the bad equipment that they had.
  This was not a new problem. As the 
9/11 commission report points out:

       The New York Fire Department's radios performed poorly 
     during the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for two reasons. 
     First, the radio signals often did not succeed in penetrating 
     the numerous steel and concrete floors that separated 
     companies attempting to communicate; and second, so many 
     different companies were attempting to communicate on the 
     same point-to-point channel that communications became 
     unintelligible.

  We have known this from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The 
inability for our first responders to communicate with one another 
hampered them way back then. We have a repeat of those two problems 8 
long years later, on September 11, 2001.
  There is a lot of talk in Washington about the fact that we are going 
to get hit again. We were called up to a secret room up there and we 
were told that. Then 5 minutes later Secretary Ridge told the whole 
country--so I am not saying anything out of school here--that we were 
going to be hit in this country before the election. Under this 
administration--forget about any new administration, whether there will 
be a new one or the same one--we were told by this administration that 
we were

[[Page S9010]]

going to be hit this year. This is an important bill on which my 
colleagues are working so hard.
  I commend both sides of the aisle for their work on this bill. This 
bill is deficient and we are trying to make it better. One of the ways 
we can make it better for a relatively small amount of dollars--and I 
will tell you how I pay for this in a moment--is to make sure our first 
responders across our country get help so that they have the funds to 
be able to communicate with one another.
  We have not fixed the problem after the World Trade Center. We have 
not fixed the problem after the Twin Towers calamity and the Pentagon 
calamity, and it is unacceptable. That is the bad news. The good news 
is we can do something about it today. Thank goodness this bill is 
before us so we can let the American people know their security and 
protecting them is not so many words; it is reality. We are doing 
something. But in the area of interoperability, what is in this bill is 
so small and it doesn't even call for a grant to actually purchase 
equipment. Can you imagine? It doesn't even call for grants to purchase 
the equipment. Our local responders know what they need, and we should 
be helping them purchase the equipment they need.
  Our emergency public safety personnel must be able to speak to one 
another in real time. I am on the first floor of the building and I 
have gotten a report that something is wrong on the fourth floor of the 
building and communicate that to all of the emergency personnel so they 
know something is happening on the fourth floor of the building, and 
they can act because time is life in that world. Time is life in that 
world.
  Almost every community in California I visited over this break--I 
spent my entire July and August at home. I visited small cities and big 
cities and small counties and big counties and rural counties and 
suburban counties and urban counties. Let me tell you, they all told me 
they need interoperable communication, that they need our help in 
funding it and they need it as soon as possible.
  Let me go on the record stating that we have been warned. If, God 
forbid, there is another tragedy and the first responders can't talk to 
one another, it is our fault because we have the resources to do it. We 
have to do it. Lots of secret meetings don't do us any good to find out 
we are going to be attacked if we don't act.
  Senator Byrd said the emperor has no clothes. That is one way of 
putting it. Today is a chance to put some clothes on the emperor. It is 
also a chance to have a real defense--not a Wizard of Oz defense that 
has a lot of bells and whistles, and color codes and orange lights and 
red lights and duct tape and all the other things--to put some 
equipment into the hands of our first responders and have a real 
defense so they can catch something before it happens, and if they 
catch it when it happens they can make sure people's lives are saved.
  Developing a single radio system will make a real difference in 
public safety, but paying for it is a huge burden on our local people. 
We need to give them the funding they need to purchase the technology 
that makes interoperability possible. Our first responders must be able 
to communicate with one another in that real time. They should not have 
to rely on their cell phones in a time of emergency. We need to do our 
job so they can do their job.
  The administration's budget contains nothing for interoperable 
communication. The appropriations bill we are now considering only has 
$31 million for research and technical assistance. Our first 
responders' first priority is not research, it is equipment. They know 
what they need. They are smart. This is their life. This is what they 
do every day. They are ready to make the purchases they need. So what 
are we doing? We have technical assistance from Uncle Sam. That is not 
what they need. They need to be able to have the hard dollars to go do 
what they have to do from the ingenious American technology sectors of 
our great country and put those units to work so they can talk to each 
other and they can rely on those communications.

  My amendment goes a long way to addressing this issue. It would 
provide an additional $70 million to help State and local agencies 
improve existing communications systems or purchase new systems. This 
funding would help our local agencies purchase equipment for real time, 
interoperable communications between first responders. This $70 million 
would be above the $30 million in the bill I talked about for research 
and technical assistance. The funding in my amendment is offset.
  Let me repeat that. We are paying for this. I am going to ask the 
American people to judge along with the Senators how that $70 million 
should be spent.
  There is $70 million in the bill from the human resources account. 
The Office of the Under Secretary of Management wants to design and 
deploy a new human resources system--a human resources system--and they 
are going outside the Federal Government to do it, hire high-paid 
consultants to do it instead of keeping the money where it belongs, in 
the hands of the first responders. We are going to have a new human 
resources system, another layer of bureaucracy brought to you by 
outside consultants who are going to probably go to lunch at the fancy 
places in Washington and send us the bill. I would rather give the 
money to my firemen and my policemen and policewomen any day of the 
week. That is the case you have. You can keep the money in there for 
this human resources account and spend this money on outside fancy 
consultants who are going to tell us how to deal with our human 
resources or we can get that $70 million and give it to the first 
responders.
  That is what we say we are for. We say we are for defending the 
homeland. Let us prove we are for defending the homeland.
  I propose shifting the funds from the luxury and the frills while our 
emergency responders can't even talk to one another in a burning 
building. There is time for frills, my friends, and there is time for 
real decisions to be made. This is not the time for frills. This is a 
time to make a decision that our first responders are more important 
than some consulting firm that is going to make millions off the 
taxpayers for no reason whatsoever.
  If our people do not know how to handle human resources, then get new 
people who know how to handle human resources. I thought that is why we 
paid management. That is what I think you should do. I have been in the 
private world, and the bottom line in the private world is you hire 
people to handle management. If you are going to take the money out of 
the business and go outside to hire high-paid consultants, then fire 
the people you have. If you want to do that, fire the people you have. 
If you have no trust in their management capability, fire them and then 
take care of that and put it into first responder funding.
  After 9/11 we all asked what could we have done better? How could we 
have been better prepared? And the answer came back to me. I represent 
the largest State in the Union. We have high targets in our State, 
beautiful bridges and buildings. We have very famous landmarks in my 
State. We worry about terrorist attacks. My people are no-nonsense 
people. They know frills when they see it. And they know. I have talked 
to them. They know that one of the most important things our fire 
people and our police people need is to be able to talk to one another 
in an emergency in real time. If there is a terrorist attack on a 
railroad track, they have to get that word out up and down that rail 
line.
  If there is an attack on a high building, on a high floor, the people 
coming in the building need to know something has collapsed up there. 
They need to know not to run up there and face the chaos of hell. They 
need to talk to one another. It is fairly basic.
  The choice is clear. This amendment is an important step in 
fulfilling our responsibility to protect the homeland and to do it in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  I am pleased Senator Reid is a sponsor of this amendment, and I am 
very proud that Senator Feinstein is. I hope we can get some Republican 
support. This is paid for by a frill that we do not need.
  The first responders in our States are the heroes. We say it every 
day. There is not one Member who does not say it every day. If they are 
the heroes and they are telling us they need this, then let's do it.

[[Page S9011]]

  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Clinton as a cosponsor to my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have some articles, including this one from the PR 
Newswire Association. It says:

       Almost three years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 
     thousands of police and fire divisions in cities and counties 
     across the USA still do not have coordinated communications 
     capabilities. This unresolved national crisis--referred to as 
     a lack of ``interoperability''--is prompting the First 
     Response Coalition to reach out directly to more than 43,000 
     local police and fire officials to solicit their help to get 
     Congress to. . . .

  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [From the PR Newswire Association, Inc., August 25, 2004]

  Nearly 45,000 U.S. Police, Fire Officials Urged To Push Congress To 
  Solve First Responder Interoperability Crisis; Hundreds of Rank-and-
      File First Responders Expected To Oppose Giveaway to Nextel

       Amost three years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 
     thousands of police and fire divisions in cities and counties 
     across the United States still do not have coordinated 
     communications capabilities. This unresolved national 
     crisis--referred to as a lack of ``interoperability''--is 
     prompting the First Response Coalition to reach out directly 
     to more than 43,000 local police and fire officials to 
     solicit their help to get Congress to overturn the Nextel 
     spectrum grab in favor of a plan that deals both with the 
     interference problem and the interoperability crisis.
       Gene Stilp, who is the First Response Coalition coordinator 
     and a volunteer firefighter, EMT and vice president of the 
     Dauphin-Middle Paxton Fire Company 1, in Dauphin, 
     Pennsylvania, said that, ``the FCC plan is wrong for police 
     officers and firefighters. It only take on part of the 
     interference issue and doesn't do a thing about 
     interoperability. The FCC plan is short-sighted, and, if we 
     don't act together, we'll miss the opportunity to get 
     Congress to step in and solve both the interference issue and 
     the significantly larger interoperability problem.''
       The letters to a total of 42,463 police and fire officials 
     in all 50 states started going out earlier this month and 
     responses are just now starting to come in. The outreach 
     program is getting a very favorable grassroots response 
     including over 17 fire chiefs who have joined the ranks of 
     the First Response Coalition in opposing the FCC's current 
     plan for the taxpayer-owned spectrum.
       In the letter, the First Response Coalition proposes a plan 
     to ``auction off the spectrum that the FCC plans to give away 
     and dedicate the $5-10 billion that would be raised for 
     communication system upgrades. (The plan) also would 
     accelerate regional deployment to ensure that a majority of 
     systems nationwide are upgraded by 2006.''
       ``Nearly three years after the tragedy of 9/11 was made 
     worse because first responders could not adequately 
     communicate with one another, almost nothing has been done to 
     address the interoperability crisis,'' said Bill Fox, a New 
     York Metropolitan Fire commissioner and a member of the First 
     Response Coalition.
       During August, the Coalition is underscoring its call to 
     action with key Capitol Hill meetings, including sessions 
     with U.S. House of Representatives members serving on Energy 
     and Commerce, Government Reform and the Select Committee on 
     Homeland Security. The coalition also has met with the U.S. 
     Senate Governmental Affairs and Commerce committees.


                          about the coalition

       The First Response Coalition (http://
www.FirstResponseCoalition.org) consists of citizens, 
     individual first responders, and advocacy groups who are 
     particularly concerned about first responders having the best 
     possible communications capabilities. The First Response 
     Coalition believes interoperability issues must be addressed 
     by the FCC or Congress in any plan that reorganizes spectrum 
     and, as a result, will disrupt public safety communications 
     systems across the country. The First Response Coalition has 
     developed a white paper, ``It's Time to Talk: Achieving 
     Interoperable Communications for America's First 
     Responders,'' which is available online at http://
www.FirstResponseCoalition.org.
       Since its launch in June 2004, the First Response Coalition 
     has grown to include the National Black Police Association, 
     the American Legislative Exchange Council and the California 
     Seniors Coalition. In addition to Stilp and Fox, a number of 
     other individual first responders--including fire chiefs from 
     around the nation--have joined the Coalition's initial 
     members.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to have an article from the 
Desert Sun, Palm Springs, CA, printed in the Record. In this particular 
area of my State, the Republicans are in most of the elected offices. 
They say every single day they are all on a different radio frequency 
and they don't have the ability to communicate. It is amazing, because 
it is 2004.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the Desert Sun (Palm Springs, CA), July 4, 2004]

                 First Responders Homeland Defense Act

                           (By Lois Gormley)

       Homeland defense could get $300 million a year in federal 
     money under legislation sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer to 
     develop a communication system that would allow first 
     responders to talk to each other.
       ``If we expect our first responders to do their jobs, we 
     need to help them,'' Boxer, D-Calif., said Saturday.
       Boxer discussed the First Responders Homeland Defense Act 
     she introduced in March during a visit to the Coachella 
     Valley.
       ``Every single agency in this valley--really the state--
     we're all on a different radio frequency,'' said Capt. Sandra 
     Houston, commander of the Indio area California Highway 
     Patrol.
       The inability of different agencies to communicate with one 
     another during an emergency is a major obstacle to working 
     together and being able to relay information immediately.
       ``We don't have that ability and it's amazing because it's 
     2004,'' she said.
       The problem, usually caused by incompatible equipment, can 
     sometimes translate into loss of lives, as it did during the 
     Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Houston said.
       Boxer's bill, if passed, would provide $50 million a year 
     in grants to nonprofit organizations to conduct training and 
     $300 million a year in grants for communication systems.
       The act also would provide a hotline to help first 
     responders navigate the often confusing and time-consuming 
     task of finding and obtaining federal grant money.
       ``There are so many different strings of funding coming 
     from so many different places, it's a full-time job to keep 
     track of it all,'' Boxer said.
       She discussed the key points of her bill after meeting with 
     local police, sheriffs, and highway patrol officials at the 
     Palm Springs Police Department's Training Center.
       The inability to communicate with one another has long been 
     a point of concern for valley law enforcement officials.
       Desert Hot Springs Police Chief Roy Hill said he, Palm 
     Springs Chief Gary Jeandron and other valley police chiefs 
     have been looking into federal funding options for an inter-
     operable radio system for about six months and recently 
     submitted a request for grant funding.
       Riverside County has also been exploring the costs and 
     benefits of developing a regional system that would bring all 
     of the county's 54 public safety agencies onto shared 
     frequencies.
       Boxer's legislation could provide the money needed to solve 
     what is a statewide problem.
       ``They need to speak to each other in real time but very 
     few communication systems in California have that ability,'' 
     Boxer said.
       Her bill, SB 2239, is now in the Senate Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.
       In a closed-door meeting with local law enforcement 
     officials, Boxer talked about their efforts to improve 
     homeland security.
       She also brought them up to date on federal funding and 
     proposed cuts by the president, and the survival of older law 
     enforcement grant programs that help keep police and 
     sheriff's departments well-staffed, equipped and trained.
       Hill said the grants are particularly important to smaller 
     departments.

  Mrs. BOXER. And from the Contra Costa Times, ``Gaps in 
Communication'':

       We have a patchwork of communication systems out there, and 
     we do what we must to make it work. . . . But there are times 
     where we're only one step above tin cans and string.

  Further in the article:

       We can literally be rolling side by side with a unit from 
     another city and not be able to talk to them. It's not too 
     difficult to imagine how crazy things could get with several 
     agencies converging for one incident.

  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  [From the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA), September 5, 2004]

                         Gaps in Communication

                            (By Guy Ashley)

       If the airliner hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001, drove a 
     dagger into the nation's heart, the news that followed was a 
     splash of salt on its wound.
       Soon after thousands of people died in the World Trade 
     Center, investigators unearthed evidence that as many as 100 
     firefighters killed when the two towers crumbled might have 
     survived had their emergency radios worked.
       To most of us, the fatal shortcomings of basic equipment 
     seem unimaginable.
       But to those who keep up with such things, including the 
     first responders on the front lines of emergencies throughout 
     the East Bay, the radio breakdowns of Sept. 11, 2001, not 
     only rang familiar, they hinted at the

[[Page S9012]]

     disastrous potential of communications failures that persist 
     to this day.
       ``We have a patchwork of communications systems out there, 
     and we do what we must to make it work,'' said Robert 
     Maginnis, an assistant Alameda County sheriff. ``But there 
     are times where we're only one step above tin cans and 
     string.''
       The Sept. 11 attacks were far from the first glaring 
     example of a public safety communications breakdown amid 
     large-scale disaster.
       Nightmares still flare about the 1991 firestorm that 
     swallowed neighborhoods in the Oakland and Berkeley hills. 
     Firefighters from surrounding communities converged swiftly 
     on the chaotic scene that October day, but were left to watch 
     the inferno rage because they could not communicate with 
     officials coordinating the response.
       In the rubble wrought by the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, 
     radio breakdowns forced emergency workers to ferry 
     handwritten notes to and from the ravaged Alfred T. Murrah 
     Federal Building.
       But those headline-grabbing ordeals are outnumbered by the 
     all-too-ordinary instances where a quick-thinking East Bay 
     police officer or firefighter must work around transmission 
     blockages that leave them feeling that their safety, and 
     their ability to protect the public, hangs by a thread.
       ``Knock on wood, it's never created a life-or-death 
     situation,'' said Lt. Steve Pricco of the San Leandro police, 
     whose officers cannot communicate directly with police in two 
     adjacent cities because of incompatible radio systems.
       ``It's something all of us have had to work around for 
     years . . . and it's just a fact that it slows down our 
     ability to coordinate a response'' with neighboring police, 
     Pricco said.
       Surely, in the era of Homeland Security czars and their 
     multicolored alert systems, of special commissions and 
     congressional hearings, a fix must be at hand.
       But a Times survey found otherwise. Interviews and a review 
     of other evidence showed that emergency radio problems caused 
     by incompatible technologies and overcrowded frequencies 
     abound across the East Bay.
       ``We can literally be rolling side by side with a unit from 
     another city and not be able to talk to them,'' said 
     Livermore police Lt. Scott Trudeau. ``It's not too difficult 
     to imagine how crazy things could get with several agencies 
     converging for one incident.''
       Experts pin the blame on a longstanding public-sector 
     mindset that local needs take precedent over regional, and on 
     radio manufacturers who routinely design their equipment with 
     proprietary parts and software, so that incompatibility with 
     systems designed by rival companies is commonplace.
       Throughout the East Bay, the resulting incompatibilities 
     make for illogical communication gulfs and a few strange 
     bedfellows:
       Richmond police can't radio sheriff's deputies in their own 
     county but can talk with Oakland and BART police via radio 
     with little effort.
       Oakland police cannot speak directly on their radios with 
     officers from their two biggest neighbors--Berkeley and San 
     Leandro, Berkeley police, meanwhile, can't speak directly 
     with officers who operate within their city on the University 
     of California campus.
       Nobody uses the same band of radio frequencies as the 
     California Highway Patrol. Nobody, that is, except the East 
     Bay Regional Park District.
       Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton, Pittsburg 
     and Martinez police cannot radio firefighters in their 
     cities. Neither can Pinole or Hercules police.
       BART police cannot radio city police departments anywhere 
     along the Pittsburg-Bay Point line: Lamorinda, Walnut Creek, 
     Pleasant Hill, Concord or Pittsburg.
       Oakland police and Alameda County sheriff's deputies mingle 
     among rowdy fans while splitting security duties at Oakland 
     Raiders games, but if the fun turns to mayhem, the two 
     agencies cannot speak to each other on their portable radios.
       Ambulances cannot communicate directly with fire crews in 
     Richmond. To receive updated information at the scene of an 
     emergency, ambulances must instead talk through a dispatcher 
     in a remote location.
       Workers caught in the confusing web of incompatible 
     communications systems have talked for years about a logical 
     solution, an ``interoperable'' regional radio system that 
     could be easily accessed by all of the East Bay's public 
     safety and emergency services agencies.
       Lately, there have been signs that the years of talk are 
     finally being converted into action.
       A new ``working group'' of Alameda and Contra Costa 
     officials formed this year to address first responder 
     communications problems. The group has hashed out a rough 
     plan to pool Homeland Security funds due the East Bay for a 
     down payment on a regional system, which could cost as much 
     as $75 million.
       But such a system is at best several years away, thanks to 
     a shortage of funds available to financially challenged local 
     governments and the need for consensus among all agencies 
     likely to participate.
       Meanwhile, concerns persist about what police, firefighters 
     and other first responders are working with today.
       Public safety agencies, the backbone of any emergency 
     response, are forced to work around plugs in the regional web 
     of communications systems as officers chase vehicles fleeing 
     into neighboring cities, or firefighters are called on to 
     provide backup on a fast-moving fire.
       The same problems hinder electronic links to ambulances. 
     They hover with menacing potential over radio links to 
     National Guard units that routinely are called upon to keep 
     order in large-scale emergencies, as well as public works and 
     water agencies whose contributions could prove pivotal in a 
     fast-moving crisis.
       ``Having the communications linked is not a strength 
     here,'' said Leslie Mueller, operations director for American 
     Medical Response, the private ambulance company that serves 
     Contra Costa and the majority of other California counties.
       Clashing communications equipment forces stopgap measures 
     that can be confusing. East Bay firefighters, for instance, 
     frequently ride with multiple sets of radios in hope that one 
     will serve them during a regional incident.
       Communities stockpile portable radios to pass out to 
     outside responders in case of a large-scale emergency, a 
     sensible solution as long as everyone knows where to go to 
     get one.
       In a large-scale incident, Trudeau said, ``You have to 
     literally grab a representative from another agency and pair 
     up with them so the two agencies can talk.''
       Other area police officers note that when the California 
     Highway Patrol helicopter is dispatched to an East Bay 
     search-and-rescue incident, it often must land first and pick 
     up a representative from a local police department.
       That can be the only way crews on the ground can 
     communicate with the helicopter, whose CHP radio is 
     incompatible with that of most police agencies.
       The most common way police and other first responders 
     communicate when their radios don't mesh is through 
     dispatchers: An officer in the street radios a request to a 
     dispatcher, who feeds the message to a counterpart in another 
     city, who radios the message to officers in that city.
       The system sounds complicated on paper, but it is performed 
     with impressive coordination on routine calls day to day.
       But first responders are dogged by a nagging fear that the 
     system could break down in a large-scale disaster as 
     dispatchers are besieged by radio calls from first responders 
     in the field and 911 calls from residents seeking help.
       The most obvious solution now available to dispatchers is 
     to direct first responders to turn their radios on to 
     ``tactical'' channels available to most radio systems.
       But because only a handful of tactical channels are 
     available to local responders, they easily can become 
     overwhelmed with chatter during a large-scale incident--
     precisely what happened during the Oakland hills firestorm.
       Agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa are taking another 
     step to improve the systems they have. Both counties are 
     installing new equipment that will ``patch'' signals from 
     disparate radio systems together in emergencies.
       The equipment, known as ``black boxes,'' holds great 
     potential in providing East Bay responders with a level of 
     interagency communications capacity not previously available.
       Again, though, the equipment has limitations.
       Even with the ``black boxes,'' one agency's radio equipment 
     is only as good as the infrastructure that supports it, 
     especially the transmission towers and ``repeaters'' required 
     to transmit the messages of responders in the field.
       If, for instance, an Oakland police officer is sent to 
     Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to help in a large-scale 
     incident, the officer's radio may not work, even with the 
     ``black boxes,'' because the radio will be so far away from 
     the equipment that supports its signal.
       Communications breakdowns that plagued first responders 
     Sept. 11 have fueled the drive toward interoperability 
     nationally and across the East Bay.
       Experts have testified that the deaths of more than 100 
     firefighters who died in the south tower of the World Trade 
     Center can be blamed in large part on incompatible radios, 
     problems that the 9/11 Commission said ``will likely recur in 
     any emergency of similar scale.''
       The bite of past natural disasters, and the East Bay's 
     possible appeal as a terrorist target in the future, offer 
     reasons enough for the region to find a solution to its 
     decades-long problems with incompatible communications 
     systems, officials said.
       ``The mistakes that were made on Sept. 11, we can prevent 
     them now,''' said Assistant Chief Chris Suter of the San 
     Ramon Valley Fire District. ``We should be working 
     together.''
       Such solutions will pay dividends day to day, as well as 
     when the Big One hits.
       Just ask the law enforcement officers who were on duty when 
     an Oakland police officer was killed July 22 in a traffic 
     accident in Castro Valley.
       Officer William Seuis, 39, of Pleasanton died when the 
     motorcycle he was riding was struck by a truck on Interstate 
     238.
       Witnesses to the afternoon accident called 911 to report 
     that the truck did not stop and continued onto eastbound 
     Highway 580. The call went to the California Highway Patrol, 
     whose officers eventually stopped the truck described by 
     witnesses in Dublin, about 12 miles away.
       Alameda County sheriff's officials say the truck probably 
     would have been stopped a lot sooner if two deputies 
     traveling on I-580 just in front of the truck had known about 
     the downed officer.

[[Page S9013]]

       But they never heard about it. The CHP broadcast did not 
     transmit on their radios.
       ``We don't need the 9/11 Commission report to tell us 
     interoperability is a major concern,'' Robert Maginnis said.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope and pray the vote on this amendment 
is bipartisan. This amendment is paid for. It does not add to the 
deficit. It makes a choice between a frill of outside consultants 
coming in to tell management how to run the show.
  If the administration is not happy with who is running the show, fire 
those people and get somebody else. But do not spend 70 million bucks 
of the hard-earned taxpayer money, when these working men and women who 
are our first responders, who are our heroes, who we rely on, are 
telling us they are one step above tin cans and a string to 
communicate.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
California offering her amendment.
  I want the Senator from California to recognize that Senator Byrd and 
I talked a little bit today about interoperability radios. At that 
time, I indicated I had met with all the sheriffs and law enforcement 
officers of the 17 counties of the State of Nevada. Every one of them 
lamented the fact--whether it is the fire departments in Clark County, 
the most populous city, Las Vegas, sheriff's department, or in 
Henderson, the second largest city in Nevada--departments cannot talk 
to each other.
  I said this morning I think it costs approximately $6 million or $7 
million to take care of that, but that was from memory and I was wrong. 
My staff heard me say that and, of course, got the correct figures.
  In the city of Las Vegas alone, it will cost $40 million to take care 
of their problem; for the city of New York, $400 million. We have in 
this bill $20 million to take care of radio interoperability. It is 
important we increase that to $70 million plus the $20 million.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is $30 million in the bill and we increase it by $70 
million for $100 million.
  Mr. REID. So we have $100 million. That would do a lot. A lot that 
needs to be done is simply planning and designing how we will do that.
  My point is, these are problems that are very difficult to take care 
of but they have to be done because you cannot have a situation such as 
we had in New York City where the people were dying in those towers 
because they could not talk to each other.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Wouldn't my friend agree that we are now saying to our 
first responders all across the country, regardless of where they are, 
whether they are in Oregon, whether they are in Mississippi, whether 
they are in Nevada, whether they are in New Hampshire or whether they 
are in California, are we not saying to them that they, in essence, 
have to respond to an attack on our homeland that is, in fact, part of 
the war on terror? Are we not telling them when 9-1-1 is called at a 
local level, regardless of the crisis, if it is attached to terrorism, 
it is, in fact, a national attack?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. It is a 
national attack.
  In the Senate I have something called a BlackBerry. My staff in Las 
Vegas can contact me on this. Whether it is Carson City, Reno, my staff 
up here in the Capitol, my staff in the Hart Building, they can contact 
me on this. There is a low vibration, I pick it up, read what they have 
to say, and I can communicate back with them--yes, no, let's do it 
later or a longer message.
  We have the ability to communicate in the Senate.
  It is important for us to be able to communicate. As the Senator 
knows, we came together as Members of Congress quite a few years ago. 
Back then faxes did not work very well. But now we have so many 
different ways to communicate with each other. It seems to me if we can 
communicate the way we do, our first responders should be able to 
communicate.
  The Senator has made a small step toward a big problem, an important 
step but it is not one to break the bank.
  Mrs. BOXER. We pay for it.
  Mr. REID. We sent to Iraq last year--and I also mentioned this to 
Senator Byrd earlier--in supplemental appropriations--meaning 
appropriations over and above the normal appropriations we do, last 
year we sent a first supplemental of $69 billion and the second was $87 
billion. Couldn't we spend $70 million on my State in Nevada and 
California?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague, in an attempt to get some votes 
from the other side of the aisle, we actually found an offset. We are 
not adding; we are cutting out a part of this bill that deals with an 
outside consulting contract to bring people in on human resources 
development.
  As I said to my friend, if this administration does not think they 
have the right management in place that can handle their human 
resources, then they should get rid of them and get new people. But the 
fact is, they are spending in this bill $70 million on fancy-dressed 
outside consultants who eat in the best restaurants in town, while the 
least we could do is put that off and let the management do their job 
there and use this funding to help our people on the ground.
  Does my friend agree this is a time when we cannot really afford 
frills, that we need to spend the money where it is most needed, in the 
hands of our first responders?
  Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right. We will have, as soon as 
this vote is called, a simple majority vote. That is all it will take 
now.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
  Mr. REID. Today, we have had supermajority votes because there have 
been points of order because there have not been offsets. I, of course, 
would vote for this amendment whether it had an offset or not because 
it is so important. I appreciate this amendment.
  When we send our people to battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and other 
places, they have the ability to communicate with each other. That is 
modern warfare. But with modern firefighting, police work, as with 
other first responders, they do not have that same benefit. That is 
certainly something they should have.
  I hope this amendment is adopted. I hope our friends on the other 
side of the aisle will recognize how important this is. It is just the 
evidence we need to do more. As I say to my friend from California, 
this is a step in the right direction. We need to do a lot more. I 
certainly hope this amendment is adopted. I hope it is by an 
overwhelming margin.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the 
amendment offered by Senator Boxer to provide $70 million to our 
Nation's first responders for interoperability.
  In the days following 9/11, interoperability became one of my chief 
concerns. I was appalled that our first responders did not have the 
tools they need to communicate with each other. I know that some 
progress has been made in distributing funds to States and localities 
to develop interoperable communications plans and to purchase 
interoperable equipment. However, I continue to be dissatisfied with 
the levels of commitment and funding dedicated to this critical need by 
this administration. It is clear that the Congress needs to take a 
leadership role to ensure that our first responders are adequately 
equipped to deal with future disasters, whether caused by terrorism or 
natural weather events. I urge my colleagues to support additional 
funding for interoperability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the distinguished Senator 
from California----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 3608

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have gotten approval from the Judiciary 
Committee on the very fine amendment offered by the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to have that information from 
the distinguished leader. Previously

[[Page S9014]]

the Senator from Tennessee offered an amendment. We had set that 
amendment aside to see if it could be cleared on both sides. We are 
glad it has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we call up the Alexander 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3608) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3609

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we 
return to the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Boxer amendment is pending.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from California, she proposes to add $70 million 
to a grant program account that provides funds for State and local 
governments for a variety of purposes. The purposes include a strategy 
for dealing with homeland security issues, including training and 
exercises, equipment, including interoperable communications equipment 
and technical assistance, and may not be used for construction 
activities. The amount of money in that account in the bill is 
$2,845,081,000. Her amendment would add $70 million to that amount and 
earmark that $70 million for interoperable equipment only.
  Now, just looking at what this does to one State--let's just pick out 
California, coincidentally--funds have been made available to the State 
of California under this grant program for State and local governments 
in excess of $680 million since fiscal year 2002. The State of 
California can use that money for interoperable communications. They 
can use it for other things. I do not know exactly what they are using 
the money for, but I assume they are using some of it for interoperable 
communications, as they are authorized to do, as they are permitted to 
do.
  But what is a concern is to shut down a new management system that is 
being developed by the Department to make the Department more 
efficient, to make it operate more effectively, to take all that money, 
prohibit the use of any of that money, and add it to this other 
account. It seems to me it is second-guessing the decision made by the 
full Committee on Appropriations, and our subcommittee in particular.
  When we analyzed the request from the Department of Homeland 
Security, there was a request for $102.5 million for a program to 
develop a new pay system, performance management, managerial training, 
to modernize the human resource system of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Our staff conferred closely with the Department, asked questions 
about what this would do, how important was it, and went through the 
drill. We also had an opportunity to review our staff's assessment of 
it. The committee decided to approve $70 million of that $102 million 
request. The work is now underway. The work is to develop and put this 
in place. It would be a big mistake at this point to take that $70 
million and shift it to another program, where we already provide a 
substantial amount of money, as I said, $2.8 billion, for these grants 
to State and local governments, and then to earmark some parts of that 
just for interoperable communications equipment. The point was to leave 
these judgments up to State and local entities, not to, as a U.S. 
Congress person or a Senator, make these decisions for the States.
  California has plenty of money in this account to buy a lot of 
interoperable communications equipment if they want it, if they need 
it. But to make a judgment as to how they should use the money now and 
earmark certain parts for specific functions is beyond our ability to 
really make the decisions and make them in a correct way that serves 
the final goal, the objective of an improved national homeland security 
program.
  So we are strongly opposed to the adoption of this amendment. We 
think it would be a mistake. It may sound good to some, but it does not 
make any sense to this Senator. The subcommittee has worked closely 
with the Department to understand the need for the human resources 
system. It has helped determine the level of spending to allow the 
Department to move forward with this system. We concluded the funding 
included in the bill is necessary for the Department to be able to move 
forward with a pay-for-performance system.
  I do not have anything else to say about the amendment. It is offset. 
I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dole
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Nickles
     Smith
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand we may have an amendment to 
be offered by the Senator from Iowa at this time.
  Mr. REID. Senator Harkin is in the building and he should be here 
momentarily.
  Mr. COCHRAN. There are Senators who have indicated an intention to 
offer other amendments. We are reviewing some at this time. We hope to 
be able to accept some of these amendments. We appreciate the 
cooperation of all Senators today. We have made excellent progress on 
the bill. We have taken up a number of amendments and voted on them and 
we hope to be able to complete action on this bill on Tuesday evening. 
We hope it is not late Tuesday evening. So we are making every effort 
to organize our effort and encourage those who do have amendments to 
please let the committee know about the amendments. We have an 
identified list that is in order, and for those who intend to offer 
amendments, the sooner they can get us copies of those amendments, the 
sooner we may be able to let them know whether we can accept them or 
suggest modifications that could be acceptable.
  We would like to cooperate with all Senators in moving the bill along 
with dispatch. We do not see any need to delay the Senate and to cause 
us to be in late tonight or tomorrow. We know

[[Page S9015]]

some Senators have plans for travel and we are hoping we can take up 
another amendment or two tonight and then be able to work on other 
parts of the bill tomorrow as well. I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation with the committee.
  I understand the Senator from Iowa is on the floor, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 3612

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment, which is at the 
desk, be called up on behalf of myself and Senator Biden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself and Mr. 
     Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 3612.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To restore the maximum percentage of hazard mitigation 
          contributions that may be made for a major disaster)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. HAZARD MITIGATION.

       Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is amended 
     in the second sentence by striking ``7.5 percent'' and 
     inserting ``15 percent''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for giving me this 
time to lay my amendment down and discuss it for a few minutes. It is a 
very simple amendment. It has to do with FEMA, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's postdisaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. For 
colleagues who may not be familiar with the postdisaster Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program, this is money that is sent by FEMA to the 
States following disasters such as floods, tornadoes, or hurricanes 
that have affected so many of our constituents this year. The 
assistance follows, and it is in addition to the immediate disaster 
assistance for cleanup and reconstruction. This money is for hazard 
mitigation. It is used to reduce the likely devastation of future 
disasters by buying out flood-prone property or by flood-proofing, 
stabilizing buildings or other structures, building hurricane shelters, 
seismic retrofits for earthquake or shock absorption, and for drainage 
improvements.
  This money helps to reduce what it is going to cost us in the future 
for other disasters, so it saves lives and it saves money in the long 
run. These moneys are in addition to the moneys that go out for 
immediate reconstruction.
  In 1993, I and some other Senators led an effort here to ensure that 
the grants would provide an additional 15 percent in FEMA money for 
whatever was provided for both in public and individual assistance. So 
it has been at 15 percent since 1993. In 2003, that percentage was cut 
in half, to 7.5 percent. The bill before us today leaves that lower 
funding level in place. This is totally inadequate. Let me give some 
examples.
  Following the Midwest floods of 1993, it became apparent that the 
then-level of mitigation disaster assistance, which was at 10 percent, 
which was in the original Federal law, was not enough. Again, as I 
said, I and other Senators worked to increase this from 10 percent to 
15 percent. Keep in mind, that 10 percent was in the original law.
  In 2003, that percentage was reduced to 7.5 percent. Since we 
increased that to 15 percent, there has been tremendous success in 
reducing disaster risk in many communities all over the Nation. Many 
communities in the Midwest that suffered flood damage in 1993 saw a 
major reduction in applications for emergency aid for damage due to 
subsequent floods, thanks to these hazard mitigation grants.
  One example I have, and I have many, is in Louisa County, IA. They 
have a floodwall that was designed to protect against a 500-year flood. 
But when this levee is damp for an extended period of time, the water 
seeps through and damages property. In the flood of 1993, 275 homes 
were damaged; 200 residents were evacuated. It was not feasible just to 
go in and demolish all these houses. They have a lack of affordable 
housing in that area. But luckily, with these mitigation funds, a local 
entity stepped in, used the hazard mitigation funding to move and 
refurbish the salvageable houses, and to protect them from future 
flooding.
  This repeated itself in 2001, but because we had used the hazard 
mitigation funds we avoided more than $1.2 million in losses that would 
otherwise have occurred. How do we know that? Because that is what 
occurred almost 10 years earlier in the flood of 1993. That is what we 
were just talking about in terms of money. But I remind my colleagues 
that these savings do not include the noneconomic heartbreak, stress, 
and trauma that goes along with losing your home, family pictures, all 
you have worked for, overnight. That is why I was so dismayed to see 
the 15-percent level reduced to 7.5 percent in the 2003 VA-HUD 
appropriations bill.
  Some colleagues may have concern about amending the Stafford Disaster 
Relief Act on an appropriations bill that we have before us. I assure 
you, this amendment only restores a cut that was made in a previous 
appropriations bill.
  Also, for my colleagues who may not be here but may be watching this 
on their sets in their office, I also want to note that the House has 
already passed this restoration. The House of Representatives has 
already restored the hazard mitigation funds from 7.5 percent to 15 
percent. So, again, as we have seen what has happened, especially the 
devastation we have had in Florida, we really do need to make sure we 
have not only the funds to respond but to mitigate in the future.
  I hope Florida is spared another hurricane, but we know that 
hurricanes will hit Florida sometime in the future. That is just where 
the hurricane track goes.
  I want to read a quote from the Wall Street Journal on August 16 of 
this year from Frank Reddish, the Dade County emergency management 
coordinator, referring to Hurricane Charley:

       Anyone looking at this can clearly see that Charley was a 
     pretty good terrorist. He did a much better job than al-Qaida 
     ever could.

  I am all for doing everything I can to protect our country against 
terrorism. But we also must protect against future floods, hurricanes, 
tornadoes, earthquakes. One of the best ways we do that is through 
hazard mitigation; to do things that will prevent the kind of damage 
that will occur in these future catastrophes. So think about it as 
combating terrorism. We don't wait until the terrorists strike. We do 
things beforehand. That is what hazard mitigation is for, to protect us 
beforehand. Don't just wait until the event occurs but let's go ahead 
and invest in making sure our houses, our facilities, our public 
utilities and others are, to the best extent possible--after they have 
been damaged in a catastrophe--to make sure they have the funds 
necessary so if such a catastrophe strikes again, they will not be 
subject to such terrible losses.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment proposed by 
the distinguished Senator from Iowa, it would change the percentage by 
which mitigation funds are calculated to be due from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. The Disaster Relief Fund, which we 
replenished with a supplemental appropriations bill just yesterday with 
the approval of $2 billion of new money, is an example of the stress 
that has been placed on this fund because of recent disasters in 
Florida and elsewhere. To refresh the memory of Senators, the program 
involves a disaster relief and mitigation funding program. The Disaster 
Relief Fund provides individual assistance to those who have been 
displaced from their homes in disasters.
  It helps pay for food, shelter, and other emergency needs. FEMA--the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency--administers this program after a 
disaster. As I understand, approval of the amendment would increase the 
funds FEMA has to pay out of the Disaster Assistance Fund. I am, 
frankly, not clear in my own mind exactly how this works, but I am 
advised this is

[[Page S9016]]

going to have the net effect of more than doubling the Federal 
obligation in disaster assistance. Every State that is declared by the 
President to be eligible for disaster assistance has its damages 
assessed and becomes eligible for mitigation money. I am told the fund 
that pays for mitigation benefits is like buying out homes which are in 
flood-prone areas or building retaining walls to help in the event of 
the next disaster. These are important efforts to undertake so future 
disasters will not result in the same kind of damage and will be 
mitigated or lessened, reduced. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
calculates that 7\1/2\ percent over and above the amount of Federal 
disaster assistance it has provided and gives that money to States.
  In the past 2 years and in this year's Homeland Security 
appropriations bill, there is another form of mitigation funding which 
is available to States called the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund 
administered by FEMA, to which States can submit competitive 
applications to receive mitigation funding before a disaster strikes. 
Any State, regardless of it having been designated a Presidential 
disaster, can submit a request and have it judged on its merits.
  We have attempted to balance the various kinds of disaster assistance 
available to victims and available to States in this bill. We support 
the President's effort to offer assistance to communities before and 
after disaster strikes. It allows communities to raise risk awareness 
to help reduce the Nation's disaster losses through better mitigation 
planning, and the implementation of plan and cost-effective measures. 
We think at this point it is not the responsible course of action to 
double the formula and increase the amount States are going to be 
permitted and can claim from FEMA and not increasing the amount of 
money that is available to FEMA to pay out the money. This is language 
change. It is actually bill language. It is authorizing language on an 
appropriations bill. It doesn't belong on this bill. It should be 
considered first by the Environment and Public Works Committee, the 
committee that has legislative jurisdiction of these programs. I 
understand that committee has a bill that has been sent over to the 
House that deals with this issue. We should await the advice and 
counsel and action of the authorizing committee before we act on this 
proposal.
  Because of those reasons, I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. 
I think it is clearly authorizing language, and it will be my 
intention--I don't want to cut off the right of any Senator to speak--
to move to table the Harkin amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. 
But I will refrain from doing so until I am assured that Senators who 
want to speak on the amendment have a right to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I commend the managers of the bill for 
the way this bill is proceeding. But I want to make a plea to the 
Senate. We have been informed that the FBI, the Customs Service, the 
Immigration Service, and other portions of the Homeland Security 
Department are running short of money, as so many agencies are 
concerned with the problems of homeland security now. I consider this 
bill to be the second most important bill before our Appropriations 
Committee. We finished the Department of Defense bill which is the 
first bill. It was the bill to fund those who are serving in uniform 
abroad when we have forces involved in wartime circumstances. We did 
act on the Defense bill before the last recess. We are going to be in a 
period next week which is a very confusing period. It is a period 
justifiably recognizing a Jewish holiday that is coming up, but it is a 
situation I think that requires us to consider the time factor on this 
bill.
  I am rising tonight to tell the Senate that it is my hope we will 
finish this bill by next Tuesday. If we get this bill passed by the 
Senate next Tuesday night, we can get it to the House and we can get 
conferees appointed and the various conference staff who are not 
involved with the holiday we are going to observe will be able to work 
on the bill. I hope we can get this bill to the President before the 
end of this month. September 30 is the end of this fiscal year. These 
agencies need this money. The agencies of the Homeland Security 
Department need this money by October 1.
  I plead with the Senate to recognize the time factor and cooperate 
with the managers of the bill. It is entirely possible for us to finish 
this bill by next Tuesday as far as I can see.
  I again congratulate particularly my good friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for the way this bill is being handled.
  But please consider the effect of not getting this bill passed in 
time for the money being available on October 1. A continuing 
resolution will have to be before us sometime next week, but it will 
continue the Department of Homeland Security at the existing level. 
This bill represents an increase in money for various agencies in the 
Department of Homeland Security, and that money is necessary by October 
1. It is a security matter now. It is not a matter of adopting a 
resolution for departments that can operate for at least a month or so 
on the continuing resolution. This committee cannot and should not 
operate on a continuing resolution. I urge the Senate to help us get 
this bill passed by next Tuesday night.
  I thank the Senator for yielding the time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full 
committee, my friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, for his kind 
comments about managing this bill. I appreciate his urging also that 
this bill be completed on Tuesday. We think that can be done. We think 
with the cooperation of the Senate it will be done.
  I am now advised the amendment of the Senator from Iowa does contain 
general legislation, and because of that a point of order might be 
sustained under rule XVI. Therefore, I raise a point of order under 
rule XVI that the amendment constitutes general legislation on an 
appropriations measure and is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has an 
amendment. This may be a good time for him to offer that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, at the direction of the Senator from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment 3610.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator calling up 
his amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3610

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen], for himself and Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 3610.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency to conduct an investigation of the Shockoe Creek drain field in 
Richmond, Virginia, to determine means of preventing future damage from 
                  floods and other natural disasters)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INVESTIGATION OF SHOCKOE CREEK DRAIN FIELD, 
                   RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

       As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall conduct an investigation of the Shockoe Creek drain 
     field in Richmond, Virginia, to determine means of preventing 
     future damage in that area from floods and other natural 
     disasters.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and also my colleague, Senator Warner from Virginia.
  This amendment has to do with directing the Director of Federal 
Emergency Management Agency to conduct an investigation of the Shockoe 
Creek drain field in Richmond in order to prevent future damage from 
floods and other natural disasters. This amendment does not call for 
any additional spending.

  Many Members may not be aware that, less than a week ago, remnants of 
Tropical Storm Gaston pounded the

[[Page S9017]]

Richmond area with rain and flooded many areas, leaving eight people 
dead. This storm dumped more than a foot of rain on the Shockoe Bottom 
area of Richmond, the oldest historic part of Richmond. The flood 
waters rose about 8 feet in 15 to 20 minutes, finally leaving about 20 
blocks of the low lying bottom swamped in up to 10 feet of muddy 
runoff.
  In this area of very old brick buildings, most thought they were 
protected from the James River flooding by a flood wall. What actually 
happened was the rising waters came from the land side down Church 
Street, as opposed from the river side and flooded this whole Shockoe 
Valley watershed.
  I was there Monday and saw these business owners who were trying to 
shovel and take out buckets of mud and disinfecting their shops. It is 
a lot of work. At least 150 families had to leave homes that were 
declared uninhabitable. The floods destroyed over 35 various small 
businesses that had invested and renovated a lot of the old historic 
structures. There were 25 restaurants out of business that are going to 
have to clean up and disinfect and will need health certificates to 
reopen. Dozens and dozens of businesses are condemned, most of them 
condemned because of wrecked electrical systems. Actually, several 
buildings were even demolished. It will take a great deal of work, a 
great deal of patience, and a great deal of risk-taking for this 
wonderful historical area that had been recently renovated and 
rejuvenated to actually come back to life again.
  Most of the people, all but one, did not have flood insurance because 
the insurance folks and the lenders all figured with a flood wall you 
do not have to worry. One in particular, Sosie Hublitz, owner of the 
Kitchen Table, had to shut down because of the terrible flooding at her 
restaurant. All her life savings went into opening the business, plus 
$200,000 in loans. She still owes half of that and is worried about 
getting deeper in debt. Hublitz didn't have flood insurance.
  So there will be added costs. I am sure the insurers and the lenders 
will have added concerns before future investments can be made.
  The most encouraging aspect was the spirit of the people in this 
painstaking process, as tedious and tough as it is to be cleaning all 
that mud out, worrying about the mold and the bacteria, yet they still 
have a great spirit.
  These folks were concerned about such an act occurring again, with so 
much rain falling that quickly. This Shockoe area has a drainage system 
designed to prevent this problem. In the 1920s, a 27-foot culvert was 
put in underground to replace Shockoe Creek. Obviously that did not do 
the job in 2004.
  The point of all of this is to help out these folks in this natural 
basin, this historical basin, for one of the oldest cities in the 
United States, to see if this is an adequate drainage system in the 
likelihood that such rainfall would occur again. Sometimes when there 
are floods--and we see this same thing in the mountain areas--after 
there is a flood, the river beds end up being so filled with rocks and 
debris that it takes less rain the next time for those rivers or those 
creeks to leave their banks.
  One of the things we really must do, and it makes a great deal of 
sense to me, is to determine whether this 27-foot culvert that conducts 
the water from the Shockoe Valley into the James River a few hundred 
yards to the south actually is sufficiently adequate for that area. It 
does serve as a stormwater drain. It has worked well since the 1920s. 
Clearly, attention should be focused on this culvert and the basin 
drainage system.
  The people have amazing spirit. They will keep fighting. But it is 
important not only to help them--and the Small Business Administration 
is doing a great job, as is FEMA and all the folks at the local and 
State level--but beyond making sure they clean up and disinfect and get 
back on their feet and get their businesses back running, we think it 
is very important that we direct steps toward preventing any future 
tragedies or disasters. I'm sure the Corps of Engineers will 
undoubtedly be involved when FEMA coordinates this effort.

  We have introduced this amendment, Senator Warner and myself, 
directing FEMA to conduct an investigation in the Shockoe drain field 
to prevent future damage from flood and natural disasters. This is a 
very logical, appropriate way to plan for the future and prevent such 
damage and all the costs of repair.
  I thank my colleagues for listening. I thank my colleagues for also 
passing the supplemental for FEMA earlier this week which will also 
help the Small Business Administration take care of those not only in 
Florida but also Virginia and others who have been harmed by these 
disastrous floods and storms.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The people of 
Virginia will appreciate it. I know the folks at FEMA will also do the 
right job in the analysis of the Shockoe Valley.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator for 
his explanation of his bill and for his initiative in calling attention 
to the needs of the area of his State in need of special attention from 
Federal agencies, particularly designing some way to help make sure 
this kind of disaster does not occur--if it is possible to do that--
with engineering changes or other mitigation efforts, particularly in 
the Richmond area which was so seriously devastated and damaged 
recently by flooding.
  We think the Senator has a good suggestion and we are willing to 
recommend the Senate adopt this amendment on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia had requested the 
yeas and nays; does he wish to withdraw that request?
  Mr. ALLEN. I am happy for it to be passed on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side 
wants to look at the amendment. I am happy for anyone who wants to look 
at the amendment to look at it. It was very coherently explained by the 
Senator from Virginia.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side 
wants to look at the amendment. I am happy for anyone who wants to look 
at the amendment to look at it. It was very coherently explained by the 
Senator from Virginia.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


       The Tragedy And Atrocities That Occurred In Beslan, Russia

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I believe it is safe to say that later on 
in the evening the Senate will consider and I am certain approve a 
resolution of support and solidarity with the Russian people over their 
recent tragedy and atrocities that have occurred in Beslan. I am 
privileged to have the opportunity to cosponsor that resolution, and I 
congratulate the leaders on both sides of the aisle because I believe 
it will be cleared.
  I know it is not the desire of the chairman that we have a lengthy 
debate on it, and I certainly understand that.
  All of our hearts break at what happened, and although we have seen 
terrorists at low points before, to hold hundreds of children hostage 
for days, to deprive them of food and water, to terrorize them, to 
ignore their pleas for mercy, to shoot them in the back when they are 
trying to escape when it can achieve no possible end, is a level of 
depravity I do not believe I ever witnessed in my lifetime.
  Like all who watched the horrific coverage of the school hostage 
situation in Russia last week, I was shocked by the images of 
frightened children and their parents inside the gymnasium of School 
Number One, surrounded by several hooded hostage-takers and plastic 
explosives hanging from basketball hoops. On September 1, more than 
1,100 parents, students, and

[[Page S9018]]

teachers who had gathered for the first day of school were taken 
hostage by approximately 30 terrorists who had rigged the school with 
explosives. On September 3, Russian troops and the Beslan hostage-
takers exchanged gun fire, a bomb exploded collapsing the roof of the 
school, the terrorists began killing the hostages, and massive loss of 
life ensured. This horrendous terrorist action left at least 335 people 
dead, many of them children, as well as hundreds more severely wounded 
and over 200 unaccounted for, who are most likely dead.
  I join my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Frist and Santorum, in 
condemning this despicable terrorist act and in expressing our 
condolences to the Russian people and in particular to those families 
who lost their loved ones in the Beslan school tragedy. We commend the 
continuing efforts of the U.S. Government in providing humanitarian and 
medical assistance to the people of the Russian Federation.
  The terror last week at the school in Beslan is the same face of evil 
we saw in the U.S. on September 11. The terrorists held children, 
parents and teachers hostage for more than 2 days without food, water 
or medicine. Without conscience or mercy, the terrorists shot children 
in their backs as they fled for safety. These killers seek to terrorize 
the entire civilized world. They have no regard for human life, even 
the lives of children. Today, America stands together with the Russian 
people more resolved than ever to win the war against terrorism.
  I know the Senate will vote unanimously for the resolution. I am 
confident that because of incidents such as this in Beslan and around 
the world, Americans and civilized people everywhere will draw 
increased resolution to lead and win the war against terrorism that has 
really become a war of civilization against barbarians, like those who 
committed these atrocities.
  I thank the Senate for giving me a moment to give my remarks.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the Allen amendment be laid 
aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3615

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3615.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To appropriate $100,000,000 to establish an identification 
and tracking system for HAZMAT trucks and a background check system for 
                      commercial driver licenses)

       On page 13, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:


                         Ground Transportation

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to establish an identification and tracking 
     system for HAZMAT trucks and a background check system for 
     commercial driver licenses, $100,000,000.
       On page 2, line 17, strike $245,579,000 and insert 
     ``$175,579,000''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment, which I am told, for my 
colleagues' benefit, will not be voted on tonight but will be voted on 
at some point late Monday afternoon, is a very important amendment. It 
deals with truck security.
  As we go forward in the war on terrorism, we learn more and more. One 
of the things we have learned only in the last 6 months is that the 
preferred method of destruction of al-Qaida is truck bombs. They have 
used these bombs in the past, but we were given a new sense of urgency 
about al-Qaida's use of truck bombs from intelligence that has been 
picked up in the last 6 months and subsequently made public.
  Truck bombs, unfortunately, can create tremendous destruction. We saw 
that in Oklahoma City. At the same time they are very easy to put 
together. Ammonium nitrate, which can easily be made into an explosive 
device, is readily available. Then all you need is a truck filled with 
ammonium nitrate or some other kind of hazardous material and that 
truck can cause huge amounts of destruction.
  In our brave new post-9/11 world, we have to guard against all forms 
of terrorism. It is not sufficient to say because on 9/11 the 
terrorists struck through the air that we can ignore other ways they 
might seek to hurt us. That means we have to tighten security at the 
ports and on the rails. It also means we have to look at truck 
security. Unfortunately, probably of all the areas where terrorists 
might hurt us, we are doing the least in terms of truck security. We 
pay some lipservice to it, but I am not aware of very much the 
Department of Homeland Security is doing at all in terms of defending 
us against truck security.
  One may ask: What can be done? For one thing, we can put some 
limitation on how ammonium nitrate, especially in large amounts, is 
distributed. That is not the purpose of this amendment. I might be 
introducing further legislation in that regard. But second, we can be 
much more careful about trucks, particularly trucks that carry 
hazardous materials.
  Let me say that right now we do virtually nothing. Only a few months 
ago, a truck with hazardous material was found missing in Pennsauken, 
NJ, neighboring the State of New York. They still haven't found the 
truck. Perhaps the truck was lost. Perhaps more likely it was stolen. 
But God forbid someone who might be part of a terrorist organization 
took that truck and is lying in wait to do something that would be 
terrible and despicable.
  Of course, we know a truck bomb struck the people in Oklahoma. It was 
used by McVeigh. This is not something we are unaware of. Truck bombs 
have been used by al-Qaida in other parts of the world. Again, I 
underscore the fact that trucks are sort of the preferred method of 
terrorism for al-Qaida.
  We have lots of these trucks available in America. According to the 
1997 Census of Interstate Commerce, 740,000 hazardous material 
shipments travel each day by truck in America. In the United States, 
50,000 trips are made each day by gasoline tankers, many of which hold 
as much fuel as a Boeing 757. They often end with a late-night delivery 
to a deserted gas station. Experts say that trucks carrying chemicals 
such as ammonium nitrate, chlorine, or cyanide form even a more deadly 
risk. Imagine if al-Qaida or another terrorist organization took 10 of 
these trucks, parked them near a large, tall building in 10 of our 
largest cities and exploded them all at once, something that would 
hardly be inconceivable right now. The amount of lives lost might even, 
God forbid, exceed those lost on 9/11, and fear would descend across 
this country.

  We have to be doing more. In December of 2002, almost 2 years or more 
than a year and a half ago, I called on Federal officials to rectify 
this problem. The first thing that I asked be done is that background 
checks for truck drivers certified to carry hazardous materials be 
undertaken. The TSA announced it would do so on May 2, 2003, 5 months 
later. But despite this progress, much more work needs to be done. 
There are two particular areas that we think greatly need improvement. 
Those are the things we are asking for tonight.
  The first is tracking technology for trucks. It is very easy. You can 
buy a car and pay a couple hundred bucks more and have a GPS system 
which tells exactly where the vehicle is. Wouldn't it make sense that 
every truck carrying hazardous material was required to have such a GPS 
system? That would mean if the truck were stolen, if the truck were 
taken to a far different location than where it should be and the 
company wished to find out where it was, we could find it in a minute.
  Ironically, a country far less developed than ours requires this for 
all its trucks--Brazil. There is a GPS system on every one of its 
trucks. In fact, the companies that do it there do it not to combat 
terrorism but, rather, to deal with theft. They actually make money.

[[Page S9019]]

The point is this is feasible. It works. It is simple. It is hardly pie 
in the sky. It probably costs about $200 to install in each truck. I 
would be happy, if once TSA started implementing this for individual 
truck drivers who might feel that $200 is too much, even though a rig 
costs much more than 100 times that, to have the Federal Government 
pay, although we don't provide that in our legislation. We do require 
that any truck carrying hazardous material have a GPS system installed. 
There are many companies that want to put this in place but are waiting 
until Government rules are in place. Thus far there are no Government 
rules.
  Second, there ought to be a HAZMAT database. Just as we plot the path 
of thousands of planes in general aviation and commercial aviation and 
where they go and we know that if they are off course, something is 
awry and our air traffic control system deals with that, we should do 
the same for hazardous materials.
  The bottom line is, any truck with a hazardous material would simply 
file a little plan as to where it was going and what deliveries it was 
making. And then again, if the truck was stolen or went off course, we 
would know. In Brazil they have a system when the truck goes too far 
off course, the truck stalls and can't be driven.
  We could actually do that here and the money that we are providing 
would be within the ambit of the Homeland Security Department to do 
just that. But with this database, if a truck carrying hazardous 
material would be off course, we would know, and there would be a much 
greater chance that some kind of action could be taken before the truck 
was used for terrorism.
  As for the background checks of those certified to carry hazardous 
materials, again, I have been pushing the TSA to do this. They have 
said they are going to do it. They have delayed it several times, and 
they have not completed doing it yet. But we urge them to do that as 
well.
  The hour is late. I don't want to hold up you or the President of the 
Senate or other colleagues. People will have the weekend to read this 
legislation. Again, it is a rather small amount of money, $100 million. 
We do offset it. We take money from the human resources account--the 
same $100 million--so this doesn't increase costs. The bottom line is 
very simple: On truck security, a lot more must be done.
  The amendment I have will help move us in that direction. This is a 
danger that we face in this country, which we have done virtually 
nothing about, and we could be moving, for a rather small amount of 
money, toward making ourselves far more secure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. We appreciate the Senator from New York bringing this to 
the attention of the Senate. We know there is a tracking system in 
effect--but we are not sure it is as inclusive as he suggests we need 
it to be--for trucks that carry hazardous material. They try to keep up 
with that. They have a system in place. We are glad to have the chance 
to review this suggestion, and we will do that and hope the Senate will 
withhold action on this amendment tonight, and we can call it up 
tomorrow, or later, whatever the leaders end up deciding we will do in 
terms of further action on this bill.
  We are at a point where I think we are close to winding up the action 
on this bill today. We have had a full day of activity. A number of 
amendments have been presented and voted on. We appreciate the 
cooperation of all Senators in letting us know the identity of the 
amendments that were to be offered. We are going to continue to work 
hard to get this bill finished by sometime on Tuesday of next week. 
That is our goal, and I think we will be able to achieve that goal.
  One item we hope to be able to clear has been presented to the Senate 
by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, related to a survey in the 
State of Virginia on a mitigation issue surrounding flooding in the 
Richmond area. It is my hope that we will be able to get that passed, 
if we can, by a voice vote tonight, and then maybe go out if there is 
no further business.
  I yield to my friend from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 3610

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the leadership 
wants the Schumer amendment to be one of the votes we are going to have 
Monday evening. Also, it is my understanding, having spoken to the 
manager of the bill and his staff, that the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and the Office of Management and Budget have reviewed 
amendment No. 3610, offered by the Senator from Virginia, and they have 
both said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be in a 
position to conduct an investigation of this creek drainfield in 
Richmond, VA; and this has been signed off on by FEMA, as I have 
indicated, and also by the OMB.
  That being the case, even though on our side maybe there are people 
who think this is not something that is normally done, if FEMA and OMB 
signed off on it, which they have, we would be wasting the Senate's 
time by having a vote on it. That having been said, I say there is no 
further debate on this side.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask that we agree to the Allen 
amendment on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be made 
pending.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3610) was agreed to.
  Mr. ALLEN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to do that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Can we agree that my amendment will be voted on on 
Monday afternoon when we resume voting?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I think that is the understanding.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair to the Senator from New York, as I 
indicated, members of the leadership are lining up votes for Monday 
and, in all likelihood, the Senator's would be the first vote. We don't 
have a unanimous consent agreement to that effect but----
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is consistent with my understanding of the schedule 
as well.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have done about all we can do tonight. 
That is my understanding. I say to the manager of the bill that 
tomorrow, it is my understanding, there is an amendment to be offered 
by the majority. I cannot remember by what Senator, but someone told me 
about it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Frist, intends to offer an amendment tomorrow morning. So we 
will have that before the Senate.
  Mr. REID. On this side, Senator Corzine is willing to offer an 
amendment, Senator Lautenberg is willing to offer one, and maybe the 
distinguished Democratic leader will be ready to offer one. Whenever we 
come in, there will be opportunities to offer these amendments. It is 
my understanding that the Senate is not going to stay until a late 
hour. If those amendments are offered, we will have plenty to do Monday 
night, unless there is some agreement on amendments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think this is a good plan. The Senate 
has done good work today. I think the outline the Senator from Nevada 
has given us is a thoughtful way to handle the bill. We will be here 
tomorrow morning and continue to make progress on the bill. We will be 
ready to cooperate with all Senators to the fullest extent possible.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the minority whip yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I didn't hear exactly what has been said about the plan. 
There was another amendment Senator Clinton and I were going to offer. 
I was going to cover it this evening, but she could not be here because 
of the illness of her husband.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, there will be an opportunity to offer 
other amendments next week. He is on the list.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S9020]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________