[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 130 (Monday, October 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11229-S11232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
4567, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Conference report accompanying (H.R. 4567), making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote on the
motion to invoke cloture is vitiated.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present for the Senate's
approval today the conference report on H.R. 4567, the fiscal year 2005
Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
The conference agreement provides total new budget authority for the
Department of $33.1 billion. Of the amount provided for fiscal year
2004, $32 billion is for discretionary programs.
To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders
to prepare for and respond to possible terrorist threats and other
emergencies, this conference report provides a total of $3.9 billion
for the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness, including: $1.1 billion for the State and local formula-
based grant program; $400 million for law enforcement terrorism
prevention grants; $885 million for high-threat, high-density, urban
area grants; $150 million for port security grants; $150 million for
rail and transit security grants; and $715 million for the firefighter
assistance grant program, of which $65 million is set-aside to begin
implementing the SAFER Act. The conference report also includes a
separate appropriation of $180 million for emergency management
performance grants.
The conference report includes a total of $5.1 billion for the
Transportation Security Administration, furthering our commitment to
secure all modes of transportation. The conference committee made air
cargo security a priority and provides $115 million for air cargo
security, an increase of $30 million from the President's request. This
funding will allow the Department to enhance its efforts to target and
prohibit the transportation of high-risk cargo on passenger aircraft;
as well as to advance efforts to research, develop, and procure the
most effective and efficient air cargo inspection and screening
systems. In addition, there is a statutory requirement for the tripling
of cargo inspections on passenger aircraft.
Additionally, $8.8 billion is provided to secure our Nation's
borders; $5.5 billion is provided for emergency preparedness and
response; $7.37 billion for the Coast Guard; and $2 billion for
research, analysis, and infrastructure protection. To increase rail
security the conference report provides $172 million for rail
compliance inspectors; canine explosive detection teams; rail, freight,
and transit security grants; vulnerability assessments; and research
and development of technologies to prevent suicide bombers. A total of
$662 million is provided for the Federal Air Marshals, $50 million more
than the requested amount.
A matter of concern to some of my colleagues are the items funded
through the offset provided by the extension of the customs user fees.
The largest single item that was funded through this mechanism was
speeding up the development and deployment of permanent airwings across
our northern border. Unfortunately, once the customs user fee extension
was dropped from this bill, we lost the offset available to enhance
funding for these important items and not exceed the fiscal constraints
placed on our subcommittee.
The conference committee met on Thursday, October 7, 2004, and the
conference report was filed on Saturday, October 9, 2004. It was
adopted by the House of Representatives later that day by a vote of 368
yeas to zero nays. Senate passage of this conference report today will
send this fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill to the President for
signature into law.
In closing, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, my
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd; the chairman of the House
subcommittee, Mr. Rogers; and the ranking member of the House
subcommittee, Mr. Sabo, for their substantial contributions to this
bill throughout the year. It has taken many hours of hard work by these
Members and their staff members to bring this bill to a successful
conclusion. I would also like to thank the chairmen ranking members of
the House and Senate full Appropriations Committees and their staff
members for the assistance and guidance they have provided to us
throughout the process.
I recommend the adoption of the conference report.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I thank Chairman Thad Cochran, the House
chairman, Harold Rogers, Representative Martin Sabo, Representative
David Obey, and all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard
work on this important legislation. We all share the goal of ensuring
that the new Department of Homeland Security has the resources it needs
to secure the homeland.
I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front
lines of homeland security. While I remain very concerned that we are
not giving these men and women the tools they need to do their jobs,
that in no way detracts from their commitment to serve the Nation every
hour of every day.
It is particularly appropriate for us to be considering this
legislation as Congress reviews the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. The President, the Vice President, the Attorney General,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FBI Director, and the CIA
Director invoke the threat of another terrorist attack on an almost
weekly basis. The 9/11 Commission concluded that on September 11, 2001,
our government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such
attacks. We are still not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks.
In light of all of these threats, one might anticipate that the
President would have amended his anemic 2-percent proposed increase for
the Department of Homeland Security. One might have anticipated that
the President,
[[Page S11230]]
our war President, would have requested increased appropriations for
securing our mass transit systems, for screening airline passengers for
explosives, for inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for
increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of
Federal Air Marshals. Sadly, this President talks the talk when it
comes to homeland security, but when it comes to doing the hard work of
making the Nation more secure, the President takes a walk.
The conference report that is before the Senate provides $33.1
billion, a level that is $896 million above the President's request.
This is an increase of only 5-percent over the levels approved by
Congress last year, only 5-percent. At a time when our war time
President and his entire administration is telling the Nation to expect
another attack, we are approving what is essentially a status-quo
homeland security bill.
The conference report that is before us does make several modest
improvements to the President's budget. In response to the Madrid
bombings and threats of similar attacks here at home, we include
funding for mass transit and rail security. We increase funding for
port security. We do more to secure air cargo on passenger aircraft.
The bill begins to invest in technologies to screen airline passengers
for explosives.
While these are important improvements, regrettably, the conferees
were simply not given sufficient resources to address serious gaps in
our security that we all know exist.
I am particularly disappointed that the Senate majority leader
changed his mind and acquiesced to a demand from the Speaker that the
conferees drop the customs user fee extension and the $784 million of
homeland security spending that the Senate approved last month. The
funding that was stripped from the bill is vital to the security of
this Nation. Not one Senator objected to adding the additional funding
because it provides needed investments to protect our borders, equip
first responders, enhance air and rail security, hire more Federal Air
Marshals, and secure nonprofit institutions that are threatened by
terrorists.
The 9/11 Commission report includes recommendations to deploy
explosives detection equipment at our airports, to address the
communications interoperability problem, to focus homeland security
dollars based on the greatest risk, and to secure non-aviation targets.
This bill simply does not do enough to respond to these
recommendations.
Mr. President, time and again, Senators on this side of the aisle
have tried to plug the holes in our Nation's security. We have worked
to address some of the most basic, and most dangerous, holes in our
protections from another terrorist attack. But at virtually every turn,
the President and the Senate majority tell us no. The American people
are told no. Why? It costs too much. It costs too much to protect the
people's lives. It costs too much to close our borders. It costs too
much to screen cargo on our airplanes and to check passengers for
explosives. It costs too much to save lives.
This Administration has repeatedly warned that it isn't a question of
if another terrorist attack will happen, but when. Unfortunately, I
think that the Administration has failed to heed its own warning. By
failing to support a significant investment in homeland security, by
ignoring the gaps that we all know exist, the White House foolishly is
gambling with the lives and the safety of the American people.
However, we have done the best we can with the limited resources that
have been given to us and I urge Senators to support its passage.
Finally, I want to thank the staffs of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee. Both Chairman Cochran's staff and my staff have worked
diligently this year to produce this important legislation. We had an
excellent series of hearings this year that I believe helped the
subcommittee to produce a bill that contains significant improvements
to the President's request.
Again, I urge Members to support the conference report.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to state my intention to vote for
the conference report to the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act because communities and first responders across our
Nation desperately need the funds provided in this legislation.
I want to express my extreme disappointment, however, with many
provisions in this conference report, and with the decision by the
Republican leadership in the Senate and House to fail to improve the
conference report language, and in some cases making it even worse,
despite having many opportunities to do.
It is hard to know where to begin, but three aspects of this bill are
especially egregious; they defy common sense and are simply not in the
best interest of our Nation's homeland defense.
First, in outright defiance of recommendations of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 9/11
Commission, and of commissions before it, the leadership inserted
language into this conference report that requires the Department of
Homeland Security to allocate homeland security formula grant funds,
such as funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Program, on a per capita
basis. This is directly contrary to the recommendations of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 9/11
Commission.
Specifically, in its report, the 9/11 Commission stated:
We understand the contention that every state and city
needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency
response. But federal homeland security assistance should not
remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should
supplement state and local resources based on the risks or
vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should
not use this money as a pork barrel.
The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be
established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the
Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community
homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated
that ``the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will
continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would
allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of
the national interest.''
In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current
method of allocating federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a
per capita basis alone, must be changed.
Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago,
9/11 Commission Chairman Kean stated:
We have recommended very strongly that homeland security
funds should be distributed according to assessment of risk,
and not simply by population or pork barrel or any other way.
Our understanding is that that recommendation, which is a
very important one to us, is not moving, and that other
people are saying that we should now remove the discretion
that Governor Ridge has now over those funds and mandate that
it be only by population. That would fly totally in the face
of our recommendations. We feel very strongly that the best
ways to distribute those funds are by the proper assessments
of risk.
Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made
in how Federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions
before it, such as the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the
Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senator Warren, have
strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated
more than a year ago that ``Congress should establish a system for
allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more
on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this,
the federal government should consider such factors as population,
population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical
infrastructure within each state.''
Moreover, the Senate just last week passed landmark legislation, the
National Intelligence Reform Act, which contains the Homeland Security
Grant Enhancement Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by voice vote as
an amendment to the intelligence bill.
The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2004, originally
introduced by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Collins,
contains a number of good provisions, but among the most important is
one that requires the majority of Federal homeland security grant funds
intended for State and local governments
[[Page S11231]]
to be allocated based on threat and risk and other factors rather than
on the basis of population alone.
This legislation was the result of almost 2 years of work in the
Senate. Legislation that calls for threat-based funding has also been
introduced by House Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Cox,
which has been included in the intelligence reform legislation that the
House of Representatives just passed.
In short, the language in the conference report to the Fiscal Year
2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act reflects an utter disregard
for the hard work performed over years by members of the Senate and
House as well as the expert evaluations and recommendations of the 9/11
and Rudman Commissions.
For the sake of our Nation's homeland defense, I hope that the
Congress will soon act on the conference report to the intelligence
reform legislation that has now initially passed both the Senate and
House. Both the Senate and House bills direct that homeland security
funds for States and local communities be allocated based on threat and
other factors. Then, the tremendous wrong in this conference report
that was done to our Nation's homeland defense will be made right.
Second, this conference report actually includes less funding for our
Nation's first responders for fiscal year 2005 than was appropriated
for our fire fighters, police officers, EMTs and other first responders
in fiscal year 2004, less funding for this year than last year, and at
a time when the threat of terrorist attack against many of our
communities, especially the City of New York, and our Nation as a whole
remains.
This conference report has less funding for the State Homeland
Security Grant program, less funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Grant program, less funding for the FIRE Act, and less
funding specifically for high-threat urban areas.
Lastly, much of the improvements that the Senate made to the homeland
security appropriations bill during the Senate's initial consideration
of the bill were stripped from the conference report by the House
Republican leadership. And when the conferees had the opportunity to
remedy this egregious mistake by supporting an amendment by Senator
Byrd to restore $784 million in cuts, that amendment was defeated.
As the conference report itself states, the conference agreement
deletes section 518 of the Senate-passed bill, which included $200
million in additional funding for the Northern Border Air Wing, so that
the air wings across our border can be appropriately operated; $50
million for nonprofit organizations that are at greater risk of
terrorist threats; $50 million in additional critical funding for FIRE
Act grants, and $50 million for Emergency Management Performance
Grants.
Though I am disappointed with other provisions either contained in
this bill, or missing, I am pleased that the conference committee
included language from an amendment I sponsored to include funding for
the firefighters and police officers of New York City.
Specifically, I commend the conferees of both the House and Senate
for requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide
$4,450,000 for Project Liberty pursuant to the request of the Governor
of New York. We know that $25,000,000 remains unexpended, and
unobligated, at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and I know they
will respond to the direction of the Appropriations Committee to speed
these funds to New York.
We owe these heroes every penny available for mental health
counseling. Our firefighters and police officers have been receiving
this counseling since losing so many of their brothers, sisters,
friends, and family members in the attacks. Our firefighters and police
officers have had to cope with the unimaginable and yet they stand
strong on the front lines to protect the homeland.
The men and women of the New York City Fire Department and New York
City Police Department, their families, and retirees, have helped this
country cope with the tragic losses of that day, and this Congress has
sent a clear message that we stand with them in helping them cope with
their own losses.
I will continue to do whatever I can in my capacity as a Senator from
New York to make sure our firefighters and police officers receive the
funding they need not only in the area of mental health counseling but
in all areas of homeland security.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the conference report before the
Senate today includes an important provision that will put a stop to
the ill-advised attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to
privatize jobs that are vital to keeping Americans safe. The conference
report prohibits DHS from spending money to process or approve the
privatization of Immigration Information Officer, Contact
Representative, or Investigative Assistant positions. The House voted
for this exact amendment earlier this year by a vote of 242-163, with
49 Republicans supporting it. The Senate voted 49-47 for this language.
During the meeting of the conferees, both the Senate and House
delegations voted in favor of this language.
Immigration Information Officers, IIOs, are responsible for screening
applications for immigration benefits for fraud, and for performing
criminal background checks on applicants. There are more than 1,200
IIOs and Contact Representatives around the nation, working for the
Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, branch of DHS. The work they
do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration fraud--and prevent
dangerous people from abusing the immigration system--is clearly
``inherently governmental,'' making them an inappropriate target of a
privatization effort.
As our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism, CIS carries
a heavy burden in its attempt to process immigration and naturalization
applications while ensuring that terrorists--along with other
fraudulent actors--do not abuse our immigration system. Information
Officers have played a vital role in meeting this burden. Indeed, the
agency's own job description requires that IIOs have the ``[s]kill to
identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from
appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible,'' a skill that
is obviously all the more important in this era. They are also required
by DHS to have ``[k]nowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and
observation of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is
misrepresenting the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.''
Weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system must remain a
responsibility of government employees, especially when the perpetrator
of the fraud may be a dangerous criminal or terrorist. This conference
report will ensure that is the case.
I have a personal interest in this issue because about 100 fine
Vermonters currently work as IIOs. I know the fine work they do, and I
know that my staff and indeed all of our staffs rely on them and their
counterparts throughout the country when we are seeking to help our
constituents. I know that our Nation will be better off because these
fine men and women will remain in their current positions.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support the passage of
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bill
accomplishes in large part what must continue to be this Nation's first
priority--protecting our country from terrorist attack.
This bill funds essential national programs which protect our
borders, our aviation security, our ports, our emergency management
assistance, and our critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power
plants. In addition, the bill funds essential programs that do not only
protect us, but also prepare our States and communities should we be
faced with an emergency. These grant programs support our firefighters
and other first responders whom we rely on in times of need.
The State Homeland Security Grants enable the States to organize
their first responders and communications systems to respond to a
terrorist attack. Further, the Urban Area Security Initiative
recognizes that our largest cities, such as Milwaukee, have special
needs given their large populations that require more directed
assistance.
[[Page S11232]]
For all of these reasons, I am pleased to support the Homeland
Security appropriations bill today and I am encouraged that we are
doing what we can to protect our Nation.
FEMA and faith based organizations
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the leadership of the chairman
on this important disaster relief bill.
In the context of this Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA
disaster assistance bill, I want to express my appreciation for recent
FEMA policy updates for disaster relief to faith-based organizations.
These ongoing challenges and tragedies provide FEMA an opportunity to
make certain that they are implementing these policies in a manner
consistent with the President's policy which includes faith-based
organizations among those community-based organizations helping on an
equal basis in these hurting communities.
On December 12, 2002, President Bush announced, ``I have directed
specific action in several Federal agencies with a history of
discrimination against faith-based groups. FEMA will revise its policy
on emergency relief so that religious nonprofit groups can qualify for
assistance after disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.'' FEMA
acted quickly to serve eligible religious groups, issuing policy
statement 9521.3 concerning Private Non-Profit Facility Eligibility to
provide guidance in delivering future grant awards.
In the words of the former FEMA Director Joe Albaugh, ``Disasters
don't discriminate, and neither should our response to them.'' The
administration recognized this important principle in the case of the
Seattle Hebrew Academy. The academy's main building was rendered unfit
after it was damaged in the Nisqually earthquake of 2001, but the
academy's first application for FEMA relief was denied. After the
Academy entered a legal challenge, the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Department of Justice entered an opinion on September 22, 2002, which
stated, in referring to FEMA's original denial, ``We believe that the
Acting Regional Director's reading of 44 C.F.R. section 206.221 (e) is
not the better interpretation of that regulation.'' This is a
commonsense policy of fair treatment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania
for highlighting the importance of community-based organizations,
including faith-based organizations, in disaster assistance efforts. I
also concur that religious organizations should not be excluded when
they are victims of disasters. I concur with the Senator that FEMA
should continue to see that faith-based organizations are treated
fairly in accordance with the President's policy and for the benefit of
those in need in times of crisis.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Specter, I
wish to express my appreciation to Senator Cochran, chairman of the
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, for bringing out of
conference $25 million in assistance for 501(c)(3) nonprofits
``determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be at high-risk
of international terrorist attack.'' I know this was difficult to
achieve because the House bill did not have a similar item and due to
the loss of the customs users fees as a funding mechanism for our
Senate provision.
There are a number of compelling reasons for dedicating homeland
security funds to nonprofits. First, nonprofits provide vital health,
social, community, educational, cultural, and other services to
millions of Americans every day. Second, if nonprofits are forced to
divert funds to cover the entire cost of security measures, those funds
will deplete resources for vital human services, including capacity to
respond to disasters. Third, intelligence reports and the 9-11
Commission Report indicate some nonprofits are among the most
vulnerable, highest risk institutions. Fourth, nonprofit institutions
of all types serve as gathering places for millions of American
citizens every day of the year, and finally the security needs of the
nonprofit sector have been largely unmet.
This assistance is intended for basic security enhancements to
protect American citizens from car bombs and other lethal terrorist
attacks. This assistance is not intended for facility construction;
rather, it is intended to be used for installation of equipment such as
concrete barriers, blast-proof doors, Mylar window coatings, security
fences and hardened parking lot gates, as well as associated training.
The Director of Central Intelligence has stated that al-Qaeda has
turned its attention to ``soft targets.'' Terrorists' willingness to
attack soft targets of all types has been made readily apparent with
attacks in the United States, England, Canada, Israel, Spain, Germany,
Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, Egypt, and Turkey, including an
international Red Cross building, synagogues, schools, and cultural and
community centers.
It is my intention, as sponsor with Senator Specter of the Senate
provision, that the Secretary should issue regulations to ensure that
such funds are disbursed in a manner that ensures basic assistance for
the maximum number of institutions and are dedicated to protecting
Americans operating or utilizing nonprofits from international
terrorist attacks and are not used for other purposes.
Once again, I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, my
good friend Senator Cochran, and my distinguished colleague Senator
Specter, on their assistance with this vital initiative to protect our
Nation's nonprofits.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4567.
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________