[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9176-S9213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3624

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes evenly divided before 
proceeding to the vote on the amendment.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time it will be my 
intention to make the point of order against the amendment, in that it 
violates the Budget Act because it provides for the appropriation of 
additional funds above the allocation of the amount available to this 
subcommittee and there is no offset provided in the amendment. So for 
the information of Senators, that is the intention of the managers of 
the bill.
  Under the previous order, as I understand it, a vote is scheduled to 
occur at 2:20. Is that the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate? Is it my amendment increasing firefighters funds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pending before the Senate is the Senator's 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand it, I have 1 minute and then there will 
be a subsequent comment by the chairman of the subcommittee; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. My amendment which is pending adds $150 million to the 
Fire Grant Program, bringing it to the authorized level of $900 
million. This Fire Grant Program is peer-reviewed and merit based with 
no pork in it. It provides grants to local fire departments. The 
President requested $500 million, the chairman added another $200 
million, then Senator Frist added another $50 million on Friday, but I 
want to bring it up to the full $900 million. Why? This Fire Grant 
Program is the only program that really helps our firefighters have the 
equipment they need to protect themselves, as well as modern equipment.
  Last year, the Fire Grant Program received $2.5 billion for its 
requests--20,000 worthy applications. I know we can't fund it at $2.5 
billion, but we can fund it at the authorized level. Therefore, I urge 
adoption of my amendment. Let us protect the first responders so they 
can protect us.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the National 
Volunteers Fire Council and the Congressional Fire Services Institute 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              National Volunteer Fire Council,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2004.
     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Mikulski: The National Volunteer Fire Council 
     (NVFC) is a non-profit membership association representing 
     the interests of the more than 800,000 members of America's 
     volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. On behalf of our 
     membership, I am writing to lend our full support for your 
     amendment to the FY 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations 
     Bill to fully fund the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
     program at the $900 million level.
       As you know, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program 
     provides critical funding to our nation's 1.1 million 
     firefighters, 75% of which are volunteers. The purpose of the 
     program is to bring every fire department up to a base-line 
     level of readiness--and keep them there. The program has 
     proven to be the most effective program to date in directly 
     providing local volunteer and career fire departments not 
     only with the tools they need to perform their day-to-day 
     duties, but it has also enhanced their ability to respond to 
     large disasters as well. As we move to prepare for terrorist 
     incidents at home, we must first ensure that local fire 
     departments have the basic tools they need to do their jobs 
     on a daily basis.
       The program benefits our entire nation by providing local 
     fire departments with much-needed training and equipment to 
     respond to 21 million calls annually. These calls include 
     structural fire suppression, emergency medical response, 
     hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues, wildland 
     fire protection, natural disasters and events of terrorism.
       Once again, we strongly support your amendment to the FY 
     2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill and we thank you 
     for your continued leadership and support of America's fire 
     service. If you or your staff have any questions please feel 
     free to contact Craig Sharman, NVFC Director of Government 
     Relations.
           Sincerely,
                                            Philip C. Stittleburg,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                Congressional Fire


                                           Services Institute,

                                Washington, DC, September 7, 2004.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mikulski: On behalf of the Congressional Fire 
     Services Institute's National Advisory Committee comprised of 
     42 national fire and emergency organizations, I am writing to 
     thank you for all your efforts, past and present, to preserve 
     the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP), also 
     known as the FIRE Act. As you know, the FIRE Act has been a 
     critical program in our efforts to prepare America's 
     firefighters to effectively respond to all emergencies. It is 
     for this reason that I would like to commend you on your 
     efforts to increase the funding allocation for the AFGP in 
     the FY05 Homeland Security Appropriations Act to $900 
     million, the full amount authorized by Congress.
       The purpose of the FIRE Act is to bring every fire 
     department up to a base-line level of readiness--and keep 
     them there. Too many fire departments in this country lack

[[Page S9177]]

     even the most basic needs, including proper turn-out gear, 
     communication systems, training, prevention, and public 
     education programs. These facts are contained in the Needs 
     Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service published by the United 
     States Fire Administration in cooperation with the National 
     Fire Protection Association. It revealed that many 
     departments lack the basic tools and training they need to 
     respond to over 21 million calls, annually--from daily 
     incidents to major disasters, both deliberate acts and 
     natural events. The all-hazards response enhancement provided 
     by the FIRE Act ensures the most efficient and effective use 
     of federal funding. It not only prepares departments to 
     respond to acts of terrorism, it enhances the department's 
     ability to respond to all other emergencies that occur 
     thousands of times each day across our country.
       The FIRE Act addresses another important mission of every 
     fire department, one that often does not command the 
     attention it deserves because of budgetary constraints: 
     prevention and education. Over 3,000 people die in fires 
     every year and over 20,000 people suffer injuries. We can 
     reduce these figures with additional funds targeted at 
     prevention and education programs. This would allow 
     firefighters to spend time in their communities teaching 
     children and others about fire prevention or conducting 
     inspections of both occupied and abandoned buildings.
       A growing challenge facing the fire service is urban 
     sprawl. As construction increases in wildland/urban 
     interface, fire departments face new challenges requiring 
     additional resources and personnel. During the Southern 
     California fires last October, the media reported the number 
     of homes destroyed. Largely overlooked were the number of 
     lives saved and homes protected because of the heroic actions 
     taken by the fire service. Yet we cannot expect the fire 
     service assigned to these areas to meet the public's 
     expectations to safeguard their lives and property without 
     adequate resources.
       When reviewing the totality of a fire department's 
     responsibilities, it is important to recognize that every 
     function serves a vital role in fulfilling a fire 
     department's mission, protecting lives and property. By 
     design, the FIRE Act addresses the entire spectrum of 
     education, prevention and response.
       The FIRE Act is not about supplanting local fiduciary 
     responsibilities; it's about supplementing efforts to protect 
     this country's people, property, and economy. And because the 
     fire service provides protection to so much of our nation's 
     infrastructure, the federal government does indeed have a 
     responsibility to support the mission of our first 
     responders.
       In the three years the FIRE Act has been in existence, it 
     has become one of the most effective programs administered by 
     the federal government. In January of 2003, officials from 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture selected the Fire Grant 
     Program for a study they were conducting as part of a 
     management training course. Summarizing the programs, they 
     said that the grant program has been ``highly effective in 
     increasing the safety and effectiveness of grant 
     recipients.'' Their study found:
       97% of program participants reported positive impact on 
     their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.
       Of those recipients receiving firefighting equipment, 99% 
     indicated improvements in the safety of firefighters and 98% 
     indicated improvements in operation capacity.
       90% of the participants indicated that their department 
     operated more efficiently and safely as a result of the 
     training provided by the grant program.
       Over 88% of the participants who were able to measure 
     change at the time the survey was distributed reported 
     improvement in the fitness and health of their firefighters 
     as a result of the program and 86% indicated reduced 
     injuries.
       The FIRE Act plays a critical role in addressing the needs 
     of over 30,000 fire departments and one million fire and 
     rescue personnel. We thank you for your commitment to our 
     nation's firefighters and this important program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Steve Edwards,
         Chairman, CFSI National Advisory Committee.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the Mikulski amendment because I 
think that it includes important funding for firefighter grants. The 
amendment includes $200 million for firefighter grants--the authorized 
level--so that we can increase the resources available for our first 
responders.
  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 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 Mikulski's amendment. But my intention 
is to push for the rescission of those unobligated Iraqi reconstruction 
funds and use them to offset these needed security investments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the bill provides adequate funds--
generous funding--for this program.
  I make a point of order under section 302(f) that the amendment 
exceeds the subcommittee's allocation under section 302(b) of the 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been raised.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to waive the point of order.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  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 Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``no''.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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 50, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     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)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
45. 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 point of order was sustained.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point now where we are 
hopeful we can begin disposing of amendments that have previously been 
offered and on which debate has occurred. They have been set aside so 
Senators can offer amendments on other subjects. We have at this time 
nine amendments that are in that situation: amendments offered by 
Senators Nelson, Corzine, Kennedy, Dayton, Dodd, Clinton, and one by 
Clinton and Schumer.
  We are hopeful we can reach some understanding about a time to begin 
voting on these amendments. We do know there are a couple meetings that 
require Senators' attendance off the floor at this time, and that might 
be the situation until about 3:30. But I am hopeful the leaders on the 
other side

[[Page S9178]]

can consider entering into an understanding or an agreement that we 
will begin voting on these amendments at 3:30. So I say that for the 
information of Senators.
  There is a markup session going on by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. That may start at 3 o'clock. That is going to require the 
attendance of a good number of Senators. So for the information of 
Senators, we are hopeful we can begin a series of votes at about 3:30, 
dispose of the pending amendments, and then proceed to consider other 
amendments that Senators may wish to offer.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi--by the way, the third hurricane has a track that keeps 
getting closer and closer to the Mississippi gulf coast. But as the 
distinguished Senator, the chairman of the committee, and I have been 
talking about the emergency supplemental appropriations for hurricane 
damage, I have been provided with a copy of what will be the 
President's request for the new supplemental.
  I note that it does include a lot of the agencies of Government about 
which this Senator has spoken that have desperate needs as a result of 
two hurricanes hitting back to back in Florida. I noticed there is 
nothing in here for the agricultural losses, including crop losses as 
well as equipment losses, of which the Florida commissioner of 
agriculture has written to the White House, to OMB, and said those 
losses are $2 billion. What would the advice of the chairman of the 
committee to this Florida Senator be of how we want to address that, 
since the President is not requesting in his new supplemental any money 
for agricultural losses?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the inquiry of the Senator 
from Florida. It is my understanding that the Department of Agriculture 
has existing authority under current law to provide assistance for 
agricultural purposes in areas where people have suffered disasters. It 
provides opportunities for haying and grazing on conservation lands. 
There are a wide range of emergency activities that can be undertaken 
under existing law.
  When we reach a point at which there is a determination of exact 
dollar amounts of damage incurred by citrus growers or others who have 
been hurt by the storms in Florida, that may be a possible reason for 
an additional supplemental to be submitted whose benefits were not 
described in the submission that was received today. This is considered 
an emergency for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and others who 
are on the frontline of recovery, providing shelter, providing food, 
emergency items to protect life, debris removal, particularly areas 
where the debris poses a danger to life and limb.
  This is the kind of supplemental, as I understand it, the President 
has submitted. We hope to be able to approve that and call it up. The 
Appropriations Committee is meeting this afternoon. Senator Stevens, 
chairman of the committee, wants to take action on it as soon as 
possible. The House has to act on it as well. It may very well be that 
we will have a vehicle on which to go to conference with the House this 
week.
  I am hopeful we can keep the President's request clean and approve 
the request, get the money to the agencies that need the funds, and 
look to these other issues as they mature in time, in the sense that 
there has been time to assess the damages and we know what they are and 
who is entitled to the benefits and what kind of benefits there are in 
agriculture.
  But there is no doubt in my mind there will be a need for sensitive 
and generous assistance for agricultural producers which do not have 
any other benefits. We do have crop insurance. There are other things 
available to farmers under current law, and they will be able to 
receive these and be provided with deserved and well-needed benefits.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator 
will yield for a further question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Indeed, I understand what the Senator is 
referring to. There are section 32 discretionary funds that would be, 
for example, available for Florida citrus growers. But it comes nowhere 
close to the estimated amount of losses in these two hurricanes for the 
citrus crop and equipment which is going to exceed $\1/2\ billion, just 
in itself. That is not even to speak of all the other kinds of crops--
vegetables, sod, timber, milk that was dumped as a result of the 
dairies, all kinds of vegetables, tropical fruit, clams, oysters, 
poultry. Nurseries, Florida's top cash crop, has suffered $\1/2\ 
billion in losses.

  My question is, there is buzzing out here an amendment that is being 
put together by midwestern Senators, Republican and Democratic, to take 
care of their agricultural problems. Yet they do not address the full 
need of Florida which has suffered back-to-back hurricane losses that 
have affected its agriculture.
  What would be the advice of the Senator from Mississippi to the 
Florida Senators, when others are coming forth, and yet Florida's 
agricultural needs, after two disastrous hurricanes, are not being met?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my advice to all Senators, including my 
good friend from Florida, is to try to work with the Appropriations 
Committee leadership. Senator Stevens is chairing a meeting marking up 
individual appropriations bills this afternoon. The committee will be 
considering the request for supplemental appropriations submitted by 
the President that we just talked about. At that time, when we are 
considering the supplemental for disaster assistance, would be the 
time, in my view, when we could consider other hurricane damage that 
the Senator is discussing now. In my mind that would be a more 
appropriate vehicle for the Senators who are talking about midwestern 
agricultural needs as well.
  I hope this annual appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security won't get held up with a debate over disaster assistance 
because of drought or other problems in other parts of the country. It 
is hard to say yes, let's have some funds included in the bill for 
those purposes, and then say no to those in our part of the country 
where we do know the needs are real. They are just as expensive, maybe 
much more so in reality, than the Midwestern problems.
  I am hopeful that we can protect the integrity of the appropriations 
process and the integrity of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. 
Let's move this to completion, go to conference with the House, and, in 
an orderly, coherent way, fund the needs of the Department of Homeland 
Security to protect us from terrorist threats, other natural disasters 
such as the ones that are being addressed by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency. Then in a separate action, let's consider disaster 
assistance for hurricane victims and drought victims and others in 
agriculture who have otherwise suffered serious losses this year.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Did this Senator misunderstand the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi in that the President's request 
for this hurricane relief that has happened on those two hurricanes was 
going to be or not going to be attached as an amendment to the 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I don't think that is a decision that has been made.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I see.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My expectation is that the committee leadership, in 
consultation with the leaders of the Senate, will make that decision at 
a later time. Today they are trying to mark up individual 
appropriations bills, and in due course they will take up the 
supplemental as well.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then I would say to the distinguished Senator 
from Mississippi, I was given to believe that, in fact, was a decision 
that was made, that this hurricane relief was going to be attached to 
this Homeland Security bill. I got that impression from the majority 
leader, Senator Frist. If that decision has not been made then, fine.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It may have been made and I just haven't heard about it. 
The Senator from Florida may be more up to date than I am. But I knew 
it was an option that was being considered and being discussed. I was 
not aware that the decision had definitely been made to do that.

[[Page S9179]]

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then this Senator certainly would not have to 
encourage the quickening of the interests in all of this hurricane 
disaster assistance relief as this Senator speaks with the Senator from 
Mississippi, because right now Hurricane Ivan, a category 5 hurricane, 
is bearing down on the Mississippi coast. It could well be that we are 
looking at an additional hurricane emergency disaster relief 
supplemental that would directly affect the State represented by the 
distinguished Senator who is the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. It 
poses a real danger, not only to the people in that area but also to 
property. It is clear that the disaster relief fund of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, which we replenished just a few days ago 
to the tune of $2 billion, could run out of money again. I know the 
tendencies of this Congress to be that where there are needs like that, 
we will act to address them. At a time when that relief fund or any 
other account is depleted and hurricane victims need the attention of 
these agencies and the benefits to which they are entitled, we will 
act. I believe we will act promptly and with dispatch and with 
generosity to the fullest extent allowed under the law.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is FEMA appropriated under the 
Appropriations subcommittee the Senator chairs?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is one of the agencies under the Department of 
Homeland Security, and it is covered in this annual appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Then this Senator simply makes a 
recommendation that we should never be in an emergency posture like we 
were last week, where FEMA is not carrying the adequate reserves. On 
Thursday, they ran out of money and were, in fact, not spending the 
money that was desperately needed in the previous 5 days for hurricane 
relief. This Senator is merely making the recommendation that, as we 
look to FEMA appropriations in the future, there should be a cushion of 
reserves in FEMA because this country can face all kinds of disasters, 
as we know, and this year FEMA's budget was too lean to be able to 
respond.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator makes a point we should consider. I agree 
with that. It is awfully difficult for us to know the future or to be 
able to predict it and the needs of every agency of the Government, 
even FEMA. But we do the best we can and we will continue to work hard. 
Any advice or suggestions the Senators might have for the appropriate 
level of funding on an annual basis would be welcome.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3619, as Modified

  Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify 
amendment No. 3619 at the desk. The change is to allow for funding of 
the offset of the proposed amendment, regarding chemical security 
plants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking that amendment be made 
pending at this time?
  Mr. CORZINE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send the modified amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified, and it is 
now pending.
  The amendment (No. 3619), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 19, line 17, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``grants'' on page 20, line 11, and insert 
     the following: ``$2,915,081,000, which shall be allocated as 
     follows:
       ``(1) $970,000,000 for formula-based grants and 
     $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 
     3714): Provided, That the application for grants shall be 
     made available to States within 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; that States shall submit applications 
     within 45 days after the grant announcement; and that the 
     Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
     Preparedness shall act within 15 days after receipt of an 
     application: Provided further, That each State shall obligate 
     not less than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to 
     local governments within 60 days after the grant award; and
       ``(2) $1,270,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in 
     high-threat, high-density urban areas, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That the amount 
     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 $150,000,000 shall be for 
     port security grants; $15,000,000 shall be for trucking 
     industry security grants; $10,000,000 shall be for intercity 
     bus security grants; $150,000,000 shall be for rail and 
     transit security grants; $70,000,000 shall be for enhancing 
     the security of chemical plants''.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most 
serious security threats facing our Nation: the threat of terrorist 
attacks on chemical facilities. It is a subject I have worked on with a 
number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the last 3 years. 
It addresses an issue where there are literally thousands of chemical 
facilities across the country where a chemical release could expose 
tens of thousands of Americans to highly toxic gases.
  I have tried to stress that there are 123 of these where more than a 
million people could be exposed. About eight of those are in New 
Jersey, so this is an intensely important subject matter for the 
community I represent. We need to change this.
  While we are working today on the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations, there is authorizing legislation working through the 
Environment and Public Works Committee that would deal with this 
problem. I want to be a constructive element in bringing that to a 
conclusion. We have a security problem now with our chemical plants. My 
modified amendment would provide $70 million to State and local 
governments in order to enhance the security of those chemical plants. 
Also, it includes that offset I mentioned, which is changed from the 
original version of the amendment.
  This amendment only takes a modest first step by appropriating that 
money to these State and local efforts. Funds could be used, for 
example, to strengthen law enforcement's presence around chemical 
plants. When we go to Code Orange, the Department of Homeland Security 
requests that our local law enforcement provide additional security for 
these plants. It is not like they are not doing this already. That is 
overtime for additional individuals. Also, this money would go to train 
and prepare officials to respond to a terrorist attack. The release of 
a chemical toxic cloud is not like fighting a fire; it takes different 
kinds of actions. This amendment would provide some of that support. It 
would also provide guidance and assistance to plant managers. It would 
have the proper interface with State and local officials on how to 
respond and maybe even prevent attacks on chemical security plants.
  As I said, the funds will be offset by eliminating funds for a new 
Department of Homeland Security performance pay system, and we will 
provide the resources that I think--at least looking at a tradeoff of 
how I see it in New Jersey, and I think it is the case across the 
country, since 123 plants expose more than a million people, it is a 
good tradeoff. It may be an important issue to get on with pay systems, 
but I don't understand how we trade that off versus the security of the 
individuals who surround the plants.
  Remember, these plants were built in a different era, at a different 
time. They are very prominently located in densely populated areas in 
the country. We ought to do what we can to protect them. One of the 
ways is to provide these funds. That is what this amendment is about. I 
spoke about it at length the other day on the Senate floor. I believe 
very strongly that there are real reasons for us to pay attention to 
chemical plant security in this country. Every time the Department of 
Homeland Security raises the code level, they mention chemical plant 
security. It is in the Hart-Rudman report. It is in studies of the 
vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructure in this country. We 
ought to take special steps to make sure there is security at these 
plants. We would not tolerate the kind of security arrangement we have 
in chemical plants if

[[Page S9180]]

they were nuclear powerplants, and there are as many people exposed to 
these toxic exposures, if there were to be a terrorist attack, as there 
would be in many, if not most, nuclear powerplants, which are located 
in many different areas.
  I hope my colleagues will realize this is an important consideration, 
a modest first step. It is paid for, and I believe we can make the 
American people a little bit more secure by adjusting where we are 
spending $70 million to provide for chemical plant security. I 
appreciate it, and I hope that it will be favorably considered by my 
colleagues.
  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. 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, we are at a point now where we can 
announce to Senators our intention to proceed to votes on some of the 
amendments that are pending now. The amendment of the Senator from New 
Jersey, which he has modified, would be the first amendment we would 
consider. It would be the intention of this manager to move to table 
the Corzine amendment and get the yeas and nays, and then have a 
similar motion against the Dayton amendment No. 3629 and the Clinton/
Schumer amendment No. 3632. We are advised that the Appropriations 
Committee is in meeting now and members may not be available until 
close to 4, but we could begin these votes at 3:45.
  The distinguished assistant leader has assured us that is an 
agreement that is OK with the Democratic side of the aisle, and with 
that understanding, I will propound this unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate vote in 
relation to the following amendments in the order mentioned: Corzine 
No. 3619, as modified; Dayton No. 3629; Clinton No. 3632. I further ask 
unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendments 
prior to those votes and that there be 2 minutes equally divided for 
debate prior to each of the votes, and finally that the second and 
third votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished leader and I thank all 
Senators for that agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct a question through the Chair to the 
distinguished manager of the bill. On this side, we still have every 
intention to try to finish this bill tonight. Unless something comes up 
we do not know about, it is my understanding that the manager also 
feels the same way. So if people have amendments--for example, I talked 
to a couple of my Senators this afternoon and they said, well, we will 
do it later. Everyone should know later is here. We are now at that 
time. Later is right now. This would be an appropriate time for someone 
to come over and offer an amendment as we speak. We would set what is 
pending aside, lay that down. It is my understanding the manager of the 
bill wants to move through these pending amendments as quickly as 
possible. We have several amendments after we finish this block of 
votes that are still outstanding. That is going to get us into the 
evening time. So if people still have amendments they want to offer, 
they should get over here and do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator very 
much for his suggestions. He is absolutely right. We do intend to press 
on and try to complete action on this bill tonight. We would appreciate 
the cooperation of all Senators in that regard. We are going to try to 
get to the point where we can announce that we are definitely going to 
finish the bill tonight. That is our intention. We hope we can move 
forward with dispatch and determination to achieve that goal. We thank 
the distinguished Senator for his good assistance in that regard.
  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. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3619, as Modified

  Under the previous order, there are now 2 minutes equally divided on 
the Corzine amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, homeland security experts refer to 
chemical plants as ``pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction.'' Yet 
more than 3 years after the September 11 attacks, the Bush 
administration has done almost nothing to enhance the security of the 
estimated 15,000 chemical facilities in the United States.
  I therefore support the amendment of Senator Corzine to provide $100 
million for State and local efforts to enhance the safety of 
communities around chemical plants. These funds are needed to allow for 
expanded law enforcement presence around plants, better training and 
preparation for first responders and local officials, and additional 
guidance for plant managers.
  This is just a first step, however. Communities cannot do it alone. 
To truly enhance security, chemical sources must implement security 
plans that address their unique vulnerabilities. Some facilities have 
already made considerable improvements, such as repositioning storage 
tanks away from public roads and hiring more guards. Here in 
Washington, DC, the Blue Plains water treatment plant went one step 
further by switching from chlorine to bleach, thereby reducing the 
inherent hazards posed by their operations. Notwithstanding these 
improvements, numerous media and government reports continue to 
document significant security gaps at many facilities.
  National legislation mandating federally enforceable minimum 
standards is long overdue. When I was chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, we unanimously passed Senator Corzine's 
legislation out of committee. Bowing to pressure from the petroleum and 
chemical industries, the Bush administration put the brakes on this 
legislation. Now, almost 2 years later, we are still debating the 
issue.
  We cannot afford to ignore the risks posed by chemical plants any 
longer. A terrorist attack at any one of the 15,000 chemical facilities 
nationwide would likely cause death or injury to the people in the 
surrounding communities. The chemical industry's own data indicates 
that, in a worst case release, toxic chemicals could threaten more than 
1 million people at each of 123 facilities spread across 24 States. 
There are also more than 700 facilities from which a chemical release 
could threaten more than 100,000 residential neighbors.
  This issue is too important to ignore or add at the last minute to 
another bill without adequate time for proper consideration. I have 
asked my staff to continue working in a tri-partisan fashion to develop 
legislation that can be adopted unanimously by the Senate. If such an 
agreement cannot be reached quickly, however, we should move stand-
alone legislation to the floor for a full debate.
  In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of 
Senator Corzine to help communities surrounding chemical plants address 
the added security risks that these facilities pose. We should then 
quickly enact comprehensive chemical security legislation to supplement 
these community efforts and ensure that the chemical facilities 
themselves do their part to ensure the safety of our home towns.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Has a motion to table the Corzine amendment been made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It cannot be made until the time is expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the committee has recommended in this 
bill $193,673,000 for protective action activities, for developing and 
implementing protective programs for the Nation's critical 
infrastructures, including chemical facilities, Federal, State and 
local, and private sector activities and programs and best practices.
  Nationwide, we have seen 2,040 chemical facilities complete 
vulnerability

[[Page S9181]]

assessments as developed by Sandia National Laboratories and the Center 
for Chemical Process Safety. The Department of Homeland Security has 
made considerable progress in increasing the security of chemical 
facilities across the country. Site visits are conducted at chemical 
facilities as part of a buffer zone protection plan. These plans reduce 
specific vulnerabilities and build a general protection capacity of 
communities. As part of the protective buffer zone effort, the 
protective security division has developed plans to install cameras to 
detect and deter surveillance and other threatening activities.
  The Department has provided protective measures and risk management 
efforts on the sites of greatest concern. We are confident these are 
working to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities.
  We urge the Senate to support the committee and vote to approve the 
motion to table the Corzine amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most 
serious security threats we have in the Nation, the threat of terrorist 
attack on our chemical plants. There are literally thousands--not 230 
but literally thousands--of plants that are exposed to more than 10,000 
folks in the country; 123 plants expose a million people or more.
  My amendment provides $70 million to State and local governments, 
particularly to focus on this issue of security of chemical plants. It 
includes an offset, as I mentioned a few minutes ago.
  The facts speak loudly: We need to address chemical plants. Time and 
time again, there are reports where people can walk on to 
plants without there being any kind of protection and actually 
following through on a lot of the security plans that were talked about 
before.

  There is a whole further authorization bill working its way through 
the Environment and Public Works Committee right now, which is a very 
bipartisan effort to try to get at this issue, but we need to do 
something now.
  There are, as I said, literally thousands of plants across this 
country. We need to provide the support to State and local officials to 
be able to provide the security, the overtime, needed at these plants, 
and particularly when we raise our code levels. The lack of security at 
our chemical plants has been cited as one of the greatest threats to 
our infrastructure. We need to provide for training. We need to provide 
funds for guidance and assistance to plant managers and for other steps 
that State and local officials can take to prevent and respond to 
attacks on chemical plants.
  I hope my colleagues will recognize we have a problem. We ought to be 
doing everything we can to support and protect the American people.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the Corzine amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yes''.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     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

                                NAYS--47

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     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
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 3629

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 2 minutes evenly divided 
on Dayton amendment No. 3629.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has offered an 
amendment dealing with the Federal protective service. It is my 
intention as a manager of the bill to urge my colleagues to vote 
against it. First, it is the intention of the manager to move to table 
this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, and I do so now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is still time remaining. The 
motion is not in order at this time.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment is necessary to protect the 
health care benefits of security guards who are protecting our security 
at Federal buildings in Minnesota and in other States.
  In this instance, private contractors have low-bid these security 
contracts, and they unilaterally have shifted the employees' health 
payments to 401(k) contributions. The company thereby increases its 
profits by not paying taxes at the expense of their own employees, with 
no consultation, no negotiation, just cold-blooded profiteering. No 
wonder a company like this can underbid its competitors. The bids can 
go lower and lower every time they cut wages or benefits. That is why 
there should be employee protections--protections that were eliminated, 
unfortunately, over the objections of many of us when this Department 
of Homeland Security was created just 2 years ago.
  This amendment simply requires that if a company takes over a 
contract, it must negotiate changes in health benefits with its 
employees. I think that is the least we can do on behalf of those who 
are risking their lives to protect our lives.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to define the 
responsibilities of the Federal Protective Service to negotiate 
employment contracts with other agencies or individuals who seek to 
work for the Federal Protective Service. This is actually a Department 
of Labor Fair Labor Standards Act issue. It is not a Homeland Security 
issue. It should not be offered as an amendment to this bill but, 
rather, the issue should be presented to the Department of Labor which 
is responsible for overseeing employee and employer relationships.
  This amendment would have a very serious adverse effect on the 
Federal Protective Service's ability to carry out protective services 
and ensure the security of Federal buildings throughout the country. It 
could bring the efforts to a standstill.
  I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McConnell. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

[[Page S9182]]

  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yes.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT Pro Tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--45

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Sessions
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3632

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 2 minutes equally divided 
on the amendment of the Senator from New York.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, are there 2 minutes available equally 
divided?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Kennedy and Corzine as cosponsors of this high-threat amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this amendment would add $625 million to 
the high-threat urban area category of Homeland Security funding. This 
would bring the amount close to what the President asked in his budget 
where he asked for $1.5 billion for the high-threat category.
  What has been happening over the last several years is that the 
Department of Homeland Security has added the number of cities and 
localities with critical infrastructure to this category, which I 
support and agree with. But as a result, the amount of money is not 
sufficient in order to meet the needs of the number of places that the 
Secretary deems appropriate for high-threat urban funding. So I ask 
that we support this increase. It brings us close to the President's 
requested amount in the 2005 budget, and it enables the Secretary to 
provide the funding to a number of places that have high-threat needs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the Clinton amendment because I 
think that it includes important funding for high risk areas. The 
amendment provides additional funds for those areas that are under the 
highest threat alert.
  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 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 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 Clinton's amendment. But my intention is 
to push for the rescission of those unobligated Iraqi reconstruction 
funds and use them to offset these needed security investments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the suggestion of 
the Senator from New York. The fact is, we have already identified an 
appropriate amount of funding for this area of concern in the bill. The 
committee has reviewed the request very carefully. Because the 
committee has exhausted its allocation of funds available to it under 
the allocation of the full committee on appropriations, we have 
identified what we think is an appropriate amount of funding for this 
area of concern and activity of the Department of Homeland Security. 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.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections 
of the Congressional Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  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 Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``no''.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) 
are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     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
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Nelson (FL)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the 
nays are 50. 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.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                            Vote Correction

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 178, I was present and 
voted aye. The Official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I 
ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to 
accurately reflect my vote.

[[Page S9183]]

This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 3598

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 3598.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr. 
     Bond, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
     Corzine, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Miller, 
     Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Burns, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Warner, Mr. Durbin, 
     Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Allen, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3598.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase the amount appropriated for baggage screening 
                  activities, and for other purposes)

       Beginning on page 10, line 25, strike ``$1,437,460,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``presence'' on page 11, line 3, 
     and insert the following: ``$1,512,460,000 shall be for 
     baggage screening activities, of which $210,000,000 shall be 
     available only for procurement of checked baggage explosive 
     detection systems and $75,000,000 shall be available only for 
     installation of checked baggage explosive detection systems; 
     and not to exceed $796,890,000 shall be for airport security 
     direction and enforcement presence, of which $217,890,000 
     shall be available for airport information technology''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd 
and their staffs for working with me to draft the Ensign-Bond 
amendment, which has 20 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
  This amendment addresses a shortfall in the Transportation Security 
Administration's budget for our airports' in-line baggage screening 
systems, or Explosive Detection Systems, for all checked baggage.
  My amendment adds $75 million to the TSA's budget request of $250 
million, for a total of $325 million. It is fully offset through a 
reduction in TSA's airport information technology and support.
  TSA has asked for a $154 million increase in airport information 
technology, so we will still be giving them half of that increase. 
Still, even with this offset, this technology account is left with $218 
million, and the reduction will not damage TSA's mission.
  The reason I am offering this amendment is clear: One of the major 
threats of terrorism we face today is crowded airport lobbies. The huge 
explosive detection devices in the lobbies of airports makes the 
packed-in crowds an inviting target for terrorists. They could harm and 
kill more people in an airport lobby than they could on an entire 
airplane these days.
  The amount that TSA requested in fiscal year 2005 for in-line baggage 
screening is not enough to fully fund the eight airports that are 
currently constructing their baggage systems, let alone the 21 airports 
that are waiting for money to become available so they can start their 
own.
  It is estimated that $5 billion is needed to fully install the 
baggage screening systems. At $250 million a year, we are not going to 
get there any time soon. We need to live up to our obligation to our 
airports by clearing the backlog of airports that need to get these 
monster machines out of their lobbies. It is a huge unfunded mandate 
for airports that have to operate on tight budgets.
  Our airports will be safer as a result. In fact, one of the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is to expedite the installation 
of in-line baggage screening equipment. We will never get there if TSA 
cannot request enough funding for eight airports, let alone for all the 
airports in America that need these baggage screening systems.
  In summary, my amendment is offset and will help 30 airports in our 
country speed up the installation of their in-line baggage screening 
systems. We have a huge vulnerability on our hands, and we need to act 
quickly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada. We think it should be accepted by 
the Senate, so we hope it will be adopted on a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3598) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3630

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in my conversations with the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Mississippi, it is my 
understanding the bipartisan amendment I offered earlier today--on 
behalf of myself and Senator Specter, along with several other 
colleagues, including Senators Stabenow, Snowe, Biden, Mikulski, 
Corzine, and Clinton--to provide funds to fire departments to hire 
firefighters, will be accepted by the committee. That being the case, I 
see no reason for us to ask for a rollcall vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Volunteer 
Fire Council be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              National Volunteer Fire Council,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2004.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: The National Volunteer Fire Council 
     (NVFC) is a non-profit membership association representing 
     the interests of the more than 800,000 members of America's 
     volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. On behalf of our 
     membership, I am writing to lend our full support for your 
     amendment to the FY 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations 
     Bill to fund the SAFER program at the $100 million level.
       The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 
     (SAFER) Firefighters Act, which was passed as part of the FY 
     2004 Defense Authorization bill, would not only provide 
     grants to local fire departments to hire additional 
     personnel, but also includes a component to provide grants to 
     volunteer and combination departments to implement 
     recruitment and retention programs. In addition, the 
     amendment includes language that ensures that firefighters 
     hired under the SAFER Bill are guaranteed the right to 
     continue to volunteer in other jurisdictions during their 
     off-duty hours.
       As you know, recruitment and retention is often cited as 
     the number one challenge facing America's volunteer fire and 
     EMS departments. The SAFER program would not only help to 
     address staffing shortages in career departments, but would 
     go a long way to reverse the national trend in the volunteer 
     fire service that has resulted in a loss of nearly 15% of the 
     volunteer ranks in the last 20 years.
       Once again, we strongly support your amendment to the FY 
     2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill and we thank you 
     for your continued leadership and support of America's fire 
     service. If you or your staff have any questions please feel 
     free to contact Craig Sharman, NVFC Director of Government 
     Relations at (202) 887-5700.
           Sincerely,
                                            Philip C. Stittleburg,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. DODD. I appreciate immensely the support of the Senator from 
Mississippi and others who are willing to accept the amendment. I want 
to commend Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, as well as their staffs, for 
the tremendous efforts they have made on behalf of the amendment. We 
were able to work out an offset that will not do any significant damage 
to the management and administrative functions of the Homeland Security 
Department. We still would have a 35-percent increase in title I, and 
roughly the status quo when it comes to title IV.
  Firefighter staffing is the No. 1 issue for firefighters all across 
America. By agreeing to this amendment, we are fulfilling our pledge to 
these heroes to do everything we can to not only provide them with the 
materials, training, and equipment they need, but also the necessary 
personnel these departments

[[Page S9184]]

must have if they are going to complete their jobs.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and his staff for their 
outstanding efforts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Connecticut for 
his good advice and suggestions in the handling of this bill. We 
recommend we proceed to a voice vote on his amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3630.
  The amendment (No. 3630) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 3639

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. Bingaman. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to laying aside 
the pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 3639.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for continued support by the New Mexico National 
     Guard for the performance of the vehicle and cargo inspection 
           activities of the Department of Homeland Security)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. During fiscal year 2005 the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and the Secretary of Defense shall permit the New 
     Mexico Army National Guard to continue performing vehicle and 
     cargo inspection activities in support of the Bureau of 
     Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement under the authority of the Secretary 
     of Defense to support counterdrug activities of law 
     enforcement agencies.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which simply 
provides that during fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of Defense shall 
permit the New Mexico Army National Guard personnel to continue 
performing vehicle and cargo inspection activities in support of 
Customs and Border Protection and immigration enforcement agencies 
along the border.
  This is work our New Mexico National Guard has been doing now for 
some time. They do an excellent job. We have 17 full-time guardsmen who 
are involved with this inspection. They are well trained to accomplish 
this work. This is work which will be very difficult for the other 
Federal agencies involved to try to take over themselves. It is 
important that the National Guard be allowed to continue doing the 
work. The amendment would accomplish that. It is a very meritorious 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we understand the Senator from New 
Mexico, Mr. Domenici, is a cosponsor of the amendment. We appreciate 
Senator Bingaman's bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. 
We recommend that we proceed to a voice vote on the Senator's 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3639.
  The amendment (No. 3639) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 3636

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that is 
vitally important. If there are any pending amendments, I ask unanimous 
consent that they be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I call up amendment No. 3636.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Burns, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Brownback, 
     Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Hagel, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3636.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural 
 producers in Florida and other States due to losses from hurricanes, 
        droughts, freezes, floods, and other natural disasters)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

          TITLE __--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

     SEC. __01. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Additional coverage.--The term ``additional coverage'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 502(b) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)).
       (2) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity'' 
     means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for 
     which the producers on a farm are eligible to obtain a policy 
     or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (3) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable 
     commodity'' means an eligible crop for which the producers on 
     a farm are eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7333).
       (b) Emergency Financial Assistance.--Notwithstanding 
     section 508(b)(7) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(b)(7)), the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in 
     this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make emergency financial assistance authorized under this 
     section available to producers on a farm that have incurred 
     qualifying crop or quality losses for the 2003 or 2004 crop 
     (as elected by a producer), but not both, due to damaging 
     weather or related condition, as determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including 
     using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and quality 
     losses as were used in administering that section.
       (d) Reduction in Payments.--The amount of assistance that a 
     producer would otherwise receive for a qualifying crop or 
     quality loss under this section shall be reduced by the 
     amount of assistance that the producer receives under the 
     crop loss assistance program announced by the Secretary on 
     August 27, 2004.
       (e) Ineligibility for Assistance.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (f), the producers on a farm shall not be eligible 
     for assistance under this section with respect to losses to 
     an insurable commodity or noninsurable commodity if the 
     producers on the farm--
       (1) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a 
     policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for 
     the crop incurring the losses; and
       (2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file 
     the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the 
     applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable 
     commodity under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) for the 
     crop incurring the losses.
       (f) Contract Waiver.--The Secretary may waive subsection 
     (e) with respect to the producers on a farm if the producers 
     enter into a contract with the Secretary under which the 
     producers agree--
       (1) in the case of an insurable commodity, to obtain a 
     policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) providing additional coverage for 
     the insurable commodity for each of the next 2 crops; and
       (2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, to file the 
     required paperwork and pay the administrative fee by the 
     applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable 
     commodity for each of the next 2 crops under section 196 of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7333).
       (g) Effect of Violation.--In the event of the violation of 
     a contract under subsection (f) by a producer, the producer 
     shall reimburse the Secretary for the full amount of the 
     assistance provided to the producer under this section.

     SEC. __02. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds of the

[[Page S9185]]

     Commodity Credit Corporation to make and administer payments 
     for livestock losses to producers for 2003 or 2004 losses (as 
     elected by a producer), but not both, in a county that has 
     received an emergency designation by the President or the 
     Secretary after January 1, 2003, of which an amount 
     determined by the Secretary shall be made available for the 
     American Indian livestock program under section 806 of the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
     106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
       (c) Mitigation.--In determining the eligibility for or 
     amount of payments for which a producer is eligible under the 
     livestock assistance program, the Secretary shall not 
     penalize a producer that takes actions (recognizing disaster 
     conditions) that reduce the average number of livestock the 
     producer owned for grazing during the production year for 
     which assistance is being provided.

     SEC. __03. TREE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide 
     assistance under the tree assistance program established 
     under subtitle C of title X of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 to producers who suffered tree losses 
     during the winter of 2003 through 2004.

     SEC. __04. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

       The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and 
     authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     this title.

     SEC. __05. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this title.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this title shall be made without regard 
     to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. __06. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
     title are each designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), 
     as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 
     649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate by section 
     14007 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 1014).

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment. My 
colleague from Montanam Mr. Burns, is a cosponsor of the amendment, 
along with Senators Roberts, Brownback, Hagel, Conrad, Dorgan, and 
Nelson from Nebraska. Maybe there will be more later.
  This amendment provides for emergency agricultural natural disaster 
assistance. Some might ask why I am offering this amendment, 
particularly on this bill. The answer is very simple. First of all, 
there is a tremendous need, a need in rural America to address drought 
agricultural disaster assistance. Just as there is a need in Florida 
because of the two hurricanes which have devastated that State, and a 
third potentially on its way, for agricultural disaster assistance, 
agricultural disasters from droughts in many parts of America are just 
as devastating. We don't hear about them as much because it is in the 
nature of a silent killer. They don't get on TV as much. It is over a 
period of time, for years. But the effect is just the same, if not 
worse, in many parts of our country.
  We are in America. We are an entire country. Just above the Presiding 
Officer is our national motto, ``e pluribus unum.'' Clearly, this is 
something of which we should all be reminded. We are many States, but 
we are one Nation, here to help each other--one indeed.
  Our amendment would fully fund the Crop Disaster Program, the 
Livestock Assistance Program, and the American Indian Livestock Feed 
Program for losses incurred in 2003 or 2004. The producer would have 
the option of deciding which of the 2 years he or she needs the 
assistance.
  I might point out that in 1996, the year before the major years of 
drought began, Montana sold $847 billion worth of wheat. Just a couple 
years ago, we sold only $366 million. That is a 43-percent decline. 
Why? Essentially because of drought.
  This devastation does not end at the front door of our rural homes. 
It is unrelenting and has taken an enormous economic toll on our 
communities as well as our farmers. It will take years to recover. 
Businesses are closing doors. Employees are being layed off in many 
parts of rural America as a consequence, and main streets are just 
drying up. Producers are considering selling parcels of land they own 
or pieces of equipment that they have in order to keep their operation 
going. They will do so only if they can keep the farm or the ranch that 
their family has been working on for, in many cases, generations, and 
scraping that money together has never been more difficult as most of 
the potential buyers are similarly in financial straits.
  So we are drying up in many parts of the country. It is all 
patchwork. It is not uniform. There are certain parts of the drought 
that even in certain parts of my State of Montana, you can tell from 
this map which indicates it is very dry. Some parts are more drought 
stricken than others. This bill is tailored to give help to those 
producers who are experiencing drought, who have a disaster, very 
little of their crop is left, and they would be compensated for only a 
portion of the loss. We have to act now.
  Some will say: Put this off to another bill. This is the Homeland 
Security bill. This is not an agricultural disaster assistance bill.
  That is a technical argument. The unanimous consent request states, 
and I will point it out to my colleagues, that first-degree amendments 
to this bill are in order related to the text of homeland security and 
natural disasters. This is a natural disaster amendment.
  This bill clearly contemplates amendments that address assistance to 
parts of the country that are experiencing natural disasters. You might 
hear, gee whiz, after all, we should wait until an agriculture bill 
comes up. We cannot do that. We know there are 3 weeks left before we 
are scheduled to adjourn. There is no time to wait. We know the big 
disaster bill comes up for Florida, and we know the pressure here for 
that to be a clean bill--don't add anything to it because it so 
accurately portrays the devastation in Florida, and there is going to 
be a rush to adjourn and they don't want any amendments, and that will 
happen.
  We are going to hear the argument to put it off until the 
supplemental or another bill. Well, you have to strike while the iron 
is hot here. You need to take advantage of your opportunities. This is 
needed now, not weeks from now. It is needed right now. Frankly, a bird 
in the hand is worth two in the bush. If we don't act now, we 
jeopardize assistance that farmers deserve, as well as the folks in 
Florida.
  I point out that we see hurricanes and tornadoes and ice storms and 
floods in the news; newspapers and television cover that. Those folks 
deserve help and we will give them help before we adjourn.
  We must also remember that an agricultural disaster such as drought 
is more of a silent killer; it is not as visible on TV screens, but the 
effect is just as bad, if not worse.
  You are going to hear, why doesn't the farm bill take care of all 
this? We know it is important to remind ourselves that disaster 
assistance is completely separate from funding in the farm bill. It is 
a totally different animal, a different phenomenon.
  The argument is also made that farmers and ranchers should be 
satisfied with the funding they will receive in the farm bill. The 
truth is, only 18 percent of the total funding in the farm bill goes 
directly to producers. The rest goes to food stamps, nutrition 
programs, et cetera. The farm bill is never intended to cover losses 
from natural disasters; it is economic losses, not natural disasters, 
as this amendment so provides.
  In the same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by 
tornadoes and hurricanes, we should rebuild communities hurt by 
drought. We should not treat natural disasters differently and just pay 
attention to the ones that make the evening news. A disaster is a 
disaster. There is no reason a double standard should apply. We must 
not and cannot continue to ignore the impact of drought, the effect it 
has on our agricultural producers,

[[Page S9186]]

and our rural communities. It is every bit as deserving of assistance.
  I repeat that it is just as important as small business owners in 
Florida or anybody else. Florida needs assistance and we will give them 
that. Those folks are hurting. But I might also say that parts of rural 
America need assistance and we should give them assistance because they 
are hurting just as much in some cases, if not worse.
  I will end there, just by saying this is bipartisan. We have just as 
many Republican cosponsors as Democratic cosponsors. It is not a 
political issue. This is meant to help people who really need help.
  With that, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to take a good 
long hard look at this and not be--I am trying to use another word--
deceived by arguments that say this is just a Homeland Security bill. 
That is a technicality. The unanimous consent provides for natural 
disaster amendments to this bill. Second, there is no time to wait. 
That is why we are here. That is why we are elected, to do what is 
right.
  Somebody, who was wise, said to me: When you are going to do 
something, do it now, don't wait. Second, do it right the first time. 
Don't do it wrong the first time.
  I think if we are going to do it, we should do it now, do it right 
the first time; and the right way is a basic, simple amendment. We are 
not trying to take advantage of somebody or pad anybody's pockets. It 
is to help people who need help.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the Senators from Montana, Kansas, and others States that have been 
affected by natural disasters. We have enormous sympathy for the State 
of Florida and the extraordinary disasters they have faced, and we are 
ready to help them, as we have been helped in the past.
  My State has once again been hit by the most remarkable set of 
disasters I have seen yet--and I have seen a lot--from the worst floods 
in the 1990s--we had the 500-year flood of the Red River. People may 
recall the images of that extraordinary flooding. In the 1980s, we had 
the worst drought since the 1930s.
  This year, our State has been hit by a combination of flooding and 
drought that is truly stunning. It is almost hard to express what I 
have seen as I have crisscrossed North Dakota this summer.
  These headlines on the chart sum up a little of what people in North 
Dakota have been reading all year: ``Water Everywhere, While Deadline 
Looms to Get Crops in the Ground.'' What that is talking about is that, 
in our State this year, nearly 2 million acres were prevented from even 
being planted because of extraordinary flooding. This is a continuation 
of the flooding in the Devil's Lake Basin that we have seen over the 
past 6 or 7 years. This lake is now bigger than the District of 
Columbia; it is several times the size of the District of Columbia. The 
lake has risen 25 feet in the last 7 years.
  Throughout this entire basin, which is the size of the State of 
Massachusetts, the land is increasingly under water. There is a joke in 
North Dakota that Lake Agassiz may be reforming. Lake Agassiz, my 
colleagues will remember, was a giant lake, a glacial lake that covered 
much of the State of North Dakota in earlier ages.
  Something truly phenomenal is happening in my State. Some have 
suggested that global climate change is affecting the severity of the 
weather. I don't know, but something dramatic is happening. We have 
towns that have experienced 18 inches of rain in 1 day, and these are 
places that only get 20 inches of rain in a year. It is Biblical and it 
is unlike anything we have ever seen.
  In the midst of all of this, we had a killer frost in August. Whoever 
heard of a frost in August? In fact, we had several frosts in August. 
And while that is happening in the northern tier of the State, in the 
southwestern part of the State is the meanest, toughest drought I have 
seen in my lifetime. I just toured the southwestern part of our State. 
In county after county, I was in pastures that are like moonscapes 
because nothing is growing.
  This is a headline from one of the newspapers back home: ``Drought 
Cancels Annual Crop Show.'' They cannot have a crop show because there 
are no crops to show. That is how devastating the drought has been in 
the southwestern part of the State. At the same time, the great irony 
is, just a hundred miles north, it is so wet they cannot get the crops 
off. I had one farmer--Mr. Baucus--say to me: The incredible thing 
here, Senator, is when you look from the road, it looks like there is 
90 bushels of barley there, but you cannot get in to harvest it because 
it is so wet that your equipment bogs down. Now, here we are in the 
second week of September and there are very few days left that will be 
warm enough to mature the crop. The result is going to be losses that 
will mount geometrically.
  This says, ``Losses Total $530 million.'' This is our State 
university that has done a calculation of the extraordinary losses. 
Already, there have been Presidential disaster declarations.
  I make these points because while we have enormous sympathy for 
Florida and are prepared to assist them and to vote for natural 
disaster assistance to them, they are not the only ones being affected 
by natural disasters. I wish it were not so. I wish nobody was being 
faced with natural disasters, but that is the circumstance we face.
  On this most recent tour, this is a wheat field that we were looking 
at. This is a wheat field in September. It is not up much past a 
person's socks. There is nothing here. It was a total loss. These 
people are going to lose their entire investment.
  Here is a cornfield. We say knee high by the Fourth of July. You can 
see this corn is not knee high by the first week in September. In fact, 
most of these corn plants have no ears on them. About one in four has 
any ears, and the ears they have are like those little miniature ears 
that one gets in a salad when going to a restaurant. It is unlike 
anything I have ever seen.
  This is a cornfield that is totally stunted. This is one of my 
assistants who is holding up this corn plant showing there are no ears 
on it. It is a total loss. As the farmer who was with me said: Senator, 
that is garbage. That whole field is just garbage.
  Yet here is another part of North Dakota--I do not know if people can 
see this clearly through the television lens, but this is mile after 
mile of northern North Dakota--water, water everywhere. Everywhere one 
looks there is water. That is the circumstance we face in North Dakota.
  In the middle of all of this, here is a map that shows the damage. 
There are 1.7 million acres that were prevented from even being planted 
all across northern North Dakota. All the green area is places where 
acreage was prevented from being planted. Just to put 1.7 million acres 
in perspective, how much is that? That is 25 percent more than the 
whole State of Delaware. That is the acreage they could not even plant. 
Those who were lucky enough to plant could not harvest. They could not 
harvest because it is so wet the machines are bogged down. That is what 
we are facing in North Dakota. It is not just drought and it is not 
just flooding.
  On top of that, killer frost. Here is the indication of where they 
had killer frost. My colleagues can see in the blue those are areas 
that had killing frost this year. On August 20, 2004, there were 
freezing temperatures. The areas in the lightest blue experienced 
temperatures from 28.5 degrees to 32.2. In the next shade of blue, 32.2 
to 35.9. In all of these areas, enormous damage was done to the crops.
  One does not have to take my word for it. We brought back pictures 
showing what has happened. This picture is from Cass County, ND, an ear 
of corn unaffected. This picture was taken on August 24. That is a 
healthy ear of corn. Look at the Foster County picture taken the day 
before, August 23. This is frost-damaged corn.
  My colleagues can see what a totally different picture it is, the 
difference between corn that is healthy and unaffected and that which 
has been damaged by frost.
  The losses in my State are now enormous and growing geometrically. 
Our State university just did this assessment: Prevented planting 
losses as I described, 1.7 million acres, a loss of over $206 million; 
crop production losses, $264 million; crop quality losses,

[[Page S9187]]

another $58 million. Total losses in my State so far, $530 million.

  Now, some say that is what crop insurance is for. Let me explain. 
Crop insurance will only cover 40 percent of the loss, not even 40 
percent of the loss, because of the way crop insurance works. That is 
with the vast majority of my farmers buying crop insurance. Some will 
say, gee, more farmers should have bought crop insurance. In my State 
more than 90 percent of the farmers do buy crop insurance.
  The way crop insurance works, it in no way makes one whole. It just 
offsets the losses, and when the losses are this massive and this 
significant, crop insurance only covers less than 40 percent. This 
shows net direct crop losses of almost $330 million.
  The economists at our State university then did an analysis of what 
the indirect losses would be to the State. Households will lose $511 
million. Retail sales will be reduced by $245 million, and put in the 
direct crop losses, that is an economic loss to North Dakota's economy 
of over $1 billion, and $1 billion to my little State is a huge amount 
of money. I know in Washington $1 billion may not seem all that 
significant. It may not be all that significant in California or New 
York, but in North Dakota $1 billion is real money. It means real 
hardship to real people, people who deserve assistance just as much as 
the people in Florida who have been devastated by hurricane after 
hurricane.
  Our people have not been hit by a hurricane. They have been hit by 
flooding, frost, and drought. What a perverse collection of natural 
disasters to visit any State in any year.
  The final point I wish to make to my colleagues who may be concerned 
that we are busting the budget is this is what has happened to the 
pattern of farm payments under the new farm bill. The national press 
has missed this story completely, I might say, but the fact is, farm 
program payments have come down dramatically under the new farm bill.
  This is where they were under the old farm bill, $32.3 billion in the 
year 2000; 2001 it came down to $22.1 billion; 2002, $15.7 billion. 
Then we had a tick up in 2003 to $17 billion, and in 2004 they are 
anticipating the spending will be $11.5 billion. That is $20 billion 
less than 2000. The national press has not reported this at all.
  The fact is, the new farm bill is costing a lot less than what we 
were spending under the old farm bill, much less. This year, it is $20 
billion less than the cost was going to be in 2000.
  My colleagues know I have been voting against waivers of the Budget 
Act for amendment after amendment, and I have told my colleagues there 
is only one exception for me and that is natural disaster, whether it 
is Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, 
Minnesota, Montana.
  The hard reality is, natural disasters are unpredictable. Nobody can 
know who is next. Nobody can know who is going to face a flood or a 
drought or a hurricane. That is why we have always treated them as 
emergencies, with emergency funding. That is my intention this year as 
well.
  I believe we have natural disasters. Nobody could have predicted 
Hurricane Charley or Hurricane Frances or Hurricane Ivan. And nobody 
could have predicted these terrible droughts.
  Senator Nelson from Nebraska said we ought to be naming droughts 
because then it would get more attention. It kind of personalizes 
things. People could understand when we are getting hit with a natural 
disaster, because it has a name. We don't name droughts. Maybe we 
should. We certainly name a hurricane and that helps us personalize it 
and remember it. Droughts and floods don't have names, but I will tell 
you what, they affect real people who have names.
  I have gone all across my State in dozens of farm meetings, all 
across the northern tier of North Dakota with this devastating 
flooding, and all across the southwestern part of my State with this 
disastrous drought. These are real people, real families, who are being 
devastated and, through no fault of their own, they are on the brink of 
being pushed off the farm. They have been devastated every bit as much 
as the people in Florida. All of them deserve our assistance and our 
support. I hope very much our colleagues will support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3641

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside 
and that we take up amendment No. 3641, which has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment numbered 3641.
       On page 20, line 14, strike ``rail'' and insert ``inter-
     city passenger rail transportation (as defined in section 
     24102(5) of title 49, United States Code), freight rail,''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. I give 
tremendous thanks to Senator Tom Carper of Delaware who has worked so 
hard on this amendment, and Senator Biden for his strong support. They 
have been a real leadership team, in terms of real security for Amtrak. 
I am pleased we were able to work together.
  I also thank Senator Cochran enormously, because he has been so 
helpful to us, and of course Senator Byrd. Basically, last March we 
received what should have been a wake-up call when terrorists blew up a 
commuter train in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 people and injuring 
1,400. I don't think there is any American who will not remember our 
shock and sadness at what occurred.
  Obviously, we have to address the vulnerabilities of America's rail 
systems. We must act now. I am so pleased that the bill before us 
includes more than $207 million for rail and transit security. This 
amendment that Senator Carper has done so much work on and which I have 
worked with him on will make it clear that all rail operators will be 
eligible for this vital funding. This will allow the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to use full discretion to allocate funds to those 
operators with the greatest need regardless of whether they are local 
transit agencies, Amtrak, or freight railroad. This minor change will 
go a long way toward helping, and clearly many of us believe we need to 
do more.
  I proudly sit on the Commerce Committee. That committee has now twice 
voted out rail security bills that are very strong. But adding more 
dollars to rail security would enable us to do more checking on what 
may be lying on the railroad tracks and set up a system so we can be 
sure that baggage on trains does not contain bombs. We have K-9 teams.
  There are many things we want to do. It is a great frustration for me 
that even though Senator McCain and Senator Hollings and the whole 
committee in a bipartisan way passed railroad security not once but 
twice, that bill sits at the desk, as does the port security bill that 
we voted out, as does the nuclear plant security bill the Environment 
Committee voted out, and the chemical plant security bill. It is 
frustrating. But tonight, at least we have a chance to do a little bit 
more for rail security. I am very grateful for that. I know this 
amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  I see Senator Carper coming to the Senate floor, so I will yield the 
floor. But once more, I give him my tremendous thanks for his very hard 
work. It is wonderful to see that we can accomplish something when we 
reach across the aisle. We have taken a big step. Of course, we want to 
take even bigger steps to make sure our rail passengers are safe.
  I will yield the floor at this time. I would like to know, because I 
would like to leave the floor at this time, if it is OK to ask for this 
amendment to be adopted in a unanimous consent fashion at the 
conclusion of Senators who wish to speak.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to 
express my support for the adoption of this amendment on a voice vote 
at the conclusion of the remarks of Senators

[[Page S9188]]

from Delaware and California or any other Senators who would like to 
speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. At the end of Senator Carper's remarks, if no 
other Senator seeks recognition, then he can make that request. Would 
that be appropriate at that time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, that would be my suggestion. If the 
Senator will yield, we will adopt the amendment on a voice vote at the 
conclusion of the remarks of Senators who are interested.
  Mrs. BOXER. My thanks to everyone involved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before Senator Boxer leaves the Senate 
floor, I want to thank her for her tenacity and leadership on this 
issue. I think we have come to a conclusion.
  I see my senior Senator, Senator Biden, has joined us as well. This 
is an issue he has worked on longer than I have been in the Senate. I 
want to say to my friend, job well done.
  I say to Senator Cochran and his staff on the Senate floor, and 
Senator Byrd as well, thank you very much for working with us in 
writing a very good compromise. A number of us have expressed concern 
upon learning that as money was added to this bill for transit 
security, there was an inability--in fact, no ability--for us to access 
these dollars to enhance security for inner-city passenger rail, on 
rails principally Amtrak, and to enhance the safety and security of 
freight railroad operations.
  As it turns out, the Northeast corridor, which runs from Washington, 
DC, up to Boston, MA, is owned by Amtrak. Not only do Amtrak trains ply 
these corridors from here to Baltimore to Wilmington to Philadelphia 
and New York, on to Boston, but you can stop in Providence, the State 
of the Presiding Officer. Also, a lot of freight rail use these tracks. 
The tracks themselves, the overhead wires, the tunnels through which 
these trains go, the bridges over which they cross are owned and 
operated by Amtrak. The commuter trains that use the tracks from here 
to New York City and on up to Boston in many cases are owned and 
operated by Amtrak. For us to have passed legislation here today which 
attempts to promote rail security at least by giving money through 
State and local governments to transit operations without allowing 
Amtrak to have any access to those moneys I believe would be very 
shortsighted.

  With the addition of this language which we have worked out on the 
Republican and Democratic side, we have actually a larger pot of money 
than we started with. That is good. With the addition of this 
amendment, we have the ability to enhance the safety and security of 
inner-city passenger rail operations and freight rail operations, too.
  When I go home later this week, I will probably take the train. There 
is a tunnel that runs under this Capitol in which we work that is about 
100 years old. There are concerns about the safety and security of 
trains that go through there. There is a tunnel under Baltimore that is 
about 130 or 140 years old. There are six tunnels that are about 100 
years old which go in and out of New York City and under the rivers. 
They have problems with respect to ventilation, lighting, surveillance, 
and all kinds of safety concerns. They need to be addressed, and they 
can be addressed at least partly with money made available here.
  Not all enhancements to safety and security for rail need to be as 
expensive as fixing old tunnels. Some of them can be as inexpensive as 
adding dollars for an old technology--the ability of our K-9 corps to 
detect bombs and explosives. It is as good today as it was 20, 30, or 
40 years ago. With this money, those folks who are running our inner-
city passenger rail will be able to better use K-9, if that makes 
sense, for detecting and ensuring our trains don't end up with 
explosives on board.
  Again, in conclusion, we have come to a good place. This is not an 
amendment that, frankly, asks for more money. It is an amendment that 
actually enables us to use some common sense in allocating the moneys 
that have been added to the bill. It will allow us to enhance the 
safety and operation of our commuter operations, whether it be commuter 
trains or buses. Hopefully, we will also be able to use a good deal of 
this money to enhance the safety of inner-city passenger rail and some 
of our freight operations. For that, I think we can all be grateful.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3641) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to read a list of supporters 
of the pending amendment which provides for emergency agricultural 
disaster assistance: the Alabama Farmers Federation, American Corn 
Growers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean 
Association, Georgia Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Georgia 
Peanut Commission, National Association of Farmer Elected Committees, 
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National 
Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, 
National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 
National Farmers Union, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk 
Producers Federation, National Potato Council, National Sunflower 
Association, Southern Peanut Farmers Federation, U.S. Canola 
Association, USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, USA Rice Federation, and 
Women Involved in Farm Economics.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if consent is necessary, to 
add as cosponsors to the pending amendment Senator Coleman of 
Minnesota, Senator Dayton of Minnesota, and Senator Clinton of New 
York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think the growing support indicates we 
should adopt this amendment. There may be a point of order raised. It 
would be a technicality. I hope if that is raised, Senators will vote 
to waive that point of order so we can help some people in America, 
farmers and ranchers in various States all around our country, who have 
suffered from drought disasters or, as in the case in North Dakota--it 
is very interesting--from flood disaster.
  It was very sad listening to Senator Conrad speak about North Dakota, 
how part of the State has been devastated by flooding, with 18 inches 
of rain in 1 day, if you can believe it. The average annual rainfall in 
the upper plains States is about 14 inches a year. They had 18 inches 
in 1 day. That is in one part of North Dakota. In another part of North 
Dakota, they have had the worst drought he has said he has seen in his 
lifetime.
  I might say, the condition is somewhat similar to that in Montana. 
Northeast Montana is getting a little more moisture than it usually 
gets, but southwest Montana is getting a lot less than it normally 
gets. It is hard to know where we are going to get drought and where we 
are not. But there is drought.
  We are asking to use the formulas that are in the law; that is, the 
Emergency Livestock Feed Program and the Crop Disaster Assistance 
Program. Let's use the formulas in the law. If they need disaster 
assistance, we should give it to them.
  In addition, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Murray as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The more I speak, the more I am getting cosponsors. I 
ought to keep talking. They are coming in at a rate of about four a 
minute.
  With that, I urge Senators to support this legislation.

[[Page S9189]]

                                 trees

  Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to engage the Senator from Montana in a 
colloquy on Senate amendment No. 3636, the agriculture disaster 
assistance amendment. I appreciate his hard work in bringing this 
amendment forward. New York's farmers have suffered this year--both 
from heavy rains in July and from damaging winter frosts. In 
particular, both apple trees and grape vines were destroyed in New York 
this past winter. And while the losses for this year's crop will be 
covered by the crop disaster assistance provisions of this amendment, 
it is the tree assistance program that assists growers in replacing 
their lost trees and vines. So I thank the Senator for including that 
provision, and I would like to clarify with the Senator that the term 
``tree'' as used in his amendment is used in the same way as it is 
defined in the 2002 farm bill. That is, term ``tree'' in this context 
means trees, bushes and vines, and would therefore assist New York's 
apple growers and grape growers alike.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from New York for her support of the 
amendment, and I assure her that the Tree Assistance Program provision 
in my amendment is intended to cover eligible losses of trees, bushes 
and vines.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator for his assurance on this issue.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
bipartisan amendment offered by my good friends and colleagues from 
Montana, Senators Baucus and Burns, and am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of this measure important to my State of Minnesota.
  Earlier this year, heavy precipitation and moisture prevented many 
farm families from planting a crop at all and not long afterward, many 
of them lost what they had planted. This led to a disaster declaration 
request for three especially hard hit counties along the Canadian 
border: Lake of the Woods, Roseau, and Marshall Counties.
  Then, after a late start in the growing season, my State's farm 
families were hit with a bizarre August, yes August, freeze that took 
its toll on another at least 29 counties for which disaster 
declarations are being sought. This includes pretty much everything 
north of Interstate 94 that runs from the Twin Cities northwest toward 
Fargo Moorhead.
  It's been said that Minnesota is a place with 9 months of winter and 
3 months of poor sledding but a freeze in August even surprised us.
  But all kidding aside, this has been a rough season for my farm 
families and depending on what happens in the next few weeks, it could 
get a lot worse and become a statewide problem. My farm families tell 
me, particularly south of I-94, that they need an extra 15 days of 
growing season beyond what is normal in order to get the heat units 
necessary to produce a decent crop. If they don't, they are looking at 
some of the lowest yields since the great flood of 1993, which I 
remember as the newly minted Mayor of Saint Paul when the same flood 
ripped up parts of our capitol city.
  Now, I know some folks think that we should not be providing disaster 
assistance to my farm families. They note that my farmers already have 
insurance. In fact, better than 95 percent of my farm families do carry 
crop insurance. But, those who face other kinds of disasters also carry 
insurance, and yet this does not bar them from disaster relief--nor 
should it. In fact, folks who carry insurance on their cars, on their 
boats, on their businesses, and on their houses carry insurance that--
save the deductible--allows them to recoup the market value of what 
they have lost. Not so with farmers. Our farmers have to absorb as much 
as 15 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and sometimes even more of their 
loss alone before they even begin to qualify under their insurance 
policy. So, disaster assistance is meant to help bridge the gap that 
exists for farmers but not for others.
  This disaster assistance amendment is not out of bounds. It is the 
traditional level of disaster provided in past years. There is a crop 
disaster payment covering crops of every kind; a livestock assistance 
program that helps our livestock producers recoup feed costs resulting 
from natural disaster; and a quality loss program to help producers who 
do not suffer yield losses but suffer quality losses that cut into the 
price they receive in the market place.
  Frankly, I believe it is time for us to put our heads together in a 
bipartisan fashion and craft a more coherent, predictable, fiscally 
responsible, and long-term policy that better addresses natural 
disasters. I know that this has been attempted in earnest numerous 
times in the context of crop insurance--with considerable success--as 
well as in the context of an emergency reserve or standing disaster 
program, albeit with less traction in this regard. But, clearly, we 
need to take another hard look at this issue and see what we can do 
about alleviating the need for ad hoc relief like this, which is not 
very reliable to those it's intended to help and not the best option in 
terms of Federal budgeting.
  I urge the amendment's adoption, but I do so looking down the road a 
ways in hopes that, in the future, we find a new and better way of 
addressing these crises whose timing we can not always predict but 
whose occurrence we can certainly all foresee.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I support our amendment to 
provide emergency drought disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers 
who have suffered under a prolonged--in some areas a 5 year--drought. I 
am pleased to be working with Senators Conrad, Baucus, Dorgan, Burns, 
Roberts and Brownback to offer this amendment. It is a bipartisan 
amendment, with strong support. This amendment has the strong support 
of our national farm organizations, such as the American Farm Bureau 
Federation and the National Farmers Union.
  Nebraska's facing its fifth straight year of record drought, which as 
you know has a damaging effect on the agriculture industry, as well as 
the main street of every Nebraska community. The same is true in 
Montana, North Dakota, Kansas and other States as well. Droughts, 
hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, are natural disasters and 
deserve to be treated the same. Multiple years of drought have cost our 
Nation billions of dollars in economic losses and have many farmers 
wondering whether they'll be able to carry on.
  We were successful in 2003 in getting assistance to our producers, 
but only at half the amount necessary. We passed a $3.1 billion 
assistance package that was offset with farm bill programs--a plan I 
opposed. I offered a $6 billion emergency assistance package that if it 
had passed; we probably wouldn't be here today seeking what we were 
denied in 2003.
  I have continuously worked for the additional assistance we have been 
unable to secure. I have repeatedly called on the President and 
Congress to support funding for drought aid for our farmers and 
ranchers, and to fully fund the crop and livestock disaster programs so 
critical to Nebraska's farmers and ranchers. This is of the utmost 
importance to farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and across all the areas 
suffering from this natural disaster.
  The estimated cost for this disaster assistance is $2.9 billion. The 
assistance will be provided through emergency assistance in the form of 
a Corp Disaster Program, Quality Loss Program and a Livestock 
Assistance Program. This assistance is targeted to those who need it 
most. It will help recover eligible losses sustained by producers in 
counties designated as primary or continuous disaster areas during the 
2003 or 2004 production years.
  Producers can choose to claim losses for either the 2003 or 2004 
production years, but not both years. This flexibility will allow for 
ranchers and producers to seek assistance for the year with the 
greatest negative impact on their farm operation.
  I am happy to report that a similar effort is underway in the House 
of Representatives. Nebraska's own Tom Osborne is leading a bipartisan 
effort to secure relief for agriculture producers. I am hopeful that my 
Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. We must 
respond to the crisis this drought has caused in Nebraska and our 
Midwestern neighbors.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my fellow Senator from 
Montana in sponsoring this agricultural disaster amendment. Agriculture 
is Montana's largest industry, and these persistent weather-related 
losses are devastating to our economy. Farmers and ranchers across the 
country are

[[Page S9190]]

struggling to cope with weather-related disasters, and this amendment 
will deliver needed relief to those producers. Whether we are talking 
about hurricanes, floods, or the prolonged devastation caused by 
drought, some of our producers are barely hanging on.
  I am particularly happy that this amendment responsibly targets 
assistance to those individuals who need it most. It provides crop 
disaster assistance, livestock disaster assistance, and funds for the 
American Indian livestock feed program. It allows producers to choose 
which year's losses 2003 or 2004 were the worst. In Montana, most folks 
suffered the biggest losses in 2003. Our crop losses that year were 
over $70 million. Livestock producers in many counties in 2003 lost a 
good percentage of their pasture land to drought. For others, 2004 may 
have been the year that nearly finished them off. Nearly half of our 
grazing land is in poor or very poor condition. Record low streamflows 
are still being recorded, and our reservoirs are nearly empty. And even 
though some of our wheat producers had good yields, topsoil moisture is 
still well below average. The drought is far from over in Montana, and 
throughout the West. Some folks need the assistance for 2003 losses, 
others for severe weather losses incurred this year. This amendment 
will let farmers and ranchers make the right choice, based on their 
individual situation.
  I know some of my colleagues have concerns about the price tag of 
this bill, and I admit it worries me too. But there are people back 
home who might not make it another year if they don't get relief from 
the impacts of a 6-year drought. Drought is a silent killer. It doesn't 
make headlines, and few television stations report on it. This 
assistance is essential for those people just like it is critical for 
farmers with flooded cropland, or producers with unexpected summer 
frost damage. This bill is targeted to just those who meet certain loss 
thresholds, to make sure that assistance goes where it is most needed, 
whether that need be in Florida, Maine, or Montana. We cannot 
discriminate between producers or disasters.
  I thank my colleagues for their support of this amendment, and look 
forward to its adoption.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Baucus 
amendment. This amendment ensures that farmers and ranchers across the 
country will receive assistance for losses sustained through natural 
disasters.
  In Kansas this assistance is critical to provide aid to our farmers 
and ranchers who have been hit hard by a multiyear drought. While many 
have viewed the terrible destruction wrought across Florida and the 
Southeastern U.S. by successive hurricanes in recent weeks, I cannot 
forget the terrible drought that has continued to grip much of the 
western portion of Kansas.
  I also cannot forget the eerie photographs, taken earlier this 
summer, of a giant dust cloud that swept across western Kansas. This 
dire result of continuous drought caused Interstate 70 to shut down, 
its dust inundated homes and hospitals and even caused a tragic traffic 
accident that claimed the life of a distinguished Kansan, the late 
State Senator Stan Clark.
  It may surprise my colleagues, but I am no fan of Federal disaster 
programs for agriculture. They are difficult to pass and often a 
disaster to implement.
  It is unfortunate that the current farm bill, which I voted against, 
does not provide producers with assistance when they need it most--when 
there is no crop to harvest.
  Without the crop insurance program, which I fought to improve and 
enhance in 2000, and additional Federal disaster aid, many Kansas 
producers might not be around another year to continue participating in 
the current farm bill.
  Mr. President, I stand in support of the Baucus amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  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. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been in a markup of the 
Appropriations Committee for the past several hours. I wanted to be 
here when my colleagues offered the disaster relief legislation. I was 
not able to be here at that point, but let me add to the comments that 
have been made by my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, and my 
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and many others.
  The amendment that has been offered, as a bipartisan amendment on 
behalf of Republicans and Democrats who represent a significant part of 
farm country, is to ask the Congress to consider passing a disaster 
bill to respond to weather-related disasters in our part of the 
country.
  Let me begin by saying it is my intention that I would support all 
and any resources that are necessary to respond to those who have been 
devastated by successive hurricanes.
  Those in Florida and other parts of the Southeast, and now those in 
the gulf area who may well be hit by another hurricane, have had a 
devastating time of it. It is sad to see the plight of the victims on 
television when these hurricanes come through and destroy property and 
destroy homes and destroy livelihoods. It is a pretty awful scene. When 
that happens, this country has an obligation to extend its hand to 
those victims and say: You are not alone. This country wishes to help.
  I have always voted in favor of disaster assistance and always will 
because it is part of what this country needs to do for those who have 
been hit with tough times. That is certainly the case with respect to 
those hit by the successive hurricanes in the southern part of our 
country. My colleague from Montana and others have said that as 
devastating as those hurricanes are--and it is hard to adequately 
describe the devastation--there are, in addition to the damage from 
those hurricanes, other areas of the country that have suffered 
weather-related disasters.
  My State is one of those States. I will describe what has happened in 
my State.
  I have toured throughout the entire State of North Dakota in the past 
months. In the northern part of our State, torrential rains in the 
spring that came and stayed in a torrent of moisture meant that 1.7 
million acres of ground could not even be planted in North Dakota. 
Obviously, that is a serious economic problem for our State, but it is 
a devastating circumstance for a farmer that had all of their ground 
inundated by these torrential rains and couldn't plant an acre. That is 
a personal circumstance that is very difficult because they will lose 
all of their revenue. Many of them will go out of business. That is a 
time when disaster assistance is necessary.
  In other parts of North Dakota in the southwestern corner, I had 
ranchers tell me that from January 1 to July 1, they received 2.2 
inches of moisture total in 6 months. One can imagine what their crops 
look like.
  These are two pictures from my State. They describe the circumstances 
faced by producers. This is a field inundated with water. It would not 
have been planted, and this farmer would not have an opportunity to 
make a living by planting this field because the field will be 
prevented from being planted by this water.
  This, in the same State, looks like a moonscape. It is an area that 
is completely without moisture, a pastureland that has no growth. These 
are from the same State in the same year.
  We had, in addition to the torrential rains and the drought in 
different parts of the State, in the month of August, strangely enough, 
a frost, and then a freeze. What happened as a result? My colleagues 
can look at a cob of corn. This shows a healthy cob of corn. That is 
what you get when you produce it and you have the heat units and you 
are able to harvest and pick the corn. Here is what happens when you 
have a freeze in August, exactly when corn needs heat units to grow. 
Perhaps even more dramatic, here is what a healthy field of soybeans 
looks like. We have a lot of acres of soybeans. It looks great, a 
beautiful green field.
  Here is what that same field looks like after you have a freeze in 
the month of August when you need the heat units to be able to have 
these beans reach maturity and growth.
  It is estimated by North Dakota State University that in North 
Dakota,

[[Page S9191]]

the impact of these weather-related disasters was about $1 billion 
total. The impact on farmers is more than half a billion dollars. And 
that which is above that, which crop insurance would pay, is over a 
third of $1 billion. That is a weather-related series of disasters that 
is significant and troubling to the producers in our State.
  My colleague described the circumstances in Montana. Others will 
describe circumstances in their States. The point is, this damage was 
not from a hurricane that came with a fury and in just a matter of days 
blew its way through and devastated a lot of property. In most cases, 
this was either a slow motion drought that just drained the life from 
the soil, or torrential rains, as happened in the northern part of 
North Dakota that made 1.7 million acres unplantable. Those, too, are 
weather-related disasters and circumstances in which the Congress 
should want to--and I expect will want to--reach out its hand to say 
you are not alone to family farmers and ranchers trying to make a 
living, trying to survive tough times, trying to deal with weather-
related disasters by themselves.

  I hope this Congress will, once again, say to those family farmers 
and ranchers: You are not alone. You don't have to deal with this by 
yourself because we know you can't. When you lose all sources of 
revenue for an entire year, then we want to help.
  I have served in the House and the Senate. I don't believe I have 
ever failed to support disaster assistance when it is necessary. I will 
continue to aggressively support disaster assistance again now for the 
people of Florida, the Southeast, the people in the gulf region who may 
be hit. We need to pass that disaster assistance. I will strongly 
support that.
  The amendment being discussed is offered by my colleague and me and 
others who say there are other weather-related disasters as well that 
we need to deal with in this bill. We expect our colleagues will 
understand that. But it should not in any way be misinterpreted as 
wanting to hold up the necessary resources to deal with and to help 
make whole those--I guess we probably never make whole people who have 
suffered a disaster, but at least to say to those folks who have been 
hit over and over again by the vicious hurricanes: You are not alone. 
This country wishes to help. We are determined to do that.
  I am pleased to at least raise my voice to say I am going to be one 
person who supports aggressively that which is needed for the citizens 
of Florida and other parts that have been affected by hurricanes. My 
hope is that they, too, will help our family farmers and ranchers in 
South Dakota and North Dakota, Montana, and other regions of our 
northern Great Plains that have been hard hit by weather-related 
disasters this year.
  Mr. JOHNSON. May I put a question to my colleague?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. JOHNSON. We all feel for the enormous damage that has occurred in 
the State of Florida, and there is great risk that there will be 
additional damage in other Southern States from these hurricanes. One 
of the great problems that strikes me about the kinds of disasters we 
are talking about in the northern plains, where we have had this severe 
drought year after year after year, and the Missouri River now, I am 
told, is at the lowest level in living memory, or at least since it was 
impounded into the Missouri River Dam, one of the characteristics of 
that kind of disaster is that it is as profound as a hurricane, but it 
is in slow motion. It does not turn buildings upside down, and it 
doesn't throw cars around. But what it does to the Earth and the lives 
of these producers is catastrophic.
  I am especially pleased with the recently adopted drought provision 
to the American Jobs Creation Act. With my support, the Senate adopted 
legislation authored by Senator Daschle that would provide increased 
flexibility for livestock producers to rebuild their herd after 
drought. The legislation extends the amount of time from two to four 
years that producers have to reinvest an amount equivalent to the sale 
of cattle into their farm through the purchase of machinery or 
equipment with no tax owed whatsoever. Unfortunately, the American Jobs 
Creation Act has failed to emerge from conference so that it can be 
voted on by this body. I am hopeful that we will see this bill emerge 
from conference soon, and that this exceptionally beneficial provision 
will be included.
  The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released $1.9 
million in unused Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) funding for 
stopgap water hauling measures, and authorized emergency grazing on 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres in limited counties across the 
country. In South Dakota, only parts of a few counties have qualified 
for emergency grazing. These measures fail to provide any substantive 
relief for our agriculture producers during an exceedingly challenging 
time. I am also concerned for the Agriculture Secretary's recent 
decision regarding emergency nonfat dry milk assistance. Although nine 
states and 95 counties were included in this program, South Dakota was 
excluded from this assistance.

  In 2002 and 2003, Senator Daschle and I pushed for a $6 billion 
drought relief plan that would have helped many farmers and ranchers 
make it through this multi-year drought. President Bush and others in 
the Senate opposed our proposal and in the end, would only allow a $3 
billion package to pass. While it has taken an enormous amount of time 
and effort to secure bipartisan support for relief in such a harsh 
budgetary year, I am pleased to see that Senators from both sides of 
the aisle recognize the importance of ensuring that victims of 
agriculture disaster are deserving of a comprehensive assistance 
package. I am pleased to support this amendment and am hopeful for the 
impact on South Dakota agriculture.
  I have walked across fields of South Dakota that frankly look like a 
moonscape, where there is nothing growing. It is simply dirt. Stock 
dams where there is either no water, or the water is of such poor 
quality, it is so murky that it would be a mistake to allow cattle even 
near the water. In fact, there are stories of pulling cattle out with a 
tractor because they get mired in the mud. It would seem to me that 
this disaster, although different in nature than the others, is equally 
as profound, equally as damaging, and has an equally long-term negative 
consequence on those who are victimized as any other disaster that may 
be striking America today.
  Does my colleague see it in that perspective?
  Mr. DORGAN. Senator Johnson has described well the circumstance in a 
number of areas.
  I have seen big, strong family farmers and ranchers with tears in 
their eyes describing circumstances where they approached this year 
with some hope and then discovered that almost everything they intended 
to do was gone. The grain they planted was washed away, or the field 
they intended to plant was inundated with water and they couldn't plant 
it, or in the Southwest they planted seeds and they never grew because 
they got no moisture. It is a devastating circumstance.
  The network of farmers around this country who live on the land, 
under that yard light all by themselves, they live on hope. They risk 
everything in the spring to put a seed in the ground. They live on hope 
that somehow it will grow, that somehow they won't get too much rain 
but they will get enough rain, that they won't have crop disease, that 
all of these things will happen, and they will be able to harvest and 
maybe somehow there will be a good price when they harvest.
  But it has been devastating when they can't plant a seed that will 
grow because there is no moisture, or when they can't plant a seed at 
all because the water has inundated their land. They set their jaw and 
they act like, well, they will get through this. But many of them have 
told me that they won't get through this. You can't live without 
income, especially with the cost of doing business on family farms 
these days.
  That is why at this time, in this circumstance, my colleagues who 
have joined in offering this amendment are simply saying let's say to 
these folks as well you are not alone. They have had a tough time. 
This, too, is a weather-related disaster. Let's recognize it and deal 
with it in an appropriate way. That is what this legislation does.

[[Page S9192]]

  We have done this before. It is time now, and there is a need to do 
it again--to say to family farmers and ranchers in this country: You 
matter; we care whether you exist out there. You are part of the 
culture of this country in which family values exist, nurturing, 
refreshing families' values from small towns to big cities.
  That is part of the important culture of this country. When they are 
in trouble, this country is in trouble. I hope we will agree to advance 
this amendment as we will advance all the help necessary for the 
hurricane victims.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will make a few comments concerning the 
Baucus amendment requesting $2.65 billion of drought assistance. I have 
two or three comments. One, it doesn't belong on this bill. This is the 
Homeland Security bill. This is not an agriculture bill, not even an 
urgent supplemental bill.
  Senator Reid, the assistant minority leader, has stated repeatedly 
let's do the supplemental separately from Homeland Security. I happen 
to think he is right. One could debate it, but he stated repeatedly and 
recommended strongly to the Senate to have a separate bill on the 
President's request.
  The President requested yesterday $3.1 billion for hurricane relief. 
He requested it yesterday. That doesn't mean it has to be done on the 
Homeland Security bill. Senator Reid thought it should not be on this 
bill. We don't even have that amendment. The President didn't request 
drought assistance. I looked back over the history of drought 
assistance and I see a lot of requests. In 2002, we had $600 million, I 
guess, in drought assistance. In 2003, it was $3.6 billion.
  But I might say it was offset by reductions in other programs in the 
Agriculture Committee. How can we pay for this request, because we 
don't have the Agriculture bill up to have offsets? This bill is not 
offset. This is just to add $2 billion or $3 billion of additional 
money. I would like to have it be paid for. I might support it if it is 
paid for. I might not. I want to see how it is paid for. I know in this 
case it is not paid for. It would add to the deficit. I am not willing 
to do that. So a budget point of order will lie against the amendment, 
and this Senator plans on making one.

  I don't think this is the way we should do business. I think we 
should follow the regular order, to the extent we can. We should be 
talking about an appropriations bill and maybe consider the President's 
request. If Congress wishes to change it or alter it, I guess we have 
the right to do so. But to try to double it, when we just got the 
President's request, and not even consider an offset, not even look at 
an offset, I think is a serious mistake.
  I don't know if this is more about helping farmers or politicians. If 
you want to help farmers, I think we can find a couple billion dollars 
in offsets. We did last year. Why can we not find an offset to pay for 
it this year?
  I make those comments. Senator Reid urged us time and again to do the 
urgent supplemental separate from Homeland Security. We just received 
the President's request, which was $3.1 billion, and it didn't include 
this. To pass an urgent emergency supplemental takes 60 votes, and it 
is this Senator's intention to hopefully join with Senator Cochran and 
Senator Stevens in objecting to the emergency designation and making 
the budget point of order on this amendment, and passing Homeland 
Security.
  Let's finish the job we have at hand. We have a real problem. Senator 
Cochran has done an outstanding job in managing the bill. He has 
already defeated amendments that totaled over $19 billion--not 
including the amendments this afternoon--for 2004, and $256 billion I 
think over a 10-year period of time, using budget points of order. A 
budget point of order lies against this amendment as well.
  So I compliment Senator Cochran for his leadership and urge our 
colleagues who are pushing this amendment to postpone it, hold it back 
another day, or find offsets to help pay for it. That is what we did 
last year. It had strong support last year after it was paid for.
  If memory serves me correctly--and I am stretching it--early last 
year we considered this and, initially, people tried to pass it without 
offsets. Objections were raised and eventually some offsets were found. 
That was done in the early part of last year. That was done in February 
of 2003. I don't think we should just be adding another $2.5 billion to 
our debt and deficit in this manner. So I urge our colleagues, at the 
appropriate time, to support a budget point of order against this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the amount just referred to as 
an urgent supplemental requested by the President of $3 billion is the 
money that is requested by the President for Florida's two hurricanes 
that just hit us. It does not include any amount for agricultural 
losses. The $3.1 billion includes Department of Defense losses, NASA 
losses, Small Business Administration losses. FEMA itself is $2 billion 
of that, with all of these ongoing expenses of the back-to-back 
hurricanes.
  What is missing from the President's request is the agricultural 
losses, which are substantial, from these two hurricanes. For example, 
the citrus crop alone is over $\1/2\ billion in losses. The nursery 
industry, which is a huge industry in Florida, has losses of $\1/2\ 
billion.
  Now, the question is, How do we address this? I was expecting that 
the President was going to include the agricultural losses in his 
request. He has not. So how do we address this, since the needs are 
obviously there?
  Presently, there are discussions going on between my office and the 
sponsors of this amendment. There is a little bit in this amendment for 
Florida agricultural losses from the two hurricanes, but it is 
somewhere in the range of $150 million to $300 million. That is a drop 
in the bucket compared to what the elected Florida agriculture 
commissioner has totaled up the losses at, which is $2 billion.
  It is my hope that we are going to be able on this amendment--if we 
proceed with this amendment, I will certainly support it because, as 
all of these Senators from the Midwest, both Republican and Democrat, 
say, disaster doesn't know anything about partisan politics. Disaster 
knows something about hitting people where it hurts them, and that is 
one of the reasons you have the Federal Government to protect people 
and to respond in times of disaster.
  So I am going to help these Senators with their amendment. What I am 
hoping is that through our discussions we can expand this so it can be 
acceptable and address the needs of Florida agriculture after these 
back-to-back hurricanes. If those discussions are not fruitful, then it 
is my intention that I will offer an amendment to this bill for the 
disaster to Florida agriculture. That will be somewhere in the range of 
about a billion dollars in losses, which will not even get anywhere 
close to the estimated $2 billion, but it will be a step in the right 
direction.
  Now, this is, as you know, ``no fooling'' time.
  We have just been hit by two hurricanes. There is a third on the way. 
And until 2 days ago, that third one was headed for Florida. As a 
matter of fact, until a day ago, that third one was headed for Florida, 
and that centerline now on the projected path is shifting to the West, 
and that centerline is headed straight for the State of the Senator 
from Mississippi.
  We know there is an error because in hurricane path projection, it 
can either go to the right or to the left. In the projected path, it 
can go all the way over into the panhandle of Florida, or it can go all 
the way to the left, as far as New Orleans. It is about a day out. It 
is churning in the Gulf of Mexico, moving in a northward direction.
  What I am saying is if it continues on its present path to 
Mississippi or to Alabama or to Louisiana, there are going to be other 
Senators who are going to be in here trying to help their people. This 
Senator is going to help them when that happens because that is the 
right thing to do. Now it is the right thing to do to help the people 
of Florida.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I do not know if there are other Senators 
who wish to continue to debate. If there are, this would be a good time 
to do it.

[[Page S9193]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very briefly, I heard two arguments from 
one Senator as to why this pending amendment, agricultural disaster 
assistance, should not pass. It is a very technical argument that it 
violates the Budget Act.
  I remind my colleagues, the unanimous consent agreement that applies 
to this bill, to this amendment basically says first-degree amendments 
are in order: First-degree amendments are in order, that they be 
related to the text of the bill, homeland security, and also natural 
disasters.
  This is a natural disaster amendment. It clearly is contemplated by 
the unanimous consent agreement. The argument was made: Not on this 
bill. That is clearly not an argument because the unanimous consent 
agreement clearly contemplates amendments that relate to natural 
disasters. So that argument is gone. That is wrong.
  The second argument was made: Gee, the cost violates the Budget Act. 
A very simple point I make is if one wants to press that argument, it 
also applies to disaster assistance for the State of Florida.
  Agricultural disaster assistance is the same as Florida hurricane 
disaster assistance under the Budget Act. They are the same. They are 
technically the same. There can be a point of order made against both. 
Sixty votes are required. I do not know whether the other side is going 
to make a point of order against the Florida hurricane disaster 
assistance. I frankly doubt it. I think it would be very unwise. The 
very same law, the Budget Act, applies to the pending amendment, which 
is the amendment providing for agricultural disaster assistance.
  I say to my colleagues, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
gander. We are Americans, and let's work together as Americans. Let's 
help people who need help, and those are our farmers, ranchers, and 
Floridians because of the hurricanes--all of us. I see no reason why a 
point of order should be made. And, second, if it is made, I see no 
reason why the point of order should be sustained. We are talking again 
about natural disasters that apply--this amendment does not apply to 
Florida, but it is tied with it because we are going to have that in 
the next several days. They are all the same. We are all in the same 
boat.

  I very much hope this does not become a partisan political measure. I 
do not think it is. I remind my colleagues of the bipartisan support of 
this amendment. Senator Brownback of Kansas is a cosponsor. Senator 
Burns, my colleague from Montana, is a cosponsor of this amendment. 
Senator Coleman from Minnesota told me an hour ago he wants to be a 
cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Roberts of Kansas is a cosponsor 
of this amendment. Senator Hagel of Nebraska is also a cosponsor of 
this amendment. I hope Senators can all work together. Let's help each 
other. Let us help people in various parts of our country, not only in 
Florida, but in other parts of America who are hurt very much by 
agricultural disasters.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I do not know what the chairman has 
in mind, but I hope whatever it is we can move rather quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I know some Senators who are interested in this issue 
are in discussions off the Senate floor, and pending completion of 
those, 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. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in favor of the 
Baucus amendment because of the situation in my home State. Parts of my 
State have had the worst drought in a century. It is being compared by 
some veteran farmers to what they witnessed in the Dust Bowl era--crops 
withering and dying in the fields before the farmers' eyes without any 
ability to address it.
  I grew up on a farm. My family still farms. I was secretary of 
agriculture in Kansas. I have seen these situations.
  The one point I want to add--I think people pretty well understand 
these issues--what I want to address is that in some disaster relief--
and we seem to be in a cycle because we have disasters hitting every 
year, but it is a compassionate society that tries to help those in the 
worst situation. But more than that, they do not win if they get hit by 
a disaster and then we do disaster drought assistance. I have not seen 
people come out ahead.
  What we try to do is get them back toward zero so they do not lose 
too much money, so they can continue to farm and continue to operate 
their ranch and work their crops. That is what we are trying to do, to 
help people sustain themselves and not have to go out of business 
altogether. They are not hitting the jackpot when we pass these types 
of bills. They are simply trying to sustain themselves in their 
operations--a commodity-based business. Margins are thin, and it is 
difficult to make it. So we try to help them.
  Crop insurance is helpful, it is important, but despite its critical 
value to farmers, it cannot mitigate effects of prolonged drought and 
its impact in the area. And the weather condition has been building for 
several years. Fortunately, in areas of my State this has broken. Not 
all areas.
  I was at the State fair this past weekend and people continue to cite 
the problem they are having with the drought and this continuing cycle 
of lack of rainfall.
  I support the Baucus amendment. I appreciate him raising it.
  It is difficult because we are in a budget situation where we all 
want to get this budget more under control. Yet I do not think that is 
the place to do it in a situation where we have people suffering 
because of natural disasters or natural causes. So I am pleased that 
the amendment has been brought up. I am a cosponsor and am pleased to 
support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the efforts of the 
Senator from Montana to make certain our farm families do not lose, as 
the Senator from Kansas said, because of the droughts that have 
periodically struck the Midwest. Missouri has suffered as well. I am 
very interested in this issue being worked out in a way that is 
satisfactory.
  I do want to take a minute, though, on a different subject to thank 
the ranking member and the chairman for what I understand is an 
agreement on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution I have offered in the 
form of an amendment, and I think it is going to be added later on a 
voice vote. I believe it has been cleared on both sides. I wanted to 
make the Senate aware of the importance of this subject.
  We had a situation in St. Louis last year where our local Jewish 
community was hosting the Maccabee Games. It is an international event 
where Jewish youths come and participate in effect in Olympic games. 
Obviously, it is an event with special security risks in today's day 
and age. Locally, we needed several hundred thousand dollars in extra 
funds for security.
  The State had the Federal homeland defense money but not in the right 
account, and despite all of our efforts on a Federal, State, and local 
level, we were unable to free up dollars to provide for the necessary 
security. It ended up being okay, but it did not have to end up okay. 
As a result of that, I have become very interested in allowing at least 
some discretion on the part of the Secretary and the Director of the 
Office for State and Local Government Coordination to approve waiver 
applications on the part of the State to reprogram some of their 
Federal grant homeland money when some new kind of security issue 
arises that was unforeseen when they originally applied for those 
grants.

  So the sense-of-the-Senate resolution in effect says that we ought to 
be able to do that. It is a first step toward what I hope will be a 
successful change in the law by allowing this kind of discretion in 
these kinds of cases.
  I ask Senators to think about the situation because it could come up 
in anybody's State where an unforeseen new security risk arises and 
their local authorities have to spend substantial dollars in order to 
be able to deal with it. That is exactly what we have this

[[Page S9194]]

homeland defense money for. Under certain circumstances, they will be 
unable to access it without some kind of discretionary waiver authority 
being allowed the department. I hope we can follow up on this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution with an appropriate change in the underlying 
authorization.
  Again, I appreciate the help of the Senator from Mississippi and the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia in getting this amendment 
cleared.
  I yield the floor and 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. 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 am pleased to advise the Senate that we 
have been able to reach agreement to recommend approval of several 
amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I am 
prepared to propound a unanimous consent request.


 Amendments Nos. 3589, 3603, 3611, 3633, 3634, 3635, 3638, 3640, 3642, 
                           and 3645, en bloc

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc 
consideration of the following amendments: No. 3589 proposed by Mr. 
Allard; No. 3611 proposed by Ms. Mikulski; No. 3634 proposed by Mrs. 
Boxer; No. 3603 proposed by Ms. Landrieu; No. 3640 proposed by Mrs. 
Boxer; No. 3642 proposed by Mrs. Boxer; No. 3633 proposed by Mr. Reed 
of Rhode Island; No. 3638 proposed by Mr. Hatch; No. 3635 proposed by 
Mr. Feingold; and No. 3645 proposed by Mrs. Dole.
  I understand these amendments are cleared on both sides of the aisle, 
and I urge that they be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the amendments en bloc.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3589

  (Purpose: To provide for a report on common geospatial awareness of 
                        critical infrastructure)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. (a) Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives on the implementation of Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive Seven.
       (b) The report under this section shall include--
       (1) the Department's plan and associated timeline for the 
     mapping of the United States critical infrastructure;
       (2) an assessment of the resource requirements of relevant 
     States, counties, and local governments so that full 
     participation by those entities may be integrated into the 
     plan;
       (3) the Department's plan for oversight of all geospatial 
     information systems management, procurement, and 
     interoperability; and
       (4) the timeline for creating the Department-wide 
     Geospatial Information System capability under the direction 
     of the Chief Information Officer.


                           amendment no. 3603

    (Purpose: To require a GAO report on employment discrimination 
complaints relating to employment in airport screener positions in the 
                Transportation Security Administration)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. (a) Congress finds that (1) there is 
     disproportionate number of complaints against the 
     Transportation Security Administration for alleged violations 
     of equal employment opportunity and veterans' preference laws 
     as those laws apply to employment of personnel in airport 
     screener positions in the Transportation Security 
     Administration, and (2) there is a significant backlog of 
     those complaints remaining unresolved.
       (b)(1) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the personnel policies of the 
     Department of Homeland Security that apply to the employment 
     of airport screeners in the Transportation Security 
     Administration, particularly with regard to compliance with 
     equal employment opportunity and veterans' preference laws.
       (2) The report under this subscription shall include an 
     assessment of the extent of compliance of the Transportation 
     Security Administration with equal employment opportunity and 
     veterans' preference laws as those laws apply to employment 
     of personnel in airport screener positions in the 
     Transportation Security Administration, a discussion of any 
     systemic problems that could have caused the circumstances 
     giving rise to the disproportionate number of complaints 
     described in subsection (a), and the efforts of the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security and the Under Secretary for Border and 
     Transportation Security to eliminate the backlog of 
     unresolved complaints and to correct any systemic problems 
     identified in the report.
       (3) In conducting the review necessary for preparing the 
     report, the Comptroller General shall examine the experience 
     regarding the airport screener positions at particular 
     airports in various regions, including the Louis Armstrong 
     New Orleans International Airport.


                           amendment no. 3611

   (Purpose: To ensure the fiscal year 2004 overtime cap applies to 
                   certain Customs Service employees)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     fiscal year 2004 aggregate overtime limitation prescribed in 
     subsection 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
     261 and 267) shall be $30,000 and the total amount 
     appropriated by title II under the heading ``Customs and 
     Border Protection Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby reduced 
     by $1,000,000.


                           amendment no. 3633

(Purpose: To require a report on processes for issuing required permits 
              for proposed liquefied gas marine terminals)

       On page 14, line 19, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives, a report on opportunities for integrating 
     the process by which the Coast Guard issues letters of 
     recommendation for proposed liquefied natural gas marine 
     terminals, including the elements of such process relating to 
     vessel transit, facility security assessment and facility 
     security plans under the Maritime Transportation Security 
     Act, and the process by which the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission issues permits for such terminals under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act: Provided further, That the 
     report shall include an examination of the advisability of 
     requiring that activities of the Coast Guard relating to 
     vessel transit, facility security assessment and facility 
     security plans under the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
     be completed for a proposed liquefied natural gas marine 
     terminal before a final environmental impact statement for 
     such terminal is published under the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission process.''.


                           amendment no. 3634

   (Purpose: To require reports on the Federal Air Marshals program)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 515. Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Subcommittee 
     on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate, a classified report on the number of individuals 
     serving as Federal Air Marshals. Such report shall include 
     the number of Federal Air Marshals who are women, minorities, 
     or employees of departments or agencies of the United States 
     Government other than the Department of Homeland Security, 
     the percentage of domestic and international flights that 
     have a Federal Air Marshal aboard, and the rate at which 
     individuals are leaving service as Federal Air Marshals.


                           amendment no. 3635

         (Purpose: To provide a data-mining report to Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DATA-MINING REPORT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Data-mining.--The term ``data-mining'' means a query or 
     search or other analysis of 1 or more electronic databases, 
     where--
       (A) at least 1 of the databases was obtained from or 
     remains under the control of a non-Federal entity, or the 
     information was acquired initially by another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government;
       (B) the search does not use a specific individual's 
     personal identifiers to acquire information concerning that 
     individual; and
       (C) a department or agency of the Federal Government or a 
     non-Federal entity acting on behalf of the Federal Government 
     is conducting the query or search or other analysis to find a 
     pattern indicating terrorist, criminal, or other law 
     enforcement related activity.

[[Page S9195]]

       (2) Database.--The term ``database'' does not include 
     telephone directories, information publicly available via the 
     Internet or available by any other means to any member of the 
     public without payment of a fee, or databases of judicial and 
     administrative opinions.
       (b) Reports on Data-Mining Activities.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--The head of each agency in the 
     Department of Homeland Security or the privacy officer, if 
     applicable, that is engaged in any activity to use or develop 
     data-mining technology shall each submit a public report to 
     Congress on all such activities of the agency under the 
     jurisdiction of that official.
       (2) Content of report.--A report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include, for each activity to use or develop data-
     mining technology that is required to be covered by the 
     report, the following information:
       (A) A thorough description of the data-mining technology, 
     the plans for the use of such technology, the data that will 
     be used, and the target dates for the deployment of the data-
     mining technology.
       (B) An assessment of the likely impact of the 
     implementation of the data-mining technology on privacy and 
     civil liberties.
       (C) A thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, and 
     guidelines that are to be developed and applied in the use of 
     such technology for data-mining in order to--
       (i) protect the privacy and due process rights of 
     individuals; and
       (ii) ensure that only accurate information is collected and 
     used.
       (D) Any necessary classified information in an annex that 
     shall be available to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
     the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Time for report.--Each report required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the end 
     of fiscal year 2005.


                           amendment no. 3638

(Purpose: To retain the uniqueness of the United States Secret Service 
              within the Department of Homeland Security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds available in this Act shall be 
     available to maintain the United States Secret Service as 
     anything but a distinct entity within the Department of 
     Homeland Security and shall not be used to merge the United 
     States Secret Service with any other department function, 
     cause any personnel and operational elements of the United 
     States Secret Service to report to an individual other than 
     the Director of the United States Secret Service, or cause 
     the Director to report directly to any individual other than 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security.


                           amendment no. 3640

     (Purpose: To protect the security of the Federal Air Marshals)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 5__. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act shall be used to pursue, implement, or enforce 
     any law, procedure, guideline, rule, regulation, or other 
     policy that exposes the identity of an air marshal to any 
     party not designated by the Secretary of the Department of 
     Homeland Security.


                           amendment no. 3642

 (Purpose: To require a report on protecting commercial aircraft from 
            the threat of man-portable air defense systems)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 515. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     coordination with the head of the Transportation Security 
     Administration and the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology, shall prepare a report on protecting commercial 
     aircraft from the threat of man-portable air defense systems 
     (referred to in this section as ``MANPADS'').
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall include the 
     following:
       (1) An estimate of the number of organizations, including 
     terrorist organizations, that have access to MANPADS and a 
     description of the risk posed by each organization.
       (2) A description of the programs carried out by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to protect commercial aircraft 
     from the threat posed by MANPADS.
       (3) An assessment of the effectiveness and feasibility of 
     the systems to protect commercial aircraft under 
     consideration by the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology for use in phase II of the counter-MANPADS 
     development and demonstration program.
       (4) A justification for the schedule of the implementation 
     of phase II of the counter-MANPADS development and 
     demonstration program.
       (5) An assessment of the effectiveness of other technology 
     that could be employed on commercial aircraft to address the 
     threat posed by MANPADS, including such technology that is--
       (A) either active or passive;
       (B) employed by the Armed Forces; or
       (C) being assessed or employed by other countries.
       (6) An assessment of alternate technological approaches to 
     address such threat, including ground-based systems.
       (7) A discussion of issues related to any contractor 
     liability associated with the installation or use of 
     technology or systems on commercial aircraft to address such 
     threat.
       (8) A description of the strategies that the Secretary may 
     employ to acquire any technology or systems selected for use 
     on commercial aircraft at the conclusion of phase II of the 
     counter-MANPADS development and demonstration program, 
     including--
       (A) a schedule for purchasing and installing such 
     technology or systems on commercial aircraft; and
       (B) a description of--
       (i) the priority in which commercial aircraft will be 
     equipped with such technology or systems;
       (ii) any efforts to coordinate the schedules for installing 
     such technology or system with private airlines;
       (iii) any efforts to ensure that aircraft manufacturers 
     integrate such technology or systems into new aircraft; and
       (iv) the cost to operate and support such technology or 
     systems on a commercial aircraft.
       (9) A description of the plan to expedite the use of 
     technology or systems on commercial aircraft to address the 
     threat posed by MANPADS if intelligence or events indicate 
     that the schedule for the use of such technology or systems, 
     including the schedule for carrying out development and 
     demonstration programs by the Secretary, should be expedited.
       (10) A description of the efforts of the Secretary to 
     survey and identify the areas at domestic and foreign 
     airports where commercial aircraft are most vulnerable to 
     attack by MANPADS.
       (11) A description of the cooperation between the Secretary 
     and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     to certify the airworthiness and safety of technology and 
     systems to protect commercial aircraft from the risk posed by 
     MANPADS in an expeditious manner.
       (c) The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     transmitted to Congress along with the budget for fiscal year 
     2006 submitted by the President pursuant to section 1105(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code.


                           amendment no. 3645

 (Purpose: To provide that funds appropriated to the Bureau of Customs 
  and Border Protection be used to enforce the provisions relating to 
textile transshipments provided for in the Customs Border Security Act 
                    of 2002, and for other purposes)

       On page 6, line 2, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided, not less 
     than $4,750,000 may be for the enforcement of the textile 
     transshipment provisions provided for in chapter 5 of title 
     III of the Customs Border Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-210; 116 Stat. 988 et seq.).''.
       On page 8, line 18, strike the period and insert ``: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided for, not 
     less than $4,750,000 shall be for the enforcement of the 
     textile transshipment provisions provided for in chapter 5 of 
     title III of the Customs Border Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-210; 116 Stat. 988 et seq.).''.


                           Amendment No. 3638

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of an amendment 
that I offer together with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. 
Senator Leahy serves as ranking democrat member of the Judiciary 
Committee, which I chair.
  The purpose of the Hatch-Leahy amendment is to help ensure that the 
United States Secret Service continues to carry out its most critical 
functions, including the protection of the President of the United 
States. The Secret Service has a distinguished history over a 139 year 
period of protecting the President and protecting the financial 
institutions of this country.
  This amendment clarifies that the Secret Service shall be maintained 
as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security, 
forbidding it from being merged with any other subunit within the 
Department. And, it makes clear that Secret Service personnel report 
directly to the Director of the Secret Service who, in turn, reports 
directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  It is important that the Secretary not re-delegate any of his or her 
authority to other DHS officials or entities nor to unduly interfere 
with the unique historical relationship that exists between the 
President and White House and the Secret Service. That is the intent of 
the Hatch-Leahy Amendment.
  This is a codification of what was originally intended when we 
created the Department of Homeland Security and ensures that the Secret 
Service operates within the Department of Homeland Security just as it 
did prior to September 11 within the Department of Treasury.
  Given its proven track record of performance and independence, we 
must

[[Page S9196]]

guard against this relatively small but critical agency from being lost 
in or swallowed up by the myriad of programs and entities within the 
new Department of Homeland Security. Any attempt by DHS managers, 
however well-intentioned, to interpose themselves in the decision 
making processes, resource allocations, and field operations of the 
Secret Service should be avoided.
  Simply stated, there is much wisdom in the old saying that ``if it 
ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The Secret Service has operated well in 
the past and operates well today. The Hatch-Leahy Amendment will help 
provide the autonomy and responsibility that will help keep the Secret 
Service operating well in the future.
  We made a similar clarification with the Coast Guard and should do 
the same for the Secret Service. I believe that this clarification of 
intent, and delineation of reporting requirements, will ensure that the 
mission of the Secret Service remains clear, definite, and unimpeded.
  Senator Leahy and I urge all of our colleagues to support this 
important amendment which I understand is supported by the 
administration.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have worked closely with the United 
States Secret Service for many years. Their tradition of excellence and 
the quality of their protective services and investigations is well 
known. I know that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, William Pickle, 
proudly served with them for many years.
  As the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, with 
jurisdiction regarding United States Secret Service matters, Senator 
Hatch and I have introduced an amendment to ensure that the Service 
remains a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security. 
It is important that the Secret Service continue, as they did under the 
Department of the Treasury, to function as a cohesive unit and not have 
its functions divided. It is also important that the Secret Service, as 
they did under the Department of the Treasury, not be merged with other 
agencies which would dilute the Service's ability to achieve their 
crucial mission. It is also important to preserve their current chain 
of command structure.
  Our amendment requires that the United States Secret Service be 
maintained as a ``distinct entity within the Department of Homeland 
Security'' and that the Secret Service not be merged with any other 
Department function. Further, our amendment requires that all personnel 
and operational elements of the Service report at all times to ``the 
Director of the United States Secret Service'' who shall report 
directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security without having to report 
through other officials.
  The United States Secret Service is doing an outstanding job in tough 
times and this amendment will assure that they keep fully devoted to 
their critical missions in the same excellent manner as they have done 
in the past.
  I hope all Members will join us in including this important amendment 
in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3649

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3649.

  Mr. BYRD. 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 fulfill Homeland Security promises)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


                           aviation security

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration relating to aviation 
     security services pursuant to the amendments made by the 
     Aviation and Transportation Security Act (115 Stat. 597), 
     $70,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     activities relating to screening passengers and carry-on 
     baggage for explosives.

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD


                           operating expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses,'' 
     $20,000,000, for non-homeland security missions (as defined 
     in section 888(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 468(a))).


              acquisition, construction, and improvements

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements,'' $80,000,000, 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,'' 
     $225,000,000: Provided, That of the amounts made available 
     under this heading, $100,000,000 shall be available for 
     discretionary grants for use in high-threat, high-density 
     urban areas as determined by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and $125,000,000 shall be for port security grants.


                     mass transit and rail security

       For necessary expenses relating to mass transit, freight 
     and passenger rail security grants, including security grants 
     for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 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, $75,000,000.

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON ACQUISITION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR 
                   STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       (a) Funding Prohibition.--None of the funds made available 
     by this Act or any other Act may be used during fiscal year 
     2005 to acquire petroleum products for storage in the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       (b) Amounts of Oil Currently Under Contract for Delivery.--
     The Secretary of the Interior shall sell, in fiscal year 
     2005, any petroleum products under contract, as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, for delivery to the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve in that fiscal year.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has before it a $32 billion 
homeland security appropriations bill. Chairman Cochran has put 
together a fair and balanced bill. Regrettably, the allocation that is 
available for homeland security programs is simply inadequate. This is 
not a criticism of Chairman Cochran, nor is it a criticism of full 
committee Chairman Ted Stevens. The fact is that the overall levels in 
the allocation constrain our ability to address known threats to the 
safety of the American people.
  In response to the threats so often invoked by the President, the 
Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the FBI 
Director, one might anticipate that the President would not be 
satisfied with a bill that cuts funds for first responders, that leaves 
first responders unable to communicate, that leaves airline passengers 
worrying about whether a fellow passenger has brought explosives on 
board, or that fails to adequately invest in securing our ports and 
trains.
  To address these shortcomings, I offered an amendment last week to 
add $2 billion to the bill. The amendment would have funded 
authorizations signed by the President; it would have funded 9/11 
Commission recommendations; and it would have addressed known 
vulnerabilities not funded in the committee bill.
  The amendment was defeated. The principal argument made against the 
amendment was that it was not paid for. So today, I offer an amendment 
that provides $470 million for homeland security, and it is fully paid 
for.

[[Page S9197]]

  Last March, during debate on the budget resolution, an amendment was 
adopted with support on both sides of the aisle. The amendment would 
have set up a reserve for homeland security programs. The reserve was 
paid for by directing the Secretary of the Interior to cancel planned 
deliveries of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to instead 
sell the oil on the open market in order to finance homeland security 
programs.
  As a provision on a budget resolution, that amendment did not have 
the force of law. Today, I offer an amendment that will make America 
safer.
  The amendment adds funds for first responders that, consistent with 
the 
9/11 Commission recommendation, will be allocated based on threat; for 
securing mass transit systems; for expediting the modernization of 
Coast Guard ships, planes and helicopters and improving Coast Guard 
operations; for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and 
carry-on baggage for explosives; and for port security.

  The amendment addresses vulnerabilities that we all know exist. And, 
let there be no doubt, if we know that these gaps exist, so do the 
terrorists.
  The amendment includes $125 million for port security grants, 
bringing the total in the bill to $275 million, the same level assumed 
in the budget resolution. A 1-month closure of a major port would cost 
our national economy $60 billion. But because of the tremendous volume 
of containerized cargo, Customs officials are inspecting only 5 percent 
of the 9 million containers that come into our ports on vessels each 
year. With Chairman Cochran's support, we have provided additional 
resources on the floor for Customs and Border Protection inspectors. 
But, we must do more for securing the ports.
  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. It has been 2 years 
since the law was signed. If this amendment is adopted and becomes law, 
Congress will have approved only $770 million for port security, far 
less than the $1.125 billion Coast Guard estimate for the first year of 
implementation.
  It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called 
``shoe bomber,'' tried to blow up a Miami-bound aircraft over the 
Atlantic Ocean with explosives he carried onto the aircraft. 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.
  The additional $70 million in this amendment will significantly 
expand the effort to screen air travelers for explosives. We know that 
newly developed passenger portals can detect whether passengers are 
carrying explosives. These systems have been tested and proven to work. 
We need the money to physically deploy these systems at our Nation's 
airports.
  Following the March 11 Madrid railroad bombings, the administration 
issued security bulletins to law enforcement officials and transit 
authorities warning of the danger of similar attacks here at home. But 
they requested no funding to help our mass transit agencies hire more 
guards, train new canine teams, or install additional cameras. Paper 
directives and press releases will not stop terrorist bombs.

  With Chairman Cochran's support, we have provided $278 million for 
mass transit security grants. But that level does not come close to the 
level authorized by the Senate Banking Committee, on a bipartisan 
basis, on May 6, 2004. The committee authorizes $5.2 billion for 
transit security. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also 
on bipartisan basis, approved S. 2273, which authorizes $1.2 billion 
for additional rail security activities. My amendment would add $75 
million for mass transit and Amtrak security.
  The 9/11 Commission recommends allocating first responder funds based 
on threat rather than on population. My amendment adds $100 million to 
the $875 million currently provided in the Senate bill for urban area 
security initiative grants. These grants are targeted to cities 
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 that have high population densities. We need to 
get funds to the places most at risk.
  My amendment also includes $100 million for the Coast Guard, 
including $80 million for the Deepwater Program and $20 million for 
traditional Coast Guard missions, such as search and rescue and 
protection of our marine resources. The committee bill funds these 
activities at levels $575 million below the levels just authorized by 
the Congress and the President.
  Prior to September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard began to modernize its 
fleet of assets. Since the attacks on 9/11, 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's 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 used to perform its missions--was 
up almost 40 percent from the 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 has not responded. My amendment will help 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, to accelerate 
the design of the fast response cutter for near shore missions, and to 
complete design of the offshore response cutter for the high endurance 
missions of the Coast Guard.
  The amendment is paid for by suspending the fill of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. This step makes economic sense. Using Federal 
dollars to buy high-priced oil for the reserve does not. Oil prices hit 
an all-time high on August 20, and oil is currently trading at about 
$44 per barrel. By filling the reserve in this high-priced environment, 
we are paying more for oil now than we would if we waited until prices 
went down. This makes no sense for U.S. taxpayers.
  Suspending the fill of the reserve in no way threatens our energy 
security. The reserve is already filled to 96 percent capacity, with 
669 million barrels now stored, the highest level that it has ever 
been. The reserve currently covers 67 days of import capacity.
  Buying oil when the market is so high makes no economic sense. It is 
a bad deal for the taxpayer. Failing to fund critical homeland security 
measures that the 9/11 Commission has recommended and that address 
clear vulnerabilities is also a bad deal for the taxpayer. This 
amendment is a good deal.
  I urge Members to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was going to respond to the Senator's 
comments and his amendment which would add funding to this bill in the 
amount of $470 million for the Department of Homeland Security.
  I don't know at what point we want to consider the fact that, because 
of the way it is drafted, the impact the amendment would have on future 
appropriations for fiscal year 2006 would actually, according to the 
Budget Committee staff and chairman, violate the Budget Act and that a 
point of order would lie against this amendment.
  Reluctantly and with great respect for my friend from West Virginia, 
I am constrained to make that point of order. Rather than going through 
all the talking points that my staff has prepared on the subject of the 
individual amounts to be added by the amendment and the offsets that 
are identified, which is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I am 
constrained to make a point of order.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would withhold making the point of

[[Page S9198]]

order for a few minutes so I have an opportunity to speak in support.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to reserve that right and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi yields the floor.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I greatly appreciate my old friend from Mississippi 
yielding.
  We are in an energy crisis. I will speak about that part of the Byrd 
amendment particularly, which would use the money from not continuing 
to fill the 96-percent filled Strategic Petroleum Reserve and taking 
the money that would then be made available and using it for some 
critical homeland security needs.
  I congratulate the Senator from West Virginia for both identifying 
some very significant needs in the homeland security area, as well as 
paying for it in a very rational way; that is, to suspend further 
deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The energy crisis is obvious. We are paying a record amount per 
barrel for oil. The addition of these millions of barrels to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve is significantly adding to the cost of oil 
and is weakening our economy.
  Last week, Alan Greenspan stated:

       [E]conomic activity hit a soft patch in late spring. . . . 
     That softness in activity no doubt is related, in large 
     measure, to this year's steep increase in energy prices.

  Chairman Greenspan further stated:

       Most macroeconomic models treat an increase in oil prices 
     as a tax on U.S. residents that saps the purchasing power of 
     households and raises costs for businesses.

  Yet in the face of this crisis, the administration is decreasing 
rather than increasing the supply of oil. Day after day, month after 
month, regardless of how much American consumers and industry need oil, 
regardless of how high the cost is of this oil, the administration has 
been taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and depositing 
them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And by doing that, the 
administration is increasing the price of oil and gasoline and 
decreasing our energy security.
  The use to which the $470 million that would be saved by using this 
oil in the commercial market rather than depositing it into a reserve--
which is already 96 percent filled--those uses provide a win-win 
situation for national security and energy security. For energy 
security, we would have this energy placed into the private sector, 
into commercial inventories, rather than into the Petroleum Reserve. 
For national security, the way in which the Senator from West Virginia 
would use these funds--for airline security, port security, mass 
transit and rail security, firefighter grants, State and homeland 
security grants--these are all very important needs and uses.
  Now, very quickly, supplies are tight. That is the reason crude oil 
prices are high. Demand is strong. Commercial inventories are low. 
Supplies are vulnerable. Supplies are tight because OPEC is producing 
barely enough oil to meet demand. Private sector inventories of crude 
oil are near the lows, historically, for this time of year. Of course, 
there is also great concern over the vulnerability of Iraqi oil 
supplies to terrorism--we see that again today--the problems in Russia 
with Yukos, the largest oil company in that country; and the turmoil in 
Nigeria and Venezuela, which have added a premium to prices.
  Over the last 2 years, private sector inventories have declined 
significantly. Last January, private sector inventories fell to their 
lowest levels since the mid-1970s. The SPR Program is a major reason 
for the decline in private inventories. From April 2002 through 
December 2003, the Department of Energy deposited about 78 million 
barrels of oil in SPR. During that same period, private sector 
inventories declined by about 61 million barrels. Thus, the total 
amount of oil in inventory in the United States in both private and 
public storage increased by only 17 million barrels over this entire 
period.
  The SPR Program is directly the reason for recent price increases to 
the extent of somewhere between 10 cents and 25 cents a gallon when 
looking at gasoline.
  Goldman Sachs, one of the largest and most successful crude oil 
traders in the world, reported, on January 16 of this year, that 
``large speculative positions, builds in strategic petroleum reserves, 
and low inventory coverage have contributed to current price levels.'' 
In this report, Goldman Sachs also stated that ``past government 
storage builds will provide persistent support for the market,'' and 
that ``current plans for the injection of 130 thousand [barrels a day] 
of royalty-in-kind barrels into the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
(SPR) between now and the end of September . . . will likely provide 
even further support.''
  Goldman Sachs estimated that the strategic reserve programs in the 
United States and Europe in 2003 and 2004 are adding about $4.25 to the 
price of each barrel of crude oil sold in the United States.
  Now, DOE's plans, regardless of the price of oil, are to continue to 
deposit oil into the Petroleum Reserve. Until late 2001, the policy of 
the Department of Energy was to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve when prices were low and to buy less oil when prices were high. 
That policy was explained by DOE officials, in late 2001, to energy 
officials in other countries, and the presentation was entitled: ``The 
Key To A Successful Strategic Reserve Is Cost Control.'' The DOE 
identifies the ``Lessons Learned to Control Oil Acquisition Costs'' as 
follows--this was the DOE, before they changed their policy in 2002--1, 
``let the markets determine your buying pattern;'' 2, ``buy in weak 
markets;'' 3, ``delay delivers during strong markets;'' and 4, ``use 
your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.''
  That was prior to early 2002. They have now reversed it. Instead of 
buying low and selling high, they are buying high and shorting supply. 
It makes absolutely no sense to do this. We are all paying more for the 
price of gasoline and heating oil and jet fuel as a result of this 
policy. We should stop continuing to deposit oil into the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, which is 96 percent filled. And when we do this in a 
tight supply, which is now the case, we are adding to gasoline prices 
alone somewhere between 10 and 25 cents per gallon.
  Indeed, ``buy low, sell high'' is just plain common sense. 
Unfortunately, in early 2002, the Department of Energy abandoned this 
commonsense approach. Instead, since early 2002, DOE has been buying 
oil for the SPR without regard to the price of oil. No matter how high 
the price of oil has been or will be, DOE has been and will be buying 
more and more oil for the SPR.
  Since over this period the price of oil has been very high--often 
over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight, this cost-
blind approach has increased the costs of the program to the taxpayer 
and put further pressure on tight oil markets, thereby helping boost 
oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses.
  It is a rip-off of the taxpayers to pay $45 a barrel for oil in 
today's market, when the same oil could be acquired for $10 to $15 a 
barrel less in a couple of years.
  We need oil in the private sector more than in the SPR. In the 
current tight market, there is a critical need to prevent minor 
shortages or disruptions from causing major price spikes. Increasing 
private inventories, not the SPR, is the best way to meet this need.
  Canceling the deposits into the SPR could lower gasoline prices by 10 
to 15 cents a gallon. Each $1 increase in the price of oil increases 
gasoline prices by about 2.5 cents. Depending on which estimates of the 
effect of the SPR fill is correct, postponing the upcoming SPR deposits 
therefore could lower gasoline prices by 10 to 25 cents.
  Postponing SPR deliveries will signal speculators that the U.S. 
Government is willing to take action to put a lid on increasing prices. 
The administration has repeatedly stated that it will keep on filling 
the SPR regardless of price. The market, therefore, correctly believes 
DOE will not stop SPR deliveries or release SPR oil no matter how high 
the price of oil. This has eliminated an important potential brake on 
speculation that prices will keep rising. In effect, the 
administration's statements have taken off any lid on prices. Stopping 
SPR deliveries will signal this is not the case, and could take 
speculative steam out of the market.
  In 2002, DOE SPR staff urged the postponement of deliveries in tight 
markets. In 2002, when the administration told DOE to change its policy 
and buy oil for the SPR regardless of the price, the DOE career staff 
attempted

[[Page S9199]]

to persuade the administration to retain the old policy of taking price 
into consideration.
  DOE staff wrote the new policy:

       [I]s a business model different from that followed by all 
     private market participants, and if followed by a significant 
     number of market participants would lead to explosive price 
     swings.

  In another memo, DOE SPR staff reported the current policy ``appears 
irrational to the market place.''
  In spring 2002, as prices were rising and inventories falling, the 
DOE SPR staff recommended that DOE postpone filling the SPR:

       This is good public policy. Commercial inventories are low, 
     retail prices are high and economic growth is slow. The 
     Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under 
     these circumstances.

  The market conditions today are the same as they were in 2002 when 
the DOE SPR staff recommended that SPR deliveries be postponed.
  Many other oil industry leaders and economists believe now is not the 
time to fill the SPR.
  In May of this year, Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, the largest 
independent refiner in the U.S., said:

       They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put 
     it into Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make any 
     sense at all.

  Writing in Forbes magazine, Professor Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins 
University, commented:

       The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories 
     can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov. 
     13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for 
     inventories with the government.

  This May, The Houston Chronicle stated:

       With oil at more than $40 a barrel and the federal 
     government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout 
     on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from 
     record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum 
     market and ameliorate gasoline prices.

  A leading energy consulting firm, PFC Energy, wrote this May:

       The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to 
     keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by 
     taking crude out of the market and injecting significant 
     volumes into the SPR.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of other comments 
be included in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senate has twice acted on this issue to restore some 
common sense to our SPR policy. The Senate passed an amendment Senator 
Collins and I offered, by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 43, SPR deliveries 
and use the receipts from the sale of the royalty oil for homeland 
security programs. The Senate amendment regrettably was not retained in 
conference.
  Last fall, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Interior 
Appropriations Bill that Senator Collins and I offered that would have 
required DOE to adopt procedures to acquire oil for the SPR in a manner 
that minimizes the program's cost to the taxpayers while maximizing our 
overall energy security. The Senate amendment was not retained in 
conference, and, unfortunately, DOE has chosen to ignore the Senate's 
direction in the amendment.
  The major reason given by DOE for not postponing any of the scheduled 
shipments into the SPR is that, according to DOE, the amount of oil 
that is placed into the SPR is only a small fraction of the global 
daily supply and demand. This comparison is not relevant in a tight 
market. The amount that is being put into the SPR is about as much as 
is produced in several of our own States--Wyoming or Oklahoma, for 
example. It is about three-quarters of our daily imports from Kuwait. 
In a tight market, this additional demand can cause a large price 
increase. Moreover, these daily deposits add up to a lot of oil over 
weeks and months. The Department of Energy's own documents explain this 
effect as follows:

       Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, and OPEC does not 
     accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the increase 
     comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most analysts 
     agree that oil prices are directly correlated with 
     inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month 
     period can substantially increase prices.

  I support the filling of the SPR, but not at any price. DOE, like any 
well-managed business, should acquire more oil when prices are low, and 
less when prices are high. DOE should not be diverting crude oil from 
depleted private-sector inventories when prices are high and supplies 
are tight. Deferring further shipments to the SPR at this time will 
reduce energy prices, lower taxpayer costs, and help strengthen our 
economy. It will also make about $470 million available for vital 
homeland security programs.
  Clearly, now is not the time to be taking more oil off the market. 
This amendment is a win-win for consumers, taxpayers, and the 
Government.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his 
amendment, for both parts of it, for both adding money to needed 
homeland security needs but also finding the source from suspending 
deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

                               Exhibit 1


                      comments on the spr program

       ``Commercial petroleum inventories are low, retail product 
     prices are high and economic growth is slow. The Government 
     should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under these 
     circumstances. . . . Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, 
     and OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting more 
     oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial 
     inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly 
     correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels 
     over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices.'' 
     John Shages, Director, Office of Finance and Policy, 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserves, U.S. Department of Energy, 
     Spring 2002.
       ``As a U.S. Senate committee pointed out Wednesday, the 
     U.S. government was filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     last year as prices were rising. And by my estimate, had the 
     U.S. government not filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or 
     returned the 20 million barrels they'd put in back to the 
     market, prices right now would be around $28 a barrel instead 
     of $38 a barrel and gasoline prices might be 25 to 35 cents 
     lower.'' Philip Verleger, NPR Morning Edition, March 7, 2003.
       ``We believe the administration has been making a mistake 
     by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 million 
     barrels since the start of May. . . . Washington should back 
     off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is 
     costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists 
     during summer vacation driving time.'' Omaha World Herald, 
     August 14, 2003.
       ``They've continued filling the reserve--which is crazy, 
     putting the oil under ground when it's needed in 
     refineries.'' Dr. Leo Drollas, Chief Economist, Centre for 
     Global Energy Studies, The Observer, August 24, 2003.
       ``If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve, 
     you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So, 
     I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic 
     reserve.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, largest 
     independent refiner in the U.S., Octane Week, September 29, 
     2003.
       ``Over the last year, the [DOE] has added its name to this 
     rogues list of traders by continuing to acquire oil for the 
     nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In doing so, it 
     has (1) wasted taxpayer money, (2) done its part to raise 
     crude oil prices, (3) made oil prices more volatile, and (4) 
     caused financial hardship for refiners and oil consumers.'' 
     Philip K. Verleger, Jr., The Petroleum Economics Monthly, 
     December 2003.
       ``U.S. taxpayers and the economy would realize greater 
     economic potential with a more prudent management of this 
     national asset by not further filing the SPR under the 
     current market structure. The DOE should wait for more 
     favorable prices before filing the reserve both today and in 
     the future.'' Richard Anderson, CEO, Northwest Airlines, NWA 
     WorldTraveler, January 2004.
       ``The government is out buying fuel, it appears, without 
     much regard for the impact that it is having on prices.'' 
     James May, Chief Executive, Air Transport Association, quoted 
     in U.S. Airlines Blame Bush for Cost of Oil, Associated 
     Press, January 2004.
       ``Government storage builds have lowered commercially 
     available petroleum supplies'' and ``will provide persistent 
     support to the markets.'' ``Changes in global government 
     storage injections will have [a] big impact on crude oil 
     prices.'' Goldman Sachs, Energy Commodities Weekly, January 
     16, 2004.
       ``The average price per barrel for 2003 was the highest in 
     20 years and to date, the price for 2004 is even higher. All 
     the while, our government continues to depress inventory 
     stocks by buying oil at these historic highs and then pouring 
     it back into the ground to fill the strategic petroleum 
     reserve.'' Larry Kellner, President and Chief Operating 
     Officer, Continental Airlines, Continental Airlines Earnings 
     Conference Call, January 20, 2004.
       ``The act of building up strategic stocks diverts crude 
     supplies that would otherwise have entered the open market. 
     The natural time to do this is when supplies are ample, 
     commercial stocks are adequate and prices low. Yet the Bush 
     Administration, contrary to this logic, is forging ahead with 
     plans to add [more oil to] the stockpile.'' Petroleum Argus, 
     January 26, 2004.

[[Page S9200]]

       [Bill O'Grady, Director of Futures Research at A.G. 
     Edwards, Inc.] also notes the Bush administration has been on 
     an oil-buying binge to stock the nation's strategic petroleum 
     reserves. He guesses that artificial demand boost is adding 
     as much as 15 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas.'' Las 
     Vegas Review-Journal, February 29, 2004. [West Coast gasoline 
     about $2/gallon at the time].
       ``When the government becomes a major purchaser of oil, it 
     only bids up the price exactly when we need relief. I know 
     that you recently testified to Congress that the SPR fill has 
     a negligible impact on the price of crude oil, but we 
     politely disagree.'' Letter from American Trucking 
     Association to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, March 9, 
     2004.
       ``Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy 
     low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really 
     helped keep oil prices high.'' Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Cramer, 
     CNBC, March 22, 2004.
       ``Filling the SPR, without regard to crude oil prices and 
     the availability of supplies, drives oil prices higher and 
     ultimately hurts consumers.'' Letter from 53 Members of the 
     House of Representatives (39 Republicans, 14 Democrats) to 
     President Bush, March 22, 2004.
       ``Despite the high prices, American officials continue to 
     buy oil on the open market to fill their country's strategic 
     petroleum reserves. Why buy, you might ask, when prices are 
     high, and thereby keep them up? The Senate has asked that 
     question as well. It passed a non-binding resolution this 
     month calling on the Bush administration to stop SPR 
     purchases; but Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, has 
     refused.'' The Economist, March 27, 2004.
       ``[T]he Energy Department plans to buy another 202,000 
     barrels a day in April. It can't resist a bad bargain.'' Alan 
     Reynolds, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute, Investor's Business 
     Daily, April 2, 2004.
       ``In my opinion, we have grossly mismanaged the SPR in the 
     last 12 months. When Venezuela went on strike and we had the 
     war in Iraq we probably should have drawn down some of the 
     Reserve in order to build up supplies in the Gulf Coast of 
     the U.S. We didn't do that. When the war was over we started 
     adding to the Reserve, so we were actually taking oil out of 
     the Market. We took something like 40-45 million barrels that 
     would have gone into our inventories--we put in the strategic 
     reserves. . . . We should have stopped filling the Reserves 6 
     months ago.'' Sarah Emerson, Managing Director, Energy 
     Security Analysis, Inc., Interview, New England Cable News, 
     April 4, 2004, 8:59 p.m.
       ``The administration continues to have its hands tied on 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly with candidate 
     Kerry's `high ground' proposal to suspend purchases putting 
     Bush in a `me too' position.'' Deutsche Bank, Global Energy 
     Wire, ``Election-Year Oil: Bush Painted into a Corner,'' 
     April 6, 2004.
       ``At a time when supplies are tight and prospects for 
     improvement are grim, Bush continues to authorize the 
     purchase of oil on the open market for the country's 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush is buying serious 
     quantities of oil in a high-price market, helping to keep it 
     that way.'' Thomas Oliphant, Blatant Bush Tilt Toward Big 
     Oil, Boston Globe, April 6, 2004.
       ``He pointed out that Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich. had a 
     good idea earlier this month in proposing earlier this month 
     cutting back the contribution level to the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve, which Kerr said is 93 percent full. `By 
     reducing the input, it could provide a great deal more supply 
     to help rein in prices a bit.' '' CBS MarketWatch, Gasoline, 
     crude prices pull back, April 23, 2004, referring to the 
     views of and quoting Kevin Kerr, editor of Kwest Market Edge.
       ``The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to 
     keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by 
     taking crude out of the market and injecting significant 
     volumes into the SPR.'' Crude Or Gasoline? Who Is To Blame 
     For High Oil Prices: OPEC Or The US? Market Fundamentals & 
     Structural Problems, PFC Energy, May 6, 2004.
       ``Kilduff said the Bush administration could have stopped 
     filling the SPR, saying `it's not the best move to start 
     filling the SPR when commercial inventories were at 30-year 
     lows.' '' John Kilduff, senior analyst, Fimat, in Perception 
     vs. reality, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004.
       ``Oppenheimer's [Fadel] Gheit said Bush's decision to fill 
     the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the wake of the 
     Sept. 11 attacks caused a crisis of confidence around the 
     world that led to the perception of short supply and drove up 
     prices. `The administration has not tried hard to dispel 
     notions and rumors and perceptions and concerns over supply 
     disruption,' [said Gheit]. `Gasoline prices are at record 
     levels because of mismanagement on a grand scale by the 
     administration.' '' Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst at 
     Oppenheimer & Co., in Perception vs. reality, Camps debate 
     Bush influence on Big Oil, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004.
       ``With oil at more than $40 a barrel and the federal 
     government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout 
     on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from 
     record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum 
     market and ameliorate gasoline prices.'' Houston Chronicle, 
     Keep the oil in it, but take a timeout on filling it, May 18, 
     2004.
       ``They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put 
     it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make 
     any sense at all.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, 
     Washington Post, May 18, 2004.
       ``The Bush administration contributed to the oil price 
     squeeze in several ways, according to industry experts. 
     First, it failed to address the fact that demand for gasoline 
     in the United States was increasing sharply, thanks to ever 
     more gas guzzlers on the road and longer commutes. The 
     administration also continued pumping 120,000 barrels a day 
     of crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making a tight 
     market even tighter.'' David Ignatius, Homemade Oil Crisis, 
     Washington Post, May 25, 2004.
       ``How can the administration rectify its mistakes? It could 
     calm the market by moving away from its emergency-only 
     stance. It could also stop buying oil to add to the strategic 
     reserve. The government has done a good job making sure that 
     the reserve is at its 700-million barrel capacity. But now 
     that we are close to that goal there is no reason to keep 
     buying oil at exorbitant prices.'' Edward L. Morse and Nawaf 
     Obaid, The $40-a-Barrel Mistake, New York Times, May 25, 
     2004.
       ``President Bush's decision to fill the reserve after the 
     terror attacks of September 2001 has been one of the factors 
     driving up oil prices in recent months, along with reports 
     that China, which recently surpassed Japan as the second-
     largest importer of oil, is going ahead with plans to build 
     its own petroleum reserve.'' Simon Romero, If Oil Supplies 
     Were Disrupted, Then . . . New York Times, May 28, 2004.
       ``The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories 
     can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov. 
     13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for 
     inventories with the government.'' Steve Hanke, Oil and 
     Politics, Forbes, August 16, 2004.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Who seeks recognition?
  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3636

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we have set aside the Baucus-
Burns-Brownback et al. amendment. I just want to come to the floor to 
express my support for the amendment as well. This is a bipartisan 
effort. It is long overdue. As others have noted, the need is great. 
There are disasters around the country that have to be addressed, 
including some in South Dakota. It is not just the severity of the 
drought, but it is the length of time that drought has existed in some 
parts of our country, especially in South Dakota.
  So I am very hopeful the Senate will express itself on a unanimous 
basis and provide the kind of support that our farmers and ranchers and 
others need. I hope the amendment will be adopted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3649

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I just want to speak briefly in support 
of Senator Byrd's amendment as well.
  This amendment will make available to the market an additional 19 
million barrels of oil that the Federal Government will receive in 
fiscal year 2005 as in-kind royalties. Without this amendment, the 
Federal Government would hold this oil off the market by putting it in 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2005. Because this Federal royalty 
oil would be sold, under this amendment it would generate an offset of 
$470 million, which the amendment then proposes to use for important 
homeland security measures, such as port security grants, aviation 
passenger screening, the Coast Guard, mass transit grants, and the 
SAFER Program.
  It is important to note that the amendment will not take out of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve any oil that is now in the Reserve.
  It is merely suspending further filling of the reserve. Suspending 
the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during times of high oil 
prices makes economic sense. Using Federal dollars to buy high-priced 
oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not make economic sense.
  Oil prices hit an all-time high on the NYMEX on August 20, trading at 
$49.40 a barrel. Today oil is trading at close to $45 a barrel, which 
represents a price increase of more than 30 percent since the beginning 
of the year. By filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in this very 
high-priced environment, we are paying more for oil now than we would 
if we waited until prices went down.
  Filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices are high 
costs

[[Page S9201]]

American taxpayers unnecessarily. It also puts more pressure on already 
tight fuel markets and keeps oil prices higher for longer.
  The royalty-in-kind oil program used to fill the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve was first envisioned in a low-price environment. The Government 
bought oil from domestic producers on Federal lands when prices were 
low in order to absorb some of the excess oil. The royalty-in-kind 
program was used to keep domestic oil prices from falling even further, 
but we were then talking about below $14 per barrel, not below the $45 
per barrel which is currently prevailing. The royalty-in-kind program 
was not established to help high oil prices remain high, but buying in 
a high-priced environment has that exact effect.
  Suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not pose 
an immediate security threat, as the Senator from Michigan pointed out. 
The reserve is already 96 percent of capacity, with 669 million barrels 
now stored. That is the highest level of storage we have ever had in 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It currently covers 67 days of import 
capacity at a level of 10 million barrels per day of imports. Using 
scarce Federal dollars to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while 
failing to fund necessary homeland security measures presents a 
security threat itself.
  Some of you may recall--I think we all recall--that the Senate passed 
a similar amendment to this to the budget resolution that was 
considered earlier this year, the Levin-Collins amendment.
  I urge support of Senator Byrd's amendment this evening. It will put 
our limited homeland security dollars to work in the most beneficial 
way for Americans.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3636

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point now where I think we 
can proceed to dispose of an earlier amendment that was offered. If 
there is no objection to setting aside the pending Byrd amendment for 
that purpose, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment be set 
aside and that we proceed to a voice vote on the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The question is on agreeing to the Baucus amendment No. 3636.
  The amendment (No. 3636) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3649

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Byrd amendment has been presented and 
discussed by the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Michigan, 
and the Senator from New Mexico. Compelling arguments have been made 
for the additional funds that would be made available to the Department 
of Homeland Security under this amendment. The difficulty, however, is 
that the amendment would provide appropriations that are not consistent 
with the Budget Act. Section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95, the fiscal year 
2004 concurrent resolution on the budget, limits the amount and type of 
advance appropriations which may be provided for fiscal years 2005 and 
2006. The pending amendment would provide advance appropriations for 
fiscal year 2006 which are not on the list of programs, projects, 
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory statement 
of managers accompanying the budget resolution.
  Thus, I raise a point of order pursuant to section 501(b) of H. Con. 
Res. 95, the 108th Congress, against the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. 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. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment to permit the Senator from New York to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3651

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3651.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3651.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3651) is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
allocate at least $4,450,000 of any funds previously made available in 
   response to the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City for 
  continued mental health counseling services for emergency services 
personnel requiring additional assistance as a result of the September 
                      11, 2001, terrorist attacks)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. (a) Of any funds previously made available to the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency in response to the 
     September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City, not less than 
     $4,450,000 shall be provided, subject to the request of the 
     Governor of New York, to those mental health counseling 
     service entities that have historically provided mental 
     health counseling through Project Liberty to personnel of the 
     New York City Police Department, the New York City Fire 
     Department, and other emergency services agencies, to 
     continue such counseling.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, and his excellent staff for 
their assistance in working out this amendment.
  This is an amendment that would continue to provide funding for the 
mental health counseling that the fire department and police department 
and other first responders have been receiving because of their 
experiences arising out of September 11. We are finding that only now 
are some of the firefighters, police officers, and others coming 
forward and expressing their need for some kind of intervention and 
assistance.
  This is a program that has worked very well. I am grateful for the 
Federal assistance to start this program, and we are hopeful that this 
amendment will enable FEMA, which already has money set aside arising 
out of already appropriated money for New York and for purposes like 
this, to obtain the requisite support they need to go forward with this 
mental health counseling. So I am very grateful that we have worked 
this out.
  There is no new money in it, there is no new earmarking or 
appropriations; it is merely giving FEMA the go-ahead, with the 
appropriate authorization, to continue the mental health program that 
has proven so successful.
  So, again, I appreciate greatly the chairman and his staff's 
assistance. I ask for a voice vote on this amendment, if appropriate at 
this time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are happy this has been resolved. I 
think it improves the bill. We are ready to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3651) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S9202]]

  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 that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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 48, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Allen
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     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
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
47. 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.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point now where we can 
proceed with two or three other amendments that may require votes and 
then we expect to have a vote on final passage. We would like to get an 
agreement that these are the amendments which will be voted on and that 
we will have votes in sequence on those amendments and final passage of 
the bill. I hope my friend from Nevada will consider that.
  The Senator from Florida wants to be heard.
  I yield the floor.
  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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3652

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send amendment 3652 to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Graham of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 3652.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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 provide supplemental disaster relief assistance for 
 agricultural losses in the State of Florida resulting from Hurricanes 
                          Charley and Frances)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

          TITLE __--EMERGENCY AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

     SEC. __. CROP LOSSES.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $560,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the Commodity Credit Corporation Fund for 
     crop losses in excess of 25 percent of the expected 
     production of a crop (including nursery stock, citrus, dairy, 
     timber, vegetables, tropical fruit, clams and other 
     shellfish, tropical fish, poultry, sugar, hay, equines, 
     wildflower seed, sod, and honeybees and losses sustained by 
     packing houses) in the State of Florida resulting from 
     Hurricane Charley or Frances: Provided, That any producer of 
     crops and livestock in the State of Florida that has suffered 
     at least 25 percent loss to a crop covered by this section, 
     25 percent loss to livestock, and damage to building 
     structure in 2004, resulting from Hurricane Charley or 
     Frances, shall be eligible for emergency crop loss 
     assistance, emergency livestock feed assistance under the 
     Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 
     1471 et seq.), and loans and loan guarantees under subtitle C 
     of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1961 et seq.).

     SEC. __. WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $30,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the emergency watershed protection 
     program established under section 403 of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203) and related watershed and 
     flood prevention operations, an additional amount to repair 
     damage to the waterways and watersheds in the State of 
     Florida resulting from Hurricane Charley or Frances.

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $60,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the emergency conservation program 
     established under title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), an additional amount to repair 
     damage to farmland (including nurseries and structures) in 
     the State of Florida resulting from Hurricane Charley or 
     Frances.

     SEC. __. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $25,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund 
     program account for the cost of emergency insured loans for 
     costs in the State of Florida resulting from Hurricane 
     Charley or Frances.

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND 
                   SEASONAL FARMWORKERS.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for emergency grants to assist low-income 
     migrant and seasonal farmworkers under section 2281 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 5177a): Provided, That the emergency services to be 
     provided may include such types of assistance as the 
     Secretary of Agriculture determines to be necessary and 
     appropriate (including repair of existing farmworker housing 
     and construction of new farmworker housing units, including 
     housing that may be used by H-2A workers) to replace housing 
     damaged as a result of Hurricane Charley or Frances.

     SEC. __. RURAL HOUSING FOR DOMESTIC FARM LABOR.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for rural housing for domestic farm labor for 
     the cost of repair and replacement of uninsured losses 
     resulting from natural disasters such as Hurricanes Charley 
     and Frances.

     SEC. __. STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY.

       In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this 
     Act, there is appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $2,500,000 shall be made available 
     for urban and community forestry and of which $2,500,000 
     shall be made available for wildland-urban interface fire 
     suppression efforts resulting from fuel loading from damaged 
     or destroyed tree stands in the State of Florida resulting 
     from Hurricane Charley or Frances.

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       The amounts appropriated in this title are designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 
     95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress) and 
     applicable to the Senate by section 14007 of the Department 
     of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 
     Stat. 1014).

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have had two major 
hurricanes in Florida that have done a great

[[Page S9203]]

deal of damage to our agricultural industry in Florida. Our 
agricultural industry is a $62 billion industry. We have just passed a 
disaster relief bill for drought for several Midwestern States which 
was a $3 billion disaster relief bill.
  Naturally, where we have an existing disaster that has occurred over 
the course of the last 6 weeks, we have a lot of farmers hurting, and 
the well has run dry in the Department of Agriculture funds. Naturally, 
the Federal Government will respond, which we do in times of disaster, 
and this Senator and Senator Graham want to make sure we have the 
funds.
  We have bipartisan unanimity in our House delegation, along with 
Senator Graham and me, on what we are requesting in this particular 
amendment I have sent to the desk. This is requesting $700 million of 
disaster relief for agricultural disaster. The figure may be more.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I will 
enter into a colloquy in which I can be assured this matter is going to 
be addressed in this bill when it goes to conference and that the funds 
are going to be needed.
  I engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  We are told the administration has existing funds to address the 
massive damage done to Florida agriculture by Hurricanes Charley and 
Frances, and, indeed, Secretary Veneman has authorized $300 million in 
section 32 funds which are certainly welcome and appreciated. However, 
I can state that back in Florida we are also told that already the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture is running out of relief funds. I ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee if he will work 
with me to ensure additional emergency appropriations for USDA disaster 
relief can be provided to address this crisis in Florida?
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will provide the needed disaster relief for Florida 
agriculture as soon as possible. This relief will come in the form of 
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture disaster relief 
programs. These funds will be used to help Florida citrus farmers as 
well as other Florida farmers. If the funds are not provided before we 
address Hurricane Ivan, we will address this issue when we do address 
Ivan in the conference on this bill, the Homeland Security bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate his cooperation.
  I ask the chairman, with his commitment in the Senate, am I in a 
position to guarantee the agricultural industry of my State that we 
will provide additional USDA disaster relief or other disaster funds to 
meet this need in supplemental appropriations in the conference report 
on this bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yes, that is my commitment to the Senator 
from Florida. We fully intend to take up the Hurricane Ivan funds as an 
amendment to this bill in conference when the supplemental request is 
received.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, around this place, a man's word 
is his bond, and that is good enough for me.
  I thank the Senator. Our people are hurting. The President has 
requested, in addition, a $3.1 billion relief package for FEMA and 
other agencies of Government other than the agriculture relief. He did 
not request that. That is the reason for bringing this to a head at 
this late hour.


                      Amendment No. 3652 Withdrawn

  Therefore, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I commend Senator Nelson on 
this issue and thank Senator Stevens for his efforts.
  This amendment represents the first step in correcting an injustice. 
That injustice is the lack of meaningful disaster relief for the 
farmers, ranchers, and growers of Florida.
  Agriculture is the second largest generator of income in Florida. It 
is responsible for $7 billion in cash receipts and accounts for a total 
of $60 billion in total economic impact.
  Mr. President, 44,000 farmers and growers produce 280 different crops 
ranging from tropical fruits to winter vegetables to greenhouse and 
nursery products to aquaculture and honey and more.
  The twin disasters of Charley and Frances devastated a significant 
portion of this economic sector. Preliminary estimates indicate more 
than $2 billion in damage to Florida agriculture.
  Some growers were hit twice; before they could determine their 
initial losses, they lost the rest of their crops. It may take months 
to determine the final cost of these storms. The ground first must dry 
out before growers can learn if they will be able to plant and harvest 
a crop this year.
  The growers and their families need help now. Yet today's request 
from the administration contains no aid for them.
  Between fiscal year 1989 and fiscal year 2003, Congress added $49.2 
billion to USDA programs. Of that amount, $21.4 billion went for market 
loss payments to compensate for low prices, and $17.9 billion went to 
crop disaster payments to producers who suffered a natural disaster 
crop loss.
  In the past, the Senate has responded when our farmers and ranchers 
were in need. We again must respond in an appropriate way by providing 
the aid that is contained in this amendment.
  I want to commend those officials who have been trying to help 
Florida agriculture since Hurricane Charley first hit the State. 
Dedicated public servants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have been 
assessing the damage and directing farmers to available assistance 
programs. The private sector has worked long hours to minimize the 
damage. Producers who may have suffered only minor losses are helping 
their neighbors who are not as fortunate.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture as always is using its resources 
to aid the victims of these disasters. Additional funds are necessary 
to begin recovery operations. Yet, those funds were not included in the 
administration's recent request.
  I want to explain why these funds are necessary. Some natural 
disasters destroy crops. These hurricanes have destroyed more than 
crops. For example, nurseries and greenhouses collapsed or were crushed 
by the storms. Replacing a structure is more difficult and costly than 
just replacing plants.
  Consider the citrus industry. In some groves, you can walk from end 
to end and never touch the ground because it is covered with fallen 
grapefruits. Next year, another crop may grow, but the grove's owners, 
and their families, need help today. Even worse, the storms destroyed 
thousands of citrus trees. It takes 5 years for a new tree to produce 
fruit and seven years for it to turn a profit.
  We are approaching that time of year when people throughout the 
country order and send gifts of Florida citrus. Its been estimated that 
packing houses and related businesses could lose as much as $100 
million from the storms. Consider the impact on the workers in these 
facilities.
  Preliminary estimates indicate that the sod industry in Florida has 
suffered $300 million in losses. Many of the sod farms are flooded, and 
too much water is not good for sod.
  Florida's cattle and calving operations generate more than $370 
million in cash receipts. The storms destroyed fences and dumped debris 
on grazing lands. Florida calves are fed and grow at feedlots in other 
parts of the country.
  Consider the plight of the winter vegetable growers. Many in Florida 
began preliminary planting before the hurricanes hit. Existing programs 
do not cover their pre-planting costs. They must plant by a certain 
date to be eligible for aid. If the ground is too wet and they can't 
plant in time, they suffer twice--the lack of a cash crop and the lack 
of disaster aid.
  The amendment does not ignore the human side of agriculture. It 
includes funds to assist groups that provide emergency services to the 
many people who work on farms where crops have been destroyed. Many 
farm workers have lost their jobs. They also have seen their homes 
destroyed, or they find themselves without water or power.

[[Page S9204]]

  I realize that the preliminary estimates of $2 billion in losses will 
be reduced, once insurance and other payments are taken into account. 
But the need exists today.
  The transmittal letter for the emergency supplemental asked Congress 
``to limit this emergency request to those items directly related to 
the recovery efforts from the impact of these recent major disasters.'' 
This amendment meets this requirement.
  After a more detailed examination of the damage, we may have a need 
for additional funds for agriculture assistance. That is why I consider 
this amendment to be just an important first step but not the final 
step toward the goal of helping the farmers, ranchers, and producers of 
Florida.


                           Amendment No. 3656

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3656.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 funding for rail and transit security grants)

       On page 20, line 7, strike ``$1,200,000,000'' and insert 
     ``1,550,000,000''.
       On page 20, line 13, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$500,000,000''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know the hour is late, 
but as I am sure this body knows, these issues, I believe, are 
extremely important and have to be considered. This amendment deals 
with rail security. It is rail security and transit grants.
  Now, first, I do want to say that we are providing $278 million for 
these grants. The amendment by my friend from West Virginia raised the 
amount to that. But it is not close to enough when we are considering 
that rail is one of the great dangers we face in this war on terrorism. 
If anything, we have learned since last year's appropriations bill that 
al-Qaida has chosen rail as one of its methods of terror. We all looked 
in shock at what happened in Madrid.
  Our rail systems, whether they be mass transit, subways, commuter 
rails, passenger rails, freight rails, are utterly unprotected. While 
we are making small steps in the direction of protecting them, we are 
not moving close to quickly enough. Despite the significant threat to 
transit systems, the funding for transit security has been grossly 
inadequate.
  Over the last 2 years, Congress appropriated only $115 million in 
transit security: $65 million in fiscal year 2003; $50 million--less--
in 2004. The administration's budget requested no additional funding. 
Now, of course, we have raised it a little bit here but not close to 
enough.
  Furthermore, only 30 to 40 percent of what has been appropriated for 
transit security has been received by transit agencies. So even with 
the small amounts we have appropriated, our agencies that are supposed 
to make our subways, our mass transit, our commuter rail, our passenger 
rail safer have not been able to do it. As a result, many transit 
agencies, including those in my city, in my State, many of which are 
likely to be at risk, have pressing security needs that are still 
unfunded. In fact, the Banking Committee found that we have invested 
$9.16 per passenger on aviation improvements but less than 1 cent per 
passenger on transit security improvements. Now does that make any 
sense: $9.16 on air travel, less than 1 cent on transit?
  On April 8, the Commerce Committee passed the Rail Security Act of 
2004. The bill would provide $1.2 billion to enhance the safety of our 
Nation's mass rail systems. On May 6, the Banking Committee unanimously 
passed the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. That 
bill would provide over $5 billion to enhance the safety of the 
Nation's mass transit systems and would mean so much to the New York 
area where we face a need for hundreds of millions of dollars to shore 
up our security. So when my friend from Mississippi will get up and 
say, well, we are giving some money, it is not close to what the 
authorizing committees felt was needed. It is not a little less; it is 
not a lot less; it is a huge amount less. If the Commerce Committee 
would say that $1.2 billion is needed and the Banking Committee would 
say that $5 billion is needed and we are appropriating as little as we 
are, clearly we are not doing something right.
  These two bills were not taken up by the Senate leadership for 
several months, and then, in July, Secretary Ridge announced there was 
credible information indicating al-Qaida is moving ahead with plans for 
a large-scale attack in the U.S. aimed at disrupting the political 
elections. In reaction, all of a sudden the Senate leadership decided 
to try to pass some security measures that were long overdue. I am told 
the reason they did not bring them up is because they felt these 
measures cost too much. I am sure my esteemed colleague from 
Mississippi will make that argument again today, that spending $350 
million to secure the thousands of miles of tracks, tunnels, bridges, 
and stations used by millions of Americans every day is too expensive. 
I have to respectfully disagree. We are vulnerable. God forbid 10 
terrorists strap explosives to themselves and go into 10 of our busiest 
rail stations and detonate them at a single time. This would cause huge 
loss of life, tremendous suffering, and economic hardship.

  There are things we can do. We can develop detectors that fit mass 
transit as we are doing in the airports. We are not. We can protect our 
tunnels and bridges upon which trains go. We are not. The bottom line 
is, we are doing virtually nothing.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I ask my friend to withhold? We have a 
unanimous consent request that Members have been waiting on for a 
while.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point where we can advise 
Senators of amendments that will now be presented to the Senate for 
votes. We hope we can get this unanimous consent agreement adopted so 
we will have an orderly process to follow.
  I ask unanimous consent that other than any amendments cleared by 
both managers, the only remaining amendments be the following and that 
there be no second degrees in order to the listed amendments prior to 
votes in relation to those amendments: the pending Kennedy amendment 
for 5 minutes equally divided; the Schumer amendment on rail safety 
with 10 minutes equally divided; the Schumer amendment on immigration 
with 10 minutes equally divided; and the Clinton amendment, No. 3631, 
with 10 minutes equally divided--and I am sure the Senator from Florida 
will call up his amendment on funds for the Red Cross, and we will 
adopt that on a voice vote--further, that any other pending amendments 
be withdrawn, and following disposition of the above-listed amendments, 
the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to passage as 
under the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I appreciate the understanding of my 
colleague from Mississippi. I think I have used pretty much my time on 
transit even though I have been given another 10 minutes.
  I just want to say this in conclusion: We are currently spending $5 
billion a month in Iraq alone. While I wholeheartedly support making 
sure that our troops have everything they need--and I have supported 
all of these funding requests--if we can spend $5 billion a month in 
Iraq, we can surely spend $350 million over 5 years to help ensure the 
safety of our transit riders here at home. The priorities are wrong. 
There is a disconnect. We spend what it takes to win a war on terror 
overseas, as we should. We spend virtually nothing to protect ourselves 
at home. To say that a couple hundred million dollars is too much when 
the safety of our citizens is at stake and we are spending $5 billion a 
month in Iraq is a schizophrenia that this country, as we fight this 
war on terror in this brave, new world, cannot afford.

[[Page S9205]]

  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would add $350 million to 
the bill for rail and security transit grants. A previously adopted 
amendment has already added $128 million to the bill for this purpose.
  The amendment will cause the bill to exceed the committee's 302(b) 
allocation; therefore, 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.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the purpose 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.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these votes 
be stacked that are in order: the two Schumer amendments, the Clinton 
amendment, the vote on final passage, and any vote in relation to the 
Kennedy amendment as well--that they be stacked so we can then proceed 
with debate on the second Schumer amendment or the Clinton amendment 
and dispose of the discussion, and then we will have a vote on all of 
those issues at the same time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 3655

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I offer the Schumer amendment on 
immigration security. The amendment is at the desk, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3655.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 appropriate an additional $350,000,000 to improve the 
          security at points of entry into the United States)

       On page 7, line 16, strike ``$2,413,438,000,'' and insert 
     the following: ``$2,763,438,000, of which $200,000,000 shall 
     be reserved for the International Civil Aviation Organization 
     to establish biometric and document identification standards 
     to measure multiple immutable physical characteristics, 
     including fingerprints, eye retinas, and eye-to-eye width and 
     for the Department of Homeland Security to place multiple 
     biometric identifiers at each point of entry; of which 
     $50,000,000 shall be reserved for a program that requires the 
     government of each country participating in the visa waiver 
     program to certify that such country will comply with the 
     biometric standards established by the International Civil 
     Aviation Organization; of which $25,000,000 shall be reserved 
     for the entry and exit data systems of the Department of 
     Homeland Security to accommodate traffic flow increases; of 
     which $50,000,000 shall be reserved to integrate the entry 
     and exit data collection and analysis systems of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and 
     the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation; of which $25,000,000 shall be reserved to 
     establish a uniform translation and transliteration service 
     for all ports of entry to identify the names of individuals 
     entering and exiting the United States;''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, there are so many places where we have to 
tighten up our security at home. We have talked about security in the 
air and security at the ports and security on the rails and security 
with trucks. We have talked about helping our police and our 
firefighters and hospitals. There is another area that we do have to 
address even at this late hour because it is so crucial. That is 
security at our country's borders.
  The question is, Who can come across our borders, whether by land or 
sea or by air, and how do we monitor who they are, and how do we make 
sure terrorists do not come into this country as they did in the years 
and months before 9/11, where one part of the Government knew that 
those who came across the borders might well cause harm, but those who 
were at the borders letting people into this country did not?
  The good news is that technology can help us. We can keep our borders 
open and free. We can have commerce that we need and at the same time 
separate those few bad apples. Technology will allow us to do that. But 
we are not doing it. Again, we run the risk that our porous borders 
will serve as an attraction to those who want to be in this country to 
do evil things, either here or abroad.
  The amendment I have offered would provide funding necessary to 
strengthen the eyes and ears and coordination of personnel at our 
country's borders. Perhaps the greatest threat to our country as a 
whole is what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has called 
``people of mass destruction'' or PMDs coming through our borders. It 
was people of mass destruction who turned airplanes into missiles on 9/
11, and we have to do something to avoid that.
  My amendment contains five parts. First, the amendment provides $200 
million to help bring the biometric technology already at our busiest 
ports of entry up to the standards called for by the 9/11 Commission 
and the task force report. The 19 hijackers who invaded my city and our 
country 3 years ago ran through the borders in a wave of deception. 
Were there more accurate measures of identifying those terrorists when 
they entered the country, we might not have suffered 9/11.
  Three years after 9/11, it is staggering that we are leaving so much 
of our safety up to the subjective, fallible judgment of individuals 
rather than to superior biometric technology. The first part of the 
amendment deals with upgrading that technology.
  Second, my amendment would provide $50 million to help ensure that 
all travelers entering the United States are held to the same high 
level of scrutiny. Specifically, the amendment would provide funding to 
help persuade visa waiver program governments to produce passports 
compatible with the state-of-the-art biometric technology that I hope 
will be deployed at U.S. ports of entry.
  Third, the amendment would provide $25 million to fund the expansion 
of the Homeland Security Department's exit and entry data systems to 
accommodate the ever increasing traffic of travelers in and out of our 
Nation's ports of entry. As the pace of globalization quickens, U.S. 
airports, bridges, and ports see a rising number of visitors. We have 
to have the technology to keep up with that increasing number.
  Fourth, the amendment addresses the need to integrate the entry and 
exit data systems housed within the Department of Homeland Security, 
the FBI, and the Department of State. We have in our Government a 
number of sophisticated databases collecting critical information about 
individuals who could harm our country. Each of these systems has 
different access rules and runs on different algorithms. It makes 
integration of these systems with one another and with the people at 
the borders very chancy and difficult.
  Finally, the amendment would provide $25 million to support a uniform 
transliteration and translation system to identify each visitor 
entering and exiting. You don't want to let someone in because Mohammed 
or Bill was spelled incorrectly and that person slipped through the 
borders.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The bottom line is simple. We have a long way to go to 
make our borders safe. The frustration that many of us have is we can 
do it but we are not. Again, we are taking tiny baby steps where bold, 
imaginative, and large steps are required. No one, no matter what their 
ideology, party, or even vote on this measure, wants to repeat what 
happened at 9/11 when people came across our borders and should not 
have. This amendment will help close that loophole. It is worth the 
cost. I urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would add to the bill $350 
million for components of the United States Visitor and Immigration 
Status Indicator Technology system, known as US VISIT. We have included 
the amount requested by the administration in this bill for the US 
VISIT system in the amount of $340 million. So

[[Page S9206]]

the Senator's amendment would double the amount that is already 
included in the bill. The amendment will cause the bill to exceed the 
committee's 302(b) allocation. Therefore, 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.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. There is.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the order previously entered, there 
is an opportunity for consideration of a pending Kennedy amendment or 
the offering of amendment No. 3631 by Senator Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 3631

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3631.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this amendment--sponsored by myself and 
Senators Ensign, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer, and Corzine--follows the 
recommendation in the 9/11 Commission. What it does is to put into our 
bill language that permits the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security to allocate the money above the minimum that goes to all 
States. In other words, 38 percent of the money for homeland security 
will be distributed on a per capita basis to all States. The remaining 
62 percent, which is the subject of my amendment, will be distributed 
as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and every other expert who has 
studied this issue on threat factors and risk assessments that will 
take into account matters such as population, population density, 
critical infrastructure, and such other factors as the Secretary 
considers appropriate.
  We have debated this on the floor for a number of years. I engaged in 
a colloquy about this back in July of 2003 when we were considering the 
Homeland Security appropriations. I have spoken on numerous occasions 
with Secretary Ridge. I know we have been given assurance that there 
would be developed some kind of threat matrix so we could take into 
account the full range of issues that should be considered. I am not in 
any way suggesting what those factors should be. I think food security 
should be among them. I think our petrochemical complexes should be 
among them.
  I think our laboratories in States such as New Mexico should be among 
them. I think there are probably threat-based assessments that would 
apply to every single State. But we know, having gone through this 
debate now year after year, that what happens is the path of least 
resistance is followed and the money is distributed on a per capita 
basis. I don't think that is good for any State, whether it is a large 
State or a small State, or any State in any part of our country.
  Some have argued my amendment would take money away from other 
States, particularly the small States. It does not. The money that was 
guaranteed to the small States, to all States, will continue to flow. 
But what we have done is to say, wait a minute, the Secretary of this 
Department should begin to be able to develop a threat assessment. And 
let's look at our critical infrastructure. Every State has such 
infrastructure. Instead, the money is going out to the States and they 
are spending it as they see fit, without necessary regard for our 
national interests and our homeland security concerns, some of which 
cross State and county borders, and I believe that looking to this 
opportunity as recommended by the 9/11 Commission is absolutely 
essential.
  So my amendment embodies the factors that were noted by the 9/11 
Commission and it gives the administration--not me--and the Department 
of Homeland Security the discretion and authority to come up with any 
other factors they believe are relevant.
  It is time we follow the advice of the experts--this Commission and 
the Rudman Commission. Every commission and every security expert who 
has looked at this has come to the same conclusion: We should give the 
Secretary discretion to develop a threat matrix to do a risk analysis, 
and then to make sure the money is distributed accordingly. I hope for 
the sake of our homeland defense and in keeping with the words of this 
Commission, you will support the Clinton-Ensign amendment. Senator 
Ensign wanted to get back in time to be part of the debate, but it 
moved a little more quickly than we had expected. I look forward to 
working with him and working with our colleagues to ensure that we do 
this right.
  We have spent a lot of money and we have given a lot of equipment and 
given a lot of local communities money that, frankly, according to the 
articles that are often printed about this, they are looking for ways 
to spend.
  Mr. President, I hope we will vote for this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the funds allocated for this program in 
this bill are done on a formula basis under the provisions of the 
U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held 
hearings on this issue and has reported out a bill, S. 1245, the 
Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to deal with domestic 
preparedness grants and how they are distributed. That is the 
legislation that is the appropriate vehicle for further debate and 
amendments if Senators want to offer amendments dealing with the 
formula for distributing State and local first responder grant funding.
  This should not be done on an appropriation bill, on this bill, as 
the Senator seeks to do with her amendment. Therefore, I move to table 
the amendment and 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we are at a point now where the 
Senator from Massachusetts has an amendment, which is the only one left 
under the agreed-upon process for finalizing the handling of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3626

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 2\1/2\ minutes. I 
yield myself 1 minute 15 seconds. I will yield the remaining time to my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham.
  Mr. President, in May of 2001, President Bush appointed General 
Scowcroft to review the intelligence system to make recommendations 
about how it could be more effective for the President of the United 
States. General Scowcroft has been relied upon by Democratic and 
Republican Presidents. He is one of the distinguished generals and 
foreign policy experts and arms control individuals. He issued such a 
report 3 months after 9/11.
  It seems to me the most important decision we are going to make in 
this body by the time we have adjournment is going to be intelligence 
reform. This particular amendment says we believe the Scowcroft 
Commission report ought to be made available to all the Members of the 
Senate. If there has to be a classified annex, so be it. Over the 
course of the last weeks, we have had Secretary Rumsfeld who commented 
on it. This is what he said in the Armed Services Committee:

       I have been briefed on the Scowcroft Commission record. I 
     don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a process so it 
     can be declassified.

  I asked him a question:

       Was there anything in there that you thought could be 
     declassified?

  He said:

       No, I cannot recall anything that could not be 
     declassified.

  Senator Warner, for the record, said the Scowcroft Commission has not 
been released by the White House. We are going to seek to see whether 
we can have greater access to it.
  Senator Roberts said:

       I had talked to Scowcroft last Thursday. I begged on my 
     hands and knees to release the report.

  That is what we are doing, releasing the report.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I strongly support the amendment. We have had

[[Page S9207]]

too much classification of material, which has had the result of making 
us less secure, not more secure. The expert opinion of people like 
General Scowcroft ought to be made available to the American people and 
the Congress so it can be used as we attempt to construct systems that 
will make us safer.
  There is no reason for the extensive classification process used in 
this administration, ranging from the Scowcroft report to the 
classification of 27 pages of our Senate-House joint inquiry relating 
to the role of foreign governments in assisting the terrorists. This 
would be a good place to start. The American people will be safer by 
our actions.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple points I think are 
important before we vote on this amendment. This is a report--the 
subject of this amendment by Senator Kennedy--that was prepared at the 
President's request to advise him on intelligence issues. The report 
constitutes privileged advice to the President from a confidential 
adviser.
  In order to protect the ability of not only this President but future 
Presidents in their ability to receive advice as a matter of separation 
of powers, recognized previously by the courts, Presidents of both 
parties have long declined to turn over to Congress privileged advice 
that is prepared for them at their request. For this same reason, the 
President does not ask Members of Congress to turn over advisory 
information prepared for us by our staff members. We think this is a 
tradition that should be honored in this case.
  I am prepared to move to table the amendment if no other Senator 
wants to be recognized. If others want to speak on the issue, I am 
happy to yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from 
Massachusetts and 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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 49, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--45

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lott
     Sessions
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my understanding of the order is another 
vote will occur on an amendment without intervening debate under the 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. This vote will be a 10-minute vote. Would the Chair 
state the question before the Senate?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent agreement 
be amended so that all succeeding votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3656

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to Schumer amendment No. 3656. 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 Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     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
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lott
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, 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. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3655

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with regard to amendment No. 3655 by the Senator 
from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  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 Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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?

[[Page S9208]]

  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Hagel
     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
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lott
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, 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 point of order was sustained, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3631

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 3631. The yeas and nays 
have previously been ordered. 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 New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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 54, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Allen
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lott
     Sessions
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3607

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the previous order, the amendment 
of the Senator from Florida adding funds for the Red Cross is the 
pending business, which should be adopted by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3607) was agreed to.
  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.


    Amendments Nos. 3614, 3643, 3644, 3646, 3647, and 3648, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following amendments: 
amendment No. 3614 proposed by Ms. Collins and Mr. Pryor; amendment No. 
3647 proposed by Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Craig, Mr. Levin, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
Jeffords, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Rockefeller; amendment No. 3648 proposed 
by Mr. Shelby; amendment No. 3643 proposed by Mr. Roberts; amendment 
No. 3646 proposed by Mr. Talent and Mr. Bond; and amendment No. 3644 
proposed by Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Stevens.
  These amendments have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle, and 
I ask they be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc and are adopted en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3614

(Purpose: To set aside $50,000,000 from the amount appropriated for law 
   enforcement terrorism prevention grants to identify, acquire, and 
 transfer homeland security technology, equipment, and information to 
               State and local law enforcement agencies)

       On page 19, line 22, strike the colon and insert the 
     following: ``, of which $50,000,000 shall be used for grants 
     to identify, acquire, and transfer homeland security 
     technology, equipment, and information to State and local law 
     enforcement agencies:''


                           amendment no. 3643

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the American 
               Red Cross and Critical Biomedical Systems)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE AMERICAN RED 
                   CROSS AND CRITICAL BIOMEDICAL SYSTEMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the blood supply is a vital public health resource that 
     must be readily available at all times, particularly in 
     response to terrorist attacks and natural disasters;
       (2) the provision of blood is an essential part of the 
     critical infrastructure of the United States and must be 
     protected from threats of terrorism;
       (3) disruption of the blood supply or the compromising of 
     its integrity could have wide-ranging implications on the 
     ability of the United States to react in a crisis; and
       (4) the need exists to ensure that blood collection 
     facilities maintain adequate inventories to prepare for 
     disasters at all times in all locations.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Department of Homeland Security's Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection should consult with 
     the American Red Cross to--
       (1) identify critical assets and interdependencies;
       (2) perform vulnerability assessments; and
       (3) identify necessary resources to implement protective 
     measures to ensure continuity of operations and security of 
     information technology systems for blood and blood products.


                           amendment no. 3644

  (Purpose: To encourage the Secretary of Homeland Security to place 
    special emphasis on the recruitment of American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, and Native Hawaiians into Disaster Assistance Employee cadres 
   maintained by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DISASTER ASSISTANCE EMPLOYEE CADRES OF EMERGENCY 
                   PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is 
     encouraged to place special emphasis on the recruitment of 
     American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians for 
     positions within Disaster Assistance Employee cadres 
     maintained by the Emergency Preparedness and Response 
     Directorate.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     report periodically to the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives with respect to--
       (1) the representation of American Indians, Alaska Natives, 
     and Native Hawaiians in the Disaster Assistance Employee 
     cadres; and
       (2) the efforts of the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     increase the representation of such individuals in the 
     cadres.

[[Page S9209]]

                           amendment no. 3646

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Director of the 
Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness be 
    given limited authority to approve requests from State Homeland 
 Security Directors to reprogram Federal homeland security grant funds 
  to address specific security requirements based on credible threat 
                              assessments)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Director of the Office for State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness be given limited 
     authority to approve requests from the senior official 
     responsible for emergency preparedness and response in each 
     State to reprogram funds appropriated for the State Homeland 
     Security Grant Program of the Office for State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness to address specific 
     security requirements that are based on credible threat 
     assessments, particularly threats that arise after the State 
     has submitted an application describing its intended use of 
     such grant funds;
       (2) for each State, the amount of funds reprogrammed under 
     this section should not exceed 10 percent of the total annual 
     allocation for such State under the State Homeland Security 
     Grant Program; and
       (3) before reprogramming funds under this section, a State 
     official described in paragraph (1) should consult with 
     relevant local officials.


                           amendment no. 3647

 (Purpose: To allow State Homeland Security Program grant funds to be 
   used to pay costs associated with the attendance of part-time and 
 volunteer first responders at terrorism response courses approved by 
      the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and 
                             Preparedness)

       On page 21, line 4, insert ``Provided further, That funds 
     under this heading may be used to provide a reasonable 
     stipend to part-time and volunteer first responders who are 
     not otherwise compensated for travel to or participation in 
     terrorism response courses approved by the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness, which stipend shall not be paid if 
     such first responder is otherwise compensated by an employer 
     for such time and shall not be considered compensation for 
     purposes of rendering such first responder an employee under 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.):'' after ``Homeland Security:''.


                           amendment no. 3648

   (To require the President's fiscal year 2006 budget to include an 
   amount sufficient for funding a certain level of maritime patrol 
                              capability)

       On page 16, line 4, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided, further, That the budget for 
     fiscal year 2006 that is submitted under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, may include an amount for the 
     Coast Guard that is sufficient to fund delivery of a long-
     term maritime patrol aircraft capability that is consistent 
     with the original procurement plan for the CN-235 aircraft 
     beyond the three aircraft already funded in previous fiscal 
     years''.


                    Amendment No. 3653, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, amendment No. 3653 is at the desk. I send a 
modification to that amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3653, as modified.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       On page 12, line 23, insert before the last period ``: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $53,000,000 may be provided for 
     transportation worker identification credentialing and 
     $2,000,000 for tracking trucks carrying hazardous material''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3653), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call to the attention of the members of 
the Appropriations Committee that there will be a markup in our 
committee of three bills at 10:30. We will also consider appropriations 
bills on the floor tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


             Amendments Nos. 3657, 3658, and 3659, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk: one 
on behalf of Senators Durbin and Akaka; one on behalf of Senator 
Domenici; and one on behalf of Senator Talent. I understand these 
amendments have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask 
unanimous consent that they be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are adopted 
en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3657

 (Purpose: To provide for reporting by the Chief Financial Officer and 
 the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. Sections 702 and 703 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 342 and 343) are amended by striking ``, or 
     to another official of the Department, as the Secretary may 
     direct'' each place it appears.


                           amendment no. 3658

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
     Sec.    .
       Section 208(a) of Public Law 108-137; 117 Stat. 1849 is 
     amended by striking ``current'' and inserting ``2005''.


                           amendment no. 3659

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to deploy disaster 
liaisons when requested by a Governor or appropriate State agency in a 
                   federally declared disaster area)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIAISON FOR DISASTER EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Deployment of Disaster Liaison.--If requested by the 
     Governor or the appropriate State agency of the affected 
     State, the Secretary of Agriculture may deploy disaster 
     liaisons to State and local Department of Agriculture Service 
     Centers in a federally declared disaster area whenever 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency Personnel are deployed in 
     that area, to coordinate Department programs with the 
     appropriate disaster agencies designated under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
       (b) Qualifications.--A disaster liaison shall be selected 
     from among Department employees who have experience providing 
     emergency disaster relief in federally declared disaster 
     areas.
       (c) Duties.--A disaster liaison shall--
       (1) serve as a liaison to State and Federal Emergency 
     Services;
       (2) be deployed to a federally declared disaster area to 
     coordinate Department interagency programs in assistance to 
     agricultural producers in the declared disaster area;
       (3) facilitate the claims and applications of agricultural 
     producers who are victims of the disaster that are forwarded 
     to the Department by the appropriate State Department of 
     Agriculture agency director; and
       (4) coordinate with the Director of the State office of the 
     appropriate Department agency to assist with the application 
     for and distribution of economic assistance.
       (d) Duration of Deployment.--The deployment of a disaster 
     liaison under subsection (a) may not exceed 30 days.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``federally 
     declared disaster area'' means--
       (1) an area covered by a Presidential declaration of major 
     disaster, including a disaster caused by a wildfire, issued 
     under section 301 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170); or
       (2) determined to be a disaster area, including a disaster 
     caused by a wildfire, by the Secretary under subpart A of 
     part 1945 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 3589

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, notwithstanding the adoption of amendment 
No. 3589, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with 
the following change: On line 7 of the amendment, insert ``and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate'' after 
``Governmental Affairs.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the three amendments adopted previously were agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we worked real hard today. It is my 
understanding we will have no votes tomorrow.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


            dugway proving ground's first responder classes

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to compliment my friend, 
Senator

[[Page S9210]]

Cochran. He has been a tireless advocate for defending the homeland. 
His subcommittee has made impressive strides in helping to prepare 
first responders for a day that we all hope will never come. Therefore, 
I rise to share my thoughts about the First Responder Classes that are 
taught at Dugway Proving Ground.
  These Ph.D driven courses focus on agent characteristics, sampling, 
protection, detection, decontamination and chemical/biological 
production recognition, such as the difference between clandestine drug 
laboratories, industrial accidents or chemical/biological production 
capabilities. Additionally, Dugway, as part of its effort to provide 
innovative training capabilities, has also built a ``training town'' in 
order for students to assess a situation and determine the proper 
course of action. The high quality of these classes is reflected in the 
comments from the Chief of the HAZMAT Unit of one of our largest cities 
who has categorized the program as ``one that all first responders 
should attend'' and many other students that have stated it was the 
best training they had experienced.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank my colleague for his kind words. Identifying the 
very best in first responder training programs is a priority for the 
subcommittee. Accordingly, the subcommittee has created a system in 
which the Department of Homeland Security distributes funding through a 
competitive grant program. I appreciate the Senator's comments on the 
quality of classes conducted at Dugway Proving Ground. I look forward 
to hearing about the program's continued progress in the future.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments.


                          port security grants

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy 
concerning language in the Senate version of H.R. 4567, the Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, regarding the distribution of 
the port security grant program.
  Under current policy, any port designated as a critical national 
seaport terminal may apply for a port security grant even though the 
grants are funded through the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, 
grant program. I would like to clarify that it is the intent of 
Congress that the port security grant program continue to be 
administered in this manner, and not limited to ports in UASI cities, 
as such a policy would deprive many American ports of crucial security 
funding.
  I would like to ask my distinguished colleague from Mississippi if he 
agrees that it is the intent of Congress to continue the distribution 
of port security grants to all national critical seaports as has been 
done in the past?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii is correct. I 
appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. It is not the intent 
of the Appropriations Committee to limit the recipients of port 
security grants to only UASI cities but rather to maintain the 
distribution criteria utilized in the fiscal year 2003 wartime 
supplemental.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi yield for a clarification?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the House 
version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill has language that 
clarifies this point. I would like to express my hope that the House 
language be preserved in the final version of the bill.


                            flood assistance

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd 
for working with Senator Biden and me to try and assist the community 
of Glenville, in New Castle County, DE. About 1 year ago, on September 
16, 2003, Tropical Storm Henri dropped between 8 and 10 inches of rain 
on the northern part of our State over a 14-hour period. Glenville was 
hardest hit. Every street in that development, home to 200 families, 
was flooded. Many resident's had to be rescued from their homes by 
boat. Hurricane Isabel hit just days later, causing further damage. 
Virtually the entire community is now uninhabitable.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner's 
requests for Federal disaster relief following Henri and Isabel was 
approved and FEMA was on the ground in Glenville immediately to assist. 
Since last September, however, we have come to the realization that 
more help is needed. Repairs to flood-damaged homes would be difficult 
because Glenville, hit hard in 1994 by Hurricane Floyd, is certain to 
suffer repeated flooding. The State of Delaware and New Castle County 
have now stepped in with $15 million each to purchase and destroy 
flood-damaged homes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senators' comments regarding the 
disaster situation in Delaware last September. There are two programs 
at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address a portion of this 
problem. The first program is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program which 
is available to States such as the Senators' which have been declared 
disaster areas by the President. I am informed by FEMA that funds are 
available to assist the Glenville community with home buyouts. The 
other program available to the State is the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
Program which is a Federal grant program which accepts competitive 
applications. However, I understand that these programs do not provide 
the resources to fully buy out the Glenville community at one time.
  Mr. CARPER. I appreciate the Senator's comments. Delaware is now 
facing the beginning of another hurricane season. With the amount of 
money the State and the county have put into the mitigation effort in 
Glenville, we are concerned that they may be hard pressed to respond 
effectively to another storm like Henri or Isabel.
  Mr. BIDEN. I know that no existing FEMA program was intended to buy 
out an entire community but $30 million is a lot of money in a State 
like mine. I believe additional Federal assistance for Glenville will 
help the State and the county finish their work there while maintaining 
sufficient emergency response capacity to deal with future storms.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senators from Delaware for this discussion 
and assure them that I will continue to assist them in their effort to 
work with FEMA on additional Federal funding.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill, Senators Cochran and Byrd, for agreeing 
to accept an amendment that I cosponsored. This amendment will ensure 
prompt funding for the accelerated deployment of Northern Border Air 
Wing run by the Department of Homeland Security.
  In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Congress mandated the 
establishment of a Northern Border Air Wing. The Department of Homeland 
Security, which is responsible for implementing this initiative, 
intends to have 5 bases, in Washington, Montana, North Dakota, 
Michigan, and New York, from which planes can be dispatched to track, 
identify, and intercept any unauthorized aircraft detected on the 
northern border.
  I have been working with Department officials in particular on their 
plan to base one of those air wings in Grand Forks, ND, which is a 
major aerospace center, and would be an invaluable base in this effort.
  Despite the urgency of this initiative, the dollars were simply 
lacking for its prompt implementation. At the funding levels called for 
in the administration's budget and the original appropriations bill, 
the Northern Border Air Wing would not have been fully established, 
staffed, and equipped until 2008.
  This amendment will allow the Department of Homeland Security to 
procure aircraft for, and begin operations at, all 5 air bases on the 
northern border in fiscal year 2005.
  I believe that this is an essential step, and I thank my colleagues 
for accepting our amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of this Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill today, but I do so with great reservation 
and with the knowledge that its funding levels are woefully inadequate 
for the job of providing an effective defensive front in the war on 
terror.
  Our highest priorities, as a Congress and as a Nation, have to be the 
security of the homeland and prevailing in the fight against terrorism. 
I fear that the bill before us does not provide the resources necessary 
to meet these priorities.
  This bill does not reflect my priorities, nor does it represent a 
homeland

[[Page S9211]]

security budget I would write. I voted against the President's budget 
when it was before the Senate earlier this year. One of the main 
reasons I gave then for my opposition to the majority's budget 
resolution was its low level of funding for homeland security. Today, 
unfortunately, we are seeing the results of that budget.
  The President's priorities seem to be along the lines of tax cuts for 
the wealthy and a missile defense system. Those are not my priorities. 
My priorities are the safety and security of my constituents and of the 
Nation. This bill reflects the President's priorities, as his tax cuts 
have left us with too few dollars to adequately secure the homeland.
  Let me give just a few examples of where this bill is deficient. 
Senator Byrd offered an amendment to add $2 billion to this $33 billion 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I voted in favor of this 
proposal; yet, the majority voted in lock-step against it. Senator Byrd 
included in his amendment funds to double the amounts allocated to 
deploy radiation monitors at our ports. The Department of Homeland 
Security estimates it will cost $496 million to deploy enough radiation 
monitors to screen all inbound containerized cargo at the Nation's 
busiest ports; yet, the Department has insisted upon deploying this 
technology over a 5-year period. I do not believe we have 5 years to 
wait, and Senator Byrd would have doubled the pace of this effort. How 
can opponents justify voting against these funds?
  Also included in this $2 billion amendment was an additional $100 
million to beef up passenger security screening at airports. One of the 
portions of the 9/11 Commission's Report that leapt out at me dealt 
with the security vulnerabilities that remain in our airports. 
According to the Commission, ``[t]he TSA and the Congress must give 
priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to 
detect explosives on passengers. As a start, each individual selected 
for special screening should be screened for explosives.''
  I expect it would surprise many of my constituents to know that the 
long lines we all go through at airports do not result in passengers 
being screened only for metal objects. When Russian airplanes are being 
blown out of the sky, likely by Chechen terrorists carrying explosives, 
and when the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' Richard Reid, tries to blow up 
a Miami-bound plane with carried-on explosives, we know we need to do a 
better job. But this bill provides only $75 million to continue to test 
for chemical and explosive material. Industry representatives have 
reported to me that these systems are ready to be deployed now, and 
that we need merely to spend the resources necessary to deploy them 
around the country. The $100 million proposed by Senator Byrd would 
have started us down that road, and I do not know how those who voted 
against these funds justify their position.
  How can my friends on the other side of the aisle vote against 
additional resources to secure our seaport and railway systems? The $2 
billion I referenced earlier also included an additional $350 million 
for transit and rail security grants, along with an additional $125 
million for port security grants.
  Not once since the attacks of 9/11 has the administration asked for 
an additional dollar of funding to protect passengers on our Nation's 
rails. More people pass through Penn Station in New York City every day 
than pass through all 3 of that city's major airports, to take just one 
example. But not a dime of new money has been requested by the 
President to protect those passengers.
  The Commerce committee, under the leadership of Senator McCain and 
Senator Hollings, has reported legislation authorizing over $1.1 
billion to enhance rail security. As my good friend from California has 
said, that legislation has not passed the Senate. In fact, since the 
attacks of 9/11 the Congress has refused to authorize additional 
security resources for Amtrak. Anonymous holds on the other side of the 
aisle have blocked action for 2 Congresses. The administration has done 
nothing to get that legislation--bipartisan bills--moving. That ought 
to be a scandal.

  I am pleased that the amendment offered by Senator Carper and Senator 
Boxer has been accepted. That will give Amtrak a fighting chance to get 
some of the funding this bill makes available for rail and transit 
security. But this will not feed the bulldog, Mr. President. This will 
not close the obvious gaps in our rail security. Given the low priority 
that rail security has been given, despite known and announced threats, 
I can only hope that Amtrak will get its share of the funds. I hope 
that when we revisit rail security in the next Congress, we will not 
regret the delay and penny-pinching that we have displayed on this 
issue.
  This bill is underfunded and shortsighted, and I regret that the 
amendments I supported to add needed homeland security dollars were not 
included. While the bill before us today does not reflect my 
priorities, I will vote for it so that funds can continue to flow to 
our States, our critical infrastructures, and for the day-to-day 
operations of the Department of Homeland Security. But I look forward 
to debating appropriations bills that do reflect my priorities, and 
that truly do all we should do to secure the homeland and wage an 
effective war on terror.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I lend my support to a very important issue 
that would provide funding for the permanent installation of explosive 
detection system, EDS, equipment in airports. This amendment would 
increase the overall amount of money of EDS installation from $250 
million to $325 million. I have been joined by Senator John Ensign of 
Nevada and a bipartisan group of Senators in this very important effort 
to enhance security and convenience for our Nation's air travelers.
  As passengers traveling through St. Louis, Kansas City, and other 
airports across the country have surely noticed, a number of bulky 
baggage screening machines sit in crowded terminal buildings where they 
were temporarily placed in the aftermath of 9/11.
  I am concerned that the current situation creates safety and security 
risks and unduly inconveniences the traveling public since passengers 
are forced to work their way around these obtrusive machines. 
Additionally, the current in-lobby configuration unnecessarily wastes 
Federal resources since in-lobby equipment requires additional 
screening personnel to operate, transfer bags, and the like.
  The goal of our amendment is to provide additional resources to move 
EDS equipment from airport lobbies out of the way and behind the scenes 
as part of an airport's baggage system. This is a costly undertaking 
requiring extensive construction at airports. The project cost estimate 
at St. Louis, for example, is $90 million, and $34 million at Kansas 
City. Nationwide, estimates to permanently install EDS equipment in 
airports run from $4 billion to $5 billion.
  While costly, it is clear that EDS installation should be a high 
priority for the Federal Government. I made that point in a March 
letter to the Senate subcommittee responsible for drafting the DHS 
spending bill. Additionally, I would note that the 9/11 Commission 
Report, which Congress is in the midst of considering, also calls for 
expediting the ``installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening 
equipment as part of its aviation-related recommendations.''
  Our amendment is fully offset through a reduction of $75 million in 
an account aimed at establishing information technology connectivity 
between TSA and airports. While IT connectivity is certainly an 
important goal, that account has been increased by $154 million over 
last year's level under the current bill, and a $75 million reduction 
still leaves $218 million available for that purpose.
  Given the difficulties that airports around the country are beginning 
to face with increasing wait times at screening checkpoints as air 
traffic continues to rebound, it is critical that we act now to move 
forward with EDS installation projects as quickly as possible. Adoption 
of this amendment is critical if we are to make any real progress in 
that regard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we debate the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, threats against our 
country and our way of life continue to mount. The reality of the world 
in which we live today is that terrorists are plotting ways to destroy 
our way of life

[[Page S9212]]

and seek to destroy the freedoms and liberties we cherish.
  The recently released 9/11 Commission report outlines the failures 
that lead to the September 11 terrorist attacks and poses 41 
recommendations on how to address identified failures and deter future 
terrorist attacks. Senators Lieberman, Specter, Bayh and others have 
joined with me introducing legislation that encompasses all of the 
Commission recommendations. A number of the Commission's 
recommendations relate directly to the Department of Homeland Security 
and merit discussion today.
  Obviously, one of the best ways to prevent terrorists from attacking 
our country is to prevent them from entering in the first place. The 
Commission urges the Government to integrate watch lists, speed up the 
full implementation of USVISIT, which is an automated biometric exit 
and entry program, and work with our allies to better coordinate 
terrorist travel intelligence. Actions must be taken to close current 
gaps in our security that allow people to travel into the United States 
without passports or other identification. Though challenging, it will 
be possible to tighten security and implement needed changes as 
recommended by the Commission without unnecessarily impeding the flow 
of people in and out of our country.
  The Commission also was clear that ``[h]omeland security assistance 
should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and 
vulnerabilities'' and that ``Congress should not use this money as a 
pork barrel.'' As the Commission reported, ``[p]opulation density, 
vulnerability and critical infrastructure should be the criteria by 
which homeland security assistance is based. I whole-heartedly agree. 
We must continue to resist any urge to earmark homeland security funds 
and I am pleased by the restraint the Appropriations Committee has once 
again shown while considering this homeland security funding 
legislation.
  Just 2 years ago, we created the third largest Government agency, the 
Department of Homeland Security, bringing 21 distinct Federal agencies 
under the direction of one Department. Since that time, considerable 
progress has been made in protecting our country. However, as 
succinctly stated in the Commission's report, we are still not safe. We 
have yet to adequately develop strong measures to protect our air, 
land, and sea ports of entry. Our borders remain porous. We need to 
develop more efficient ways for states and localities to receive much 
needed funding to increase their preparedness for a terrorist attack. I 
also remain very concerned at the continuing problems surrounding 
interoperability.
  I commend the chairman of the DHS Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for 
developing an appropriations bill with minimal earmarks or unrequested 
spending. Although this is only the second Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill, I remain encouraged that the Appropriations 
Committee has resisted the urge to load its DHS appropriations 
legislation with unrequested spending. I urge my colleagues to hold 
strong as the bill continues through the legislative process.

  I would be remiss if I did not point out that the few earmarks 
contained in this bill are targeted, as usual, to the home States of 
appropriators. Examples of earmarks and directive language include:
  The bill provides $15.4 million for the Coast Guard's bridge 
alteration program, despite the fact that the President requested no 
funds for this program. The report then earmarks the funds as follows: 
$4.4 million for the Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA; $3 million 
for the EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL; $5 million for the Fourteen 
Mile CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL; $3 million for the Burlington 
Northern Santa Fe Bridge, Burlington, IA.
  The bill provides $5 million above the President's request for 
identified perimeter security and firearms range needs, and the report 
specifies that the extra funds are to be spent at the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, NM;
  Agricultural pests: citing Hawaii's ``globally significant natural 
environment,'' the Committee report states that DHS should work with 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture in sharing information and expertise to ensure protection 
against agricultural pests. In this time of heightened security and 
exploding federal budgets, one should question the need for such a 
provision. I, for one, had not been unaware of an impending scourge of 
agricultural pests--pests that obviously have the good sense to live in 
a state that is popular travel destiny--pose a threat to the security 
of the homeland.
  Out of the acquisition, construction, improvements and related 
expenses account provided for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center, the committee report specifically identifies alterations and 
maintenance funding for buildings at four locations three of which 
happen to be represented by appropriators. The locations are Artesia, 
NM; Cheltenham, MD; Charleston, SC; and Glynco, GA.
  Mr. President, the role of our Department of Homeland Security is 
perhaps most vital when it comes to protecting our Nation's borders. I 
am pleased that the committee has continued to fund improvements in the 
technology available for the Department of Homeland Security to protect 
our borders. However, money alone will not solve this problem. We must 
reform our immigration laws while we work to improve border security.
  Historians will judge the 108th Congress by the way we address 
international terrorism and respond to the attacks of September 11. 
While much work remains to be done to secure our homeland, including 
action on 9/11 Commission recommendations, we can take another 
important step by passing this legislation.
  Mr. President, once again, I thank the appropriators for their 
efforts to move a relatively clean homeland security appropriations 
bill. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), 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 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Campbell
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lott
     Sessions
  The bill (H.R. 4567), as amended, was passed.

[[Page S9213]]

  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House of 
Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Campbell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Murray conferees on the part 
of the Senate.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. FRIST. 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.

                          ____________________