[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9277-S9279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate 
on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2005.
  First, I want to preface my remarks by thanking the chairman and 
ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for 
working so diligently on this bill despite the constraints they have 
faced. The fight against terrorism is our number one priority, and this 
appropriations bill is a key component in that fight.
  I also thank the Nation's first responders and the employees of the 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, who work daily to protect this 
Nation. They are on the front lines of the fight against terrorism. 
They are the ones who are called on to stop and respond to any future 
attack upon our Nation. This bill includes important resources these 
brave men and women need to perform their critical tasks.
  The Senate bill is a vast improvement over the President's proposed 
budget. It increases funding for such important things as port 
security, FIRE Act grants, Federal air marshals, Emergency Management 
Performance Grants, and the SAFER program. The Senate bill also 
includes funding for research and development on next generation 
explosive detection equipment, a priority identified by the 9/11 
Commission. These are just a few examples of the many areas where the 
Senate bill is far superior to the administration's request.
  I was also pleased that the Senate bill includes a number of 
amendments I sponsored. The Senate adopted my amendment requiring DHS 
to create a strategic transportation security plan and to base future 
transportation security budgets on that plan. This amendment will make 
sure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively to 
meet our Nation's most pressing transportation security needs, rather 
than the current well-intended but ad hoc method of spending. This 
amendment was based on one of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission and, it is one of the first of the Commission's 
recommendations to be adopted by the Senate.
  The Senate also adopted my amendment to extend to the Department of 
Homeland Security for fiscal year 2005 a provision included in the 
fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations law that requires all 
departments and agencies to report to Congress on purchases of foreign-
made goods. It is important that the government make every effort to 
purchase American-made goods and that it explain to the public whenever 
it fails to do so.
  I was also pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment requiring the 
Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on its use of 
data-mining in fiscal year 2005. This amendment will provide the 
American people with critical information about the use of data-mining 
technology and the way highly personal information, like credit 
reports, travel records and other personal information, is obtained and 
used by our government. Periodically, after millions of dollars have 
been spent, we learn about a new data-mining program under development 
by the Federal Government. This amendment will not stop any data-
mining. It simply requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
report to Congress on any data-mining programs it is using or 
developing and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and 
privacy of all Americans. With complete information, the American 
people will be able to make considered judgments about which programs 
should and should not go forward.
  Although this bill does a lot to help protect this Nation, including 
providing much-needed resources for our first responders, it does not 
do enough. I was disappointed that many good amendments were not 
adopted by the Senate. For example, an amendment offered by Senator 
Byrd, which I cosponsored, would have canceled purchases of oil to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and directed the $470 million in savings to 
critical homeland security needs. Yet the Senate rejected this 
amendment even though it would have helped to ease gas prices by 
freeing more oil for the market and provided important funding for our 
homeland security programs.
  I also regret that this bill was so severely limited by a budget 
allocation that did not provide adequate funding for homeland security, 
choosing instead to make tax cuts its highest priority. That is why I 
supported several amendments that would have added funding for critical 
security needs. I want to point out to my colleagues that I do not take 
lightly my decision to vote in favor of spending more money. Fiscal 
responsibility is one of my highest priorities and I constantly look 
for ways to limit government spending. I am honored that the Concord 
Coalition and others have recognized me for my efforts in this regard. 
Although fiscal responsibility remains one of my top priorities, it is 
imperative that we provide the resources needed to combat terrorism.
  I voted for this bill because it provides necessary funding. However, 
our Nation's vulnerabilities demand more, and I will continue to work 
to ensure that our vital homeland security needs are met.


                          intelligence reform

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night, the Republican majority in 
the Senate voted 49-45 to table an amendment I offered on intelligence 
reform. The amendment would have required the President to give 
Congress a copy of the 2001 report by the Scowcroft Commission on 
intelligence reform. A classified annex could be provided if necessary.

[[Page S9278]]

  In May 2001, before 9/11, President Bush ordered a review of U.S. 
intelligence, and General Brent Scowcroft was named to lead a 
commission to provide recommendations.
  The report of the Scowcroft Commission was submitted to the White 
House in December 2001, three months after 9/11, but it continues to be 
classified, despite repeated requests from Congress to release it.
  The 9/11 Commissioners had full access to the Scowcroft 
recommendations as background for their work, and the final report from 
the commission drew significantly from the recommendations.
  Clearly, before we act on intelligence reform later this month, 
Congress should also have the benefit of General Scowcroft's 
recommendations.
  But the Republican majority blocked it. They rallied behind the 
President and argued that the report could not be provided because of 
what they called ``executive privilege.'' Frankly, that's ridiculous.
  The White House did not invoke executive privilege when they gave the 
9/11 Commission full access to the Scowcroft report. They did not 
invoke executive privilege when they allowed National Security Advisor 
Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission.
  In these cases, the administration concluded that the benefit of 
protecting the Nation's security outweighed other considerations about 
privileged information. It should have done the same in this case.
  Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he 
could not see any reason why the Scowcroft report should not be 
declassified. Our colleague Senator Roberts, chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, and our colleague Senator Warner, chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, have requested the report, but it still 
has not been made available.
  There is no compelling reason to keep this information classified. 
What are the White House and the Republicans in the Senate trying to 
protect? The Nation's security? Hardly. They are trying to protect 
President Bush. Why? Because President Bush had General Scowcroft's 
recommendations on intelligence reform for nearly 3 years and failed to 
act on them.
  Congress needs the report, and we deserve to have it before we act on 
intelligence reform. We are talking about our national security, and 
President Bush is playing politics by stonewalling us. It is already 
clear that the administration sat on the Scowcroft recommendations for 
3 years, and the Nation has obviously suffered because of it. Had the 
reforms been implemented, we very well may have known that there were 
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  Congress and the American people deserve to know how much greater 
progress we could have made in the war on terrorism if President Bush 
had not buried the Scowcroft recommendations and allowed them to 
collect dust on a shelf at the White House.


                            vote explanation

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained 
during rollcall vote No. 178 on Senate amendment No. 3632 to H.R. 4567, 
the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. If present I 
would have voted ``aye,'' in favor of the motion to waive the Budget 
Act. It would not have changed the outcome of the vote.


                        byrd amendment no. 3649

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor and to speak 
in support of the amendment offered yesterday by my colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd. As members of Congress, our most sacred duty is 
protecting our fellow Americans. We do this in several ways, of course, 
by supporting our troops at home and abroad, by our oversight of the 
intelligence community, and now, with the creation of the Department of 
Homeland Security, with an annual appropriation to fund the security 
activities of the various agencies that make up DHS, and to fund grant 
programs to states, localities, and private industry to make certain 
that citizens of the United States are protected from terrorist 
attacks, life-threatening accidents, and acts of God.
  In the last 3 years I have sat down with hundreds of first responders 
around my State of West Virginia, as well as local elected officials 
and experts from my State's core industries, to discuss what they were 
doing to protect West Virginians, and to hear from them directly where 
they needed help from the Federal Government. I am sure that each of my 
colleagues has had similar meetings. While I would not presume to know 
specifically what was said at these meetings, I would be willing to 
wager that no Member of Congress heard anything other than ``We have 
huge unmet security needs and we need federal resources to make our 
country safer.''
  When we created the Department of Homeland Security, and when we 
authorized many billions of dollars in additional funding to protect 
this Nation, I am sure we convinced some people that we had learned the 
harsh lessons of September 11. In fact, I think we have done well 
making increased safety and security priority issues for the Federal 
Government and for all Americans. Unfortunately, we have fallen short 
on addressing these needs, and the Byrd amendment is a very good step 
in the right direction. This amendment would not do everything that 
needs to be done for Congress to be able to say we are delivering the 
goods to our first responders, State and local officials, and to the 
industries that make up our critical infrastructure, but it would be a 
much-needed boost for all those trying to make America safer.
  I commend Senator Byrd for making his usual strong, principled stand 
on this matter. Let me be clear, too, that I do not believe the funding 
levels in the underlying bill reflect any lack of understanding of the 
scope of the problem on the part of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. The chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, my 
friend, Senator Cochran, has done very well with the amount he was 
given to distribute. The problem is, quite simply, that the 
administration's past policy choices and the need to adequately support 
our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have left Senator Cochran and his 
fellow appropriators with too little to do this all-important job.
  It is not a question, let me reiterate, of our Republican colleagues 
or the President not wanting to see our Nation adequately protected. I 
do question, I am sad to say, the idea that it is vitally important to 
make unaffordable tax cuts permanent, but it is not more immediately 
important to secure our chemical facilities, our railroads, our 
electricity grid, or provide training and technical assistance to our 
firefighters and emergency medical personnel.
  I hope that my colleagues will see just how important this is. It 
would be a tragedy beyond measure if we failed to do the right thing 
when we had the chance, and only provided funding, for instance, to fix 
the problem of interoperable radios after another tragedy where first 
responders were at risk because they could not talk to each other.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate completed action of 
the second of 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005, the 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  Although the Senate has not yet adopted a new concurrent resolution 
on the budget, we did establish a discretionary spending allocation for 
the Appropriations Committee in the recently enacted Department of 
Defense appropriations bill. That allocation, and the subcommittee 
allocations that were derived from it, enabled us to consider the 
Homeland appropriations bill under the usual budget enforcement 
protections.
  During debate on the Homeland appropriations bill, a total of 10 
budget points of order were raised against amendments that sought to 
increase spending by an incredible $19.9 billion in 2005 alone. If 
those amendments had been enacted and incorporated into the 
discretionary spending baseline, their 10-year cost is a staggering 
$220.2 billion. Including debt service costs, that number increases to 
$285.3 billion.
  I am happy to inform my colleagues that the Senate upheld all 10 
budget points of order and rejected each one of these spending 
increases.
  Unfortunately, the Senate did adopt an amendment providing $2.98 
billion in emergency spending for agriculture disaster assistance. I 
opposed that amendment because it did not belong on this appropriations 
bill, and it

[[Page S9279]]

should be paid for and not add to the deficit. I want my colleagues to 
know that I will continue to seek to have this spending dropped from 
the bill or offset with appropriate spending cuts.
  I congratulate my good friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, who 
managed the Homeland appropriations bill for using the Budget Act 
successfully to control the spending in his bill. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the remaining appropriations bills to 
continue that success.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget points of 
order raised during consideration of the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 and their cost be 
inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 TEN-YEAR COST OF DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 HOMELAND
     SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL DEFEATED BY BUDGET POINTS OF ORDER
               [Budget authority, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Amendment a                   PoO b     2005     2005-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3580--Schumer--Port security R&D grants....   302(f)       0.2       1.7
3596--Murray--Port security................   302(f)       0.3       3.3
3597--Byrd--Misc. homeland programs........   302(f)       2.0      22.1
3604--Dodd--First responders...............   302(f)      15.8     175.2
3617--Lautenberg--Coast Guard..............   302(f)       0.1       1.1
3624--Mikulski--Firefighter assistance        302(f)       0.2       1.7
 grants....................................
3632--Clinton--High threat area funding       302(f)       0.6       6.9
 increase..................................
3649--Byrd--TSA and SPR....................   501(b)       0.0       0.5
3655--Schumer--Border security.............   302(f)       0.4       3.9
3656--Schumer--Rail security...............   302(f)       0.4       3.9
                                                     -------------------
      Subtotal.............................  .......      19.9     220.2
Interest on amendments c...................  .......       0.0      65.2
                                                     -------------------
      Total including interest.............  .......      19.9     285.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The increases in spending in several of these amendments may be for
  very similar or identical purposes.
b 302(f): Amendment exceeded Homeland Security 302(b) allocation;
  501(b): Amendment provided advance appropriations in an account not
  identified for advance appropriations by the conference report on H.
  Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year
  2004.
c Approximated based on budget authority.
 
Source: Senate Budget Committee Republican Staff.



                          ____________________