Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 92 (Monday, July 11, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 92 (Monday, July 11, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7947-S7974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will proceed

[[Page S7948]]

to the consideration of H.R. 2360, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Appropriations with an amendment to strike all
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(Strike the part shown in black brackets and insert the part shown in
italic.)

H.R. 2360

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely:

[TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

[Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

[For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive
management of the Department of Homeland Security, as
authorized by law, $133,239,000 (reduced by $100,000):
Provided, That not to exceed $40,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
of the amounts appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000
shall not be available for obligation until the Secretary of
Homeland Security submits to the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives an immigration enforcement
strategy to reduce the number of undocumented aliens, based
upon the latest United States Census Bureau data, by 10
percent per year: Provided further, That of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall not be
available for obligation until section 525 of this Act is
implemented: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
submit all reports requested by the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives for all
agencies and components of the Department of Homeland
Security, as identified in this Act and the House report
accompanying this Act, by the dates specified: Provided
further, That the content of all reports shall be in
compliance with the direction and instructions included in
this Act and the House report accompanying this Act by the
dates specified: Provided further, That, of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000 may not be
obligated until the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives has received all final reports in
compliance with such direction and instructions.

[Office of the Under Secretary for Management

[For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management, as authorized by sections 701-705
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341-345),
$146,084,000 (reduced by $26,100,000) (reduced by
$50,000,000): Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided, $26,070,000 shall
remain available until expended solely for the alteration and
improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and
relocation costs to consolidate Department headquarters
operations.

[Office of the Chief Financial Officer

[For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $18,505,000.

[Office of the Chief Information Officer

[For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $303,700,000; of which
$75,756,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and
of which $227,944,000 shall be available for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities for the Department of
Homeland Security, and for the costs of conversion to
narrowband communications, including the cost for operation
of the land mobile radio legacy systems, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
shall be used to support or supplement the appropriations
provided for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology project or the Automated Commercial
Environment: Provided further, That the Department shall
report within 180 days of enactment of this Act on its
enterprise architecture and other strategic planning
activities in accordance with the terms and conditions
specified in the House report accompanying this Act.

[Office of Inspector General

[For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $83,017,000, of which not to exceed
$100,000 may be used for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
at the direction of the Inspector General.

[TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

[BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

[Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

[Salaries and Expenses

[For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, as
authorized by subtitle A of title IV of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), $10,617,000: Provided,
That not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses.

[automation modernization

[For necessary expenses of the United State Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology project, as authorized
by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note)
and for the development, deployment, and use of Free and
Secure Trade (FAST), NEXUS, and Secure Electronic Network for
Traveler's Rapid Inspection (SENTRI), $411,232,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be allocated as
follows:
[(1) $7,000,000 for FAST.
[(2) $14,000,000 for NEXUS/SENTRI.
[(3) $390,232,000 for the United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology project: Provided, That
of the funds provided for this project, $254,000,000 may not
be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a
plan for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of Homeland
Security that--
[(A) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
[(B) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
enterprise information systems architecture;
[(C) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
[(D) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
[(E) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

[Customs and Border Protection

[Salaries and Expenses

[For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation
of aircraft; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (3,935 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $4,885,544,000; of
which $3,000,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which not to exceed
$35,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not less than $141,060,000 shall be for
Air and Marine Operations; of which not to exceed
$174,800,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2007,
for inspection and surveillance technology, unmanned aerial
vehicles, and replacement aircraft; of which such sums as
become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except sums
subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)),
shall be derived from that account; of which not to exceed
$150,000 shall be available for payment for rental space in
connection with preclearance operations; of which not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation to
informants, to be accounted for solely under the certificate
of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be
available for payments or advances arising out of contractual
or reimbursable agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies while engaged in cooperative activities
related to immigration: Provided, That for fiscal year 2006,
the overtime limitation prescribed in section 5(c)(1) of the
Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) shall be
$35,000; and notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be available to
compensate any employee of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection for overtime, from whatever source, in an amount
that exceeds such limitation, except in individual cases
determined by the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security, or a designee, to be necessary for
national security purposes, to prevent excessive costs, or in
cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of
the total amount provided, $10,000,000 may not be obligated
until the Secretary submits to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives all required
reports related to air and marine operations: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided, $2,000,000 may
not be obligated until the Secretary submits to the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on
the performance of the Immigration Advisory Program as
directed in House

[[Page S7949]]

Report No. 108-541: Provided further, That of the total
amount provided, $70,000,000 may not be obligated until the
Secretary submits to the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives part two of the report on the
performance of the Container Security Initiative progam, as
directed in House Report 180-541: Provided further, That no
funds shall be available for the site acquisition, design, or
construction of any Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson
sector: Provided further, That the Border Patrol shall
relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once
every seven days in a manner designed to prevent persons
subject to inspection from predicting the location of any
such checkpoint.

[Automation Modernization

[For expenses for customs and border protection automated
systems, $458,009,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not less than $321,690,000 shall be for the development
of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That none
of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated
for the Automated Commercial Environment until the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure
prepared by the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security that--
[(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
[(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security's
enterprise information systems architecture;
[(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
[(4) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
[(5) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

[Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

[For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance,
and procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, and other
related equipment of the air and marine program, including
operational training and mission-related travel, and rental
payments for facilities occupied by the air or marine
interdiction and demand reduction programs, the operations of
which include the following: the interdiction of narcotics
and other goods; the provision of support to Federal, State,
and local agencies in the enforcement or administration of
laws enforced by the Department of Homeland Security; and at
the discretion of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security, the provision of assistance to
Federal, State, and local agencies in other law enforcement
and emergency humanitarian efforts, $347,780,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That no aircraft or other
related equipment, with the exception of aircraft that are
one of a kind and have been identified as excess to Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection requirements and aircraft that
have been damaged beyond repair, shall be transferred to any
other Federal agency, department, or office outside of the
Department of Homeland Security during fiscal year 2006
without the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.

[Construction

[For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate,
equip, and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for
the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs and immigration, $93,418,000, to remain available
until expended.

[Immigration and Customs Enforcement

[Salaries and Expenses

[For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and
purchase and lease of up to 2,300 (2,000 for replacement
only) police-type vehicles, $3,064,081,000 (reduced by
$5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000), of which not to exceed
$10,000,000 shall be available until expended for conducting
special operations pursuant to section 3131 of the Customs
Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which not to
exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not to exceed $1,000,000
shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security; of which
not less than $102,000 shall be for promotion of public
awareness of the child pornography tipline; of which not less
than $203,000 shall be for Project Alert; of which not less
than $5,000,000 shall be for costs to implement section
287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended;
and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall be available to
fund or reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs
associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of
smuggled illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated shall be available to compensate any employee
for overtime in an annual amount in excess of $35,000, except
that the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security may waive that amount as necessary for national
security purposes and in cases of immigration emergencies:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided,
$3,045,000 shall be for activities to enforce laws against
forced child labor in fiscal year 2006, of which not to
exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated,
$50,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until the
Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
submits to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a national detention management plan
including the use of regional detention contracts and
alternatives to detention: Provided further, That the
Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
with concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall
submit, by December 1, 2005, to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a plan for the
expanded use of Immigration Enforcement Agents to enforce
administrative violations of United States immigration laws.

[Federal Air Marshals

[For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals,
$698,860,000, of which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall remain
available until expended.

[Federal Protective Service

[The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account, not to exceed $487,000,000, shall be available
until expended for necessary expenses related to the
protection of federally-owned and leased buildings and for
the operations of the Federal Protective Service.

[Automation Modernization

[For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement
automated systems, $40,150,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under
this heading may be obligated until the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
receive and approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the
Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security that--
[(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
[(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
enterprise information systems architecture;
[(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
[(4) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
[(5) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

[Construction

[Transportation Security Administration

[Aviation Security

[For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing aviation security,
$4,591,612,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007,
of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, not to exceed
$3,608,599,000 shall be for screening operations, of which
$170,000,000 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 $983,013,000
shall be for aviation security direction and enforcement
presence: Provided further, That security service fees
authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United States
Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the General Fund shall be reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are
received during fiscal year 2006, so as to result in a final
fiscal year appropriation from the General Fund estimated at
not more than $2,601,612,000: Provided further, That any
security service fees collected in excess of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall become available during
fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That none of the funds in
this Act shall be used to recruit or hire personnel into the
Transportation Security Administration which would cause the
agency to exceed a staffing level of 45,000 full-time
equivalent screeners.

[surface transportation security

[For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing surface transportation
security activities, $36,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2007.

[Transportation Vetting and Credentialing

[For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs by the Office of
Transportation Vetting and Credentialing, $84,294,000.

[Transportation Security Support

[For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing transportation security
support and intelligence activities, $541,008,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated under

[[Page S7950]]

this heading, $50,000,000 may not be obligated until the
Secretary submits to the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives: (1) a plan for optimally deploying
explosive detection equipment, either in-line or to replace
explosive trace detection machines, at the Nation's airports
on a priority basis to enhance security, reduce
Transportation Security Administration staffing requirements,
and long-term costs; and (2) a detailed spend plan for
explosive detection systems procurement and installations on
an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year 2006: Provided
further, That these plans shall be submitted no later than 60
days after enactment of this Act.

[United States Coast Guard

[Operating Expenses

[For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance
of the Coast Guard not otherwise provided for, purchase or
lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, payments pursuant to section 156 of Public
Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and recreation and welfare,
$5,500,000,000, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be for defense-
related activities; of which $24,500,000 shall be derived
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the
purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by
this or any other Act shall be available for administrative
expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the
United States: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided by this Act shall be available for expenses incurred
for yacht documentation under section 12109 of title 46,
United States Code, except to the extent fees are collected
from yacht owners and credited to this appropriation.

[Environmental Compliance and Restoration

[For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's
environmental compliance and restoration functions under
chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $12,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

[Reserve Training

[For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve
program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and
services; $119,000,000.

[Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

[For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law,
$798,152,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes of
section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $22,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2010, to acquire, repair, renovate, or
improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; of which
$29,902,000 shall be available until September 30, 2010, to
increase aviation capability; of which $130,100,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2008, for other equipment; of
which $39,700,000 shall be available until September 30,
2008, for shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities;
of which $76,450,000 shall be available for personnel
compensation and benefits and related costs; and of which
$500,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2010, for
the Integrated Deepwater Systems program: Provided, That the
Commandant of the Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of
surplus real property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds
shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections and shall be available until September 30, 2008,
only for Rescue 21: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading for the Integrated Deepwater
System, $50,000,000 may not be obligated until the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives receives
from the Secretary of Homeland Security a new Deepwater
program baseline that reflects revised, post September 11th
operational priorities that includes--
[(1) a detailed justification for each new Deepwater asset
that is determined to be necessary to fulfill homeland and
national security functions or multi-agency procurements as
identified by the Joint Requirements Council;
[(2) a comprehensive timeline for the entire Deepwater
program, including an asset-by-asset breakdown, aligned with
the comprehensive acquisition timeline and revised mission
needs statement, that also details the phase-out of legacy
assets and the phase-in of new, replacement assets on an
annual basis;
[(3) a comparison of the revised acquisition timeline
against the original Deepwater timeline;
[(4) an aggregate total cost of the program that aligns
with the revised mission needs statement, acquisition
timeline and asset-by-asset breakdown;
[(5) a detailed projection of the remaining operational
lifespan of every type of legacy cutter and aircraft; and
[(6) a detailed progress report on command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance equipment upgrades that includes what has been
installed currently on operational assets and when such
equipment will be installed on all remaining Deepwater legacy
assets: Provided further, That the Secretary shall annually
submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, at the time that the President's budget is
submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, a future-years
capital investment plan for the Coast Guard that identifies
for each capital budget line item--
[(1) the proposed appropriation included in that budget;
[(2) the total estimated cost of completion;
[(3) projected funding levels for each fiscal year for the
next 5 fiscal years or until project completion, whichever is
earlier;
[(4) an estimated completion date at the projected funding
levels; and
[(5) changes, if any, in the total estimated cost of
completion or estimated completion date from previous future-
years capital investment plans submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives:
[Provided further, That the Secretary shall ensure that
amounts specified in the future-years capital investment plan
are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs,
projects, and activities of the Coast Guard in the
President's budget as submitted under section 1105(a) of
title 31 for that fiscal year: Provided further, That any
inconsistencies between the capital investment plan and
proposed appropriations shall be identified and justified.

[Alteration of Bridges

[For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

[Retired Pay

[For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,014,080,000.

[United States Secret Service

[Salaries and Expenses

[For necessary expenses of the United States Secret
Service, including purchase of not to exceed 614 vehicles for
police-type use, which shall be for replacement only, and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; purchase of American-made
motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses
at such rates as may be determined by the Director; rental of
buildings in the District of Columbia, and fencing, lighting,
guard booths, and other facilities on private or other
property not in Government ownership or control, as may be
necessary to perform protective functions; payment of per
diem or subsistence allowances to employees where a
protective assignment during the actual day or days of the
visit of a protectee requires an employee to work 16 hours
per day or to remain overnight at his or her post of duty;
conduct of and participation in firearms matches;
presentation of awards; travel of Secret Service employees on
protective missions without regard to the limitations on such
expenditures in this or any other Act if approval is obtained
in advance from the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives; research and
development; grants to conduct behavioral research in support
of protective research and operations; and payment in advance
for commercial accommodations as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; $1,228,981,000, of which not to exceed
$25,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide
technical assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which
$2,678,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; and of
which $5,000,000 shall be a grant for activities related to
the investigations of exploited children and shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That up to $18,000,000
provided for protective travel shall remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, not less than $10,000,000 shall be
available solely for the unanticipated costs related to
security operations for National Special Security Events, to
remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided further,
That the United States Secret Service is authorized to
obligate funds in anticipation of reimbursements from
agencies and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5,
United States Code, receiving training sponsored by the James
J. Rowley Training Center, except that total obligations at
the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary
resources available under this heading at the end of the
fiscal year.

[Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

[For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction,
repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities,
$3,699,000, to remain available until expended.

[[Page S7951]]

[TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

[Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness

[Management and Administration

[For necessary expenses for the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness, $3,546,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

[State and Local Programs

[For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, including grants to State and local governments
for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $2,781,300,000 (increased by
$100,000) (increased by $50,000,000), which shall be
allocated as follows:
[(1) $750,000,000 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 enactment of this
Act; that States shall submit applications within 90 days
after the grant announcement; and that the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness shall act
within 90 days after receipt of an application: Provided
further, That no less than 80 percent of any grant under this
paragraph to a State shall be made available by the State to
local governments within 60 days after the receipt of the
funds.
[(2) $1,215,000,000 for discretionary grants, as determined
by the Secretary of Homeland Security, of which--
[(A) $850,000,000 shall be for use in high-threat, high-
density urban areas;
[(B) $150,000,000 shall be for port security grants, which
shall be distributed based on risks and vulnerabilities:
Provided, That the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness shall work with the Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate to assess
the risk associated with each port and with the Coast Guard
to evaluate the vulnerability of each port: Provided further,
That funding may only be made available to those projects
recommended by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port;
[(C) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security
grants;
[(D) $10,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security
grants;
[(E) $150,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail
transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code), freight rail, and transit security
grants; and
[(F) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection
grants:
[Provided, That for grants under subparagraph (A), the
application for grants shall be made available to States
within 45 days after enactment of this Act; that States shall
submit applications within 90 days after the grant
announcement; and that the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness shall act within 90
days after receipt of an application: Provided further, That
no less than 80 percent of any grant under this paragraph to
a State shall be made available by the State to local
governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds.
[(3) $50,000,000 shall be available for the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program.
[(4) $366,300,000 for training, exercises, technical
assistance, and other programs:
[Provided, That none of the grants provided under this
heading shall be used for the construction or renovation of
facilities; for minor perimeter security projects, not to
exceed $1,000,000, as determined necessary by the Secretary
of Homeland Security: Provided further, That the proceeding
proviso shall not apply to grants under subparagraphs (B) and
(E) of paragraph (2) of this heading: Provided further, That
grantees shall provide additional reports on their use of
funds, as determined necessary by the Secretary of Homeland
Security: Provided further, That funds appropriated for law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants under paragraph (1)
and discretionary grants under paragraph (2)(A) of this
heading shall be available for operational costs, to include
personnel overtime and overtime associated with Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
certified training, as needed: Provided further, That in
accordance with the Department's implementation plan for
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
shall issue the final National Preparedness Goal no later
than October 1, 2005; and no funds provided under paragraphs
(1) and (2)(A) shall be awarded to States that have not
submitted to the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness an updated State homeland
strategy based on the interim National Preparedness Goal,
dated March 31, 2005.

[Firefighter Assistance Grants

[For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $600,000,000 (increased by $50,000,000), of
which $550,000,000 (increased by $25,000,000) shall be
available to carry out section 33 (15 U.S.C. 2229) and
$50,000,000 (increased by $25,000,000) shall be available to
carry out section 34 (15 U.S.C. 2229a) of the Act, to remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of this amount shall be available for
program administration.

[emergency management performance grants

[For necessary expenses for emergency management
performance grants, as authorized by the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reductions Act
of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $180,000,000: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the total
appropriation.

[Counterterrorism Fund

[For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to reimburse any Federal agency for the
costs of providing support to counter, investigate, or
respond to unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities,
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
15 days prior to the obligation of any amount of these funds
in accordance with section 503 of this Act.

[Emergency Preparedness and Response

[Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response

[For necessary expenses for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, as
authorized by section 502 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 312), $2,306,000.

[Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery

[For necessary expenses for preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities of the Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response, $249,499,000, including
activities authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire Prevention and Control
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and
303 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404,
405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).

[Administrative and Regional Operations

[For necessary expenses for administrative and regional
operations of the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and
Response, $225,441,000, including activities authorized by
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.): Provided, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses.

[Public Health Programs

[For necessary expenses for countering potential
biological, disease, and chemical threats to civilian
populations, $34,000,000.

[Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

[The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2006, as
authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall
not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by
the Department of Homeland Security necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment
and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall
reflect costs of providing such services, including
administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided
further, That fees received under this heading shall be
deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2006,
and remain available until expended.

[Disaster Relief

[For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $2,023,900,000 (reduced by
$23,900,000), to remain available until expended.

[Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

[For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program, as authorized by section 319 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5162), $567,000: Provided, That gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans shall not exceed
$25,000,000: Provided further, That the cost of modifying
such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).

[Flood Map Modernization Fund

[For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101),
$200,000,000, and such additional sums as may be provided by
State

[[Page S7952]]

and local governments or other political subdivisions for
cost-shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2) of
such Act, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the
total appropriation.

[National Flood Insurance Fund

[(including transfer of funds)

[For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), not to exceed $36,496,000 for
salaries and expenses associated with flood mitigation and
flood insurance operations; not to exceed $40,000,000 for
financial assistance under section 1361A of such Act to
States and communities for taking actions under such section
with respect to severe repetitive loss properties, to remain
available until expended; not to exceed $10,000,000 for
mitigation actions under section 1323 of such Act; and not to
exceed $99,358,000 for flood hazard mitigation, to remain
available until September 30, 2007, including up to
$40,000,000 for expenses under section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), which amount
shall be available for transfer to the National Flood
Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2007, and which amount
shall be derived from offsetting collections assessed and
collected pursuant to section 1307 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
4014), and shall be retained and used for necessary expenses
under this heading: Provided, That in fiscal year 2006, no
funds in excess of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating expenses;
(2) $660,148,000 for agents' commissions and taxes; and (3)
$30,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall be
available from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

[National Flood Mitigation Fund

[Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $40,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2007, for activities
designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures
pursuant to such Act, of which $40,000,000 shall be derived
from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

[National Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund

[For a pre-disaster mitigation grant program pursuant to
title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.),
$150,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That grants made for pre-disaster mitigation shall be awarded
on a competitive basis subject to the criteria in section
203(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)): Provided further,
That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of
the total appropriation.

[Emergency Food and Shelter

[To carry out an emergency food and shelter program
pursuant to title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $153,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the
total appropriation.

[TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, ASSESSMENTS, AND
SERVICES

[Citizenship and Immigration Services

[For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration
services, $120,000,000: Provided, That the Director of United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services shall submit to
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report on its information technology
transformation efforts and how these efforts align with the
enterprise architecture standards of the Department of
Homeland Security within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

[Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

[Salaries and Expenses

[For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, including materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of not to
exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and related
activities; the conduct of and participation in firearms
matches and presentation of awards; public awareness and
enhancement of community support of law enforcement training;
room and board for student interns; a flat monthly
reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile
phones for official duties; and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $194,000,000, of
which up to $36,174,000 for materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain available
until September 30, 2007; and of which not to exceed $12,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in
anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving
training sponsored by the Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal
year: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2006 and
thereafter, the Center is authorized to assess pecuniary
liability against Center employees and students for losses or
destruction of government property due to gross negligence or
willful misconduct and to set off any resulting debts due the
United States by Center employees and students, without their
consent, against current payments due the employees and
students for their services.

[Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

[For acquisition of necessary additional real property and
facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, $64,743,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to
accept reimbursement to this appropriation from government
agencies requesting the construction of special use
facilities.

[Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

[Management and Administration

[For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and for management and administration of programs
and activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), $198,200,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

[Assessments and Evaluations

[For necessary expenses for information analysis and
infrastructure protection as authorized by title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$663,240,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

[Science and Technology

[Management and Administration

[For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology and for management
and administration of programs and activities, as authorized
by title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et seq.), $81,399,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.

[Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations

[For necessary expenses for science and technology
research, including advanced research projects; development;
test and evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as
authorized by title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), $1,258,597,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided
under this heading, $23,000,000 is available to find an
alternative site for the National Bio and Agrodefense
Laboratory and other pre-construction activities to establish
research labs to protect animal and public health from high
consequence animal and zoonotic diseases, in support of the
requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directives 9
and 10: Provided further, That of the total amount provided
under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be used to enhance
activities toward implementation of section 313 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193).

[TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

[(including rescission of funds)

[Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
[Sec. 502. Subject to the requirements of section 503 of
this Act, the unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this Act: Provided, That balances so transferred
may be merged with funds in the applicable established
accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for
the same time period as originally enacted.
[Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act,
provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in
or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2006, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program,
project, or activity; (3) increases funds for any program,
project, or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use funds
directed for a specific activity by either the House or
Senate Committees on Appropriations for a different purpose;
or (5) contracts out any functions or activities for which
funds have been appropriated for Federal full-time equivalent
positions; unless the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives are notified 15 days
in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
[(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by
previous appropriation Acts to the agencies in or transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security that remain available
for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2006, or
provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United
States derived by the collection of fees available to the
agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or
activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from

[[Page S7953]]

any general savings from a reduction in personnel that would
result in a change in existing programs, projects, or
activities as approved by the Congress; unless the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
[(c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous
appropriations Acts may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriations, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer under this subsection shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) of this section
and shall not be available for obligation unless the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such
transfer.
[(d) The Department shall submit all notifications pursuant
to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section no later
than June 30, except in extraordinary circumstances which
imminently threaten the safety of human life or the
protection of property.
[Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by
law, not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances
remaining available at the end of fiscal year 2006 from
appropriations for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2006
in this Act shall remain available through September 30,
2007, in the account and for the purposes for which the
appropriations were provided: Provided, That prior to the
obligation of such funds, a request shall be submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives for approval in accordance with section 503
of this Act.
[Sec. 505. Funds made available by this Act for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2006 until the enactment of an Act authorizing
intelligence activities for fiscal year 2006.
[Sec. 506. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
shall establish an accrediting body, to include
representatives from the Federal law enforcement community
and non-Federal accreditation experts involved in law
enforcement training, to establish standards for measuring
and assessing the quality and effectiveness of Federal law
enforcement training programs, facilities, and instructors.
[Sec. 507. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
make a grant allocation, discretionary grant award,
discretionary contract award, or to issue a letter of intent
totaling in excess of $1,000,000 unless the Secretary of
Homeland Security notifies the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and House of Representatives at least 3 full
business days in advance: Provided, That no notification
shall involve funds that are not available for obligation.
[Sec. 508. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional
facilities, except within or contiguous to existing
locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal
law enforcement training without the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of
additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement
for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center
facilities.
[Sec. 509. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) shall schedule basic and/or advanced
law enforcement training at all four training facilities
under FLETC's control to ensure that these training centers
are operated at the highest capacity throughout the fiscal
year.
[Sec. 510. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for expenses of any
construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for
which a prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act
of 1959, has not been approved, except that necessary funds
may be expended for each project for required expenses for
the development of a proposed prospectus.
[Sec. 511. None of the funds in this Act may be used in
contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
[Sec. 512. Funding for the Transportation Security
Administration's Office of Transportation Security Support,
Office of the Administrator, shall be reduced by $100,000 per
day for each day after enactment of this Act that the second
proviso of section 513 of Public Law 108-334 has not been
implemented.
[Sec. 513. The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide
to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives each year, at the time that the President's
budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, a list of approved but unfunded Coast Guard
priorities and the funds needed for each such priority in the
same manner and with the same contents as the unfunded
priorities lists submitted by the chiefs of other Armed
Services.
[Sec. 514. Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter,
the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration may impose a reasonable charge for the lease
of real and personal property to Transportation Security
Administration employees and for use by Transportation
Security Administration employees and may credit amounts
received to the appropriation or fund initially charged for
operating and maintaining the property, which amounts shall
be available, without fiscal year limitation, for expenditure
for property management, operation, protection, construction,
repair, alteration, and related activities.
[Sec. 515. Beginning in fiscal year 2006 and thereafter,
the acquisition management system of the Transportation
Security Administration shall apply to the acquisition of
services, as well as equipment, supplies, and materials.
[Sec. 516. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
authority of the Office of Personnel Management to conduct
personnel security and suitability background investigations,
update investigations, and periodic reinvestigations of
applicants for, or appointees in, positions in the Office of
the Secretary and Executive Management, the Office of the
Under Secretary for Management, the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, the Directorate of Science and
Technology, and the Directorate of Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Homeland
Security is transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security: Provided, That on request of the Department of
Homeland Security, the Office of Personnel Management shall
cooperate with and assist the Department in any investigation
or reinvestigation under this section: Provided further, That
this section shall cease to be effective at such time as the
President has selected a single agency to conduct security
clearance investigations pursuant to section 3001(c) of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 435b) and the entity selected
under section 3001(b) of such Act has reported to Congress
that the agency selected pursuant to such section 3001(c) is
capable of conducting all necessary investigations in a
timely manner or has authorized the entities within the
Department of Homeland Security covered by this section to
conduct their own investigations pursuant to section 3001 of
such Act.
[Sec. 517. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the State
and Local Programs heading under title III of this Act are
exempt from section 6503(a) of title 31, United States Code.
[Sec. 518. (a) None of the funds provided by this or
previous appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment
or implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Secure
Flight program or any other follow on or successor passenger
prescreening programs, until the Secretary of Homeland
Security certifies, and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reports, to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, that all ten of the
elements contained in paragraphs (1) through (10) of section
522(a) of Public Law 108-334 have been successfully met.
[(b) The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted within 90 days after the certification required by
such subsection is provided, and periodically thereafter, if
necessary, until the Government Accountability Office
confirms that all ten elements have been successfully met.
[(c) During the testing phase permitted by subsection (a),
no information gathered from passengers, foreign or domestic
air carriers, or reservation systems may be used to screen
aviation passengers, or delay or deny boarding to such
passengers, except in instances where passenger names are
matched to a government watch list.
[(d) None of the funds provided in this or any previous
appropriations Act may be utilized to develop or test
algorithms assigning risk to passengers whose names are not
on government watch lists.
[(e) None of the funds provided in this appropriations Act
may be utilized for a database that is obtained from or
remains under the control of a non-Federal entity.
[Sec. 519. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section
337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
[Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used to process or approve a competition under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as
of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on
a temporary or term basis) of Citizenship and Immigration
Services of the Department of Homeland Security who are known
as of that date as Immigration Information Officers, Contact
Representatives, or Investigative Assistants.
[Sec. 521. None of the funds available in this Act or
provided hereafter 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.
[Sec. 522. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop
screening standards and protocols to more thoroughly screen
all types of air cargo on passenger and cargo aircraft by
March 1, 2006: Provided, That

[[Page S7954]]

these screening standards and protocols shall be developed in
consultation with the industry stakeholders: Provided
further, That these screening standards and protocols shall
be developed in conjunction with the research and development
of technologies that will permit screening of all high-risk
air cargo: Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated
in this Act for the ``Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management'', $10,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until new air cargo screening standards and
protocols are implemented.
[Sec. 523. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
shall utilize existing checked baggage explosive detection
equipment and screeners to screen cargo carried on passenger
aircraft to the greatest extent practicable at each airport:
Provided, That beginning with November 2005, TSA shall
provide a monthly report to the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives detailing, by airport, the
amount of cargo carried on passenger aircraft that was
screened by TSA in August 2005 and each month thereafter.
[Sec. 524. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
implement a security plan to permit general aviation aircraft
to land and take off at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport 90 days after enactment of this Act.
[Sec. 525. None of the funds available for obligation for
the transportation worker identification credential program
shall be used to develop a personalization system that is
decentralized or a card production capability that does not
utilize an existing government card production facility:
Provided, That no funding can be obligated for the next phase
of production until the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives has been fully briefed on the
results of the prototype phase and agrees that the program
should move forward.
[Sec. 526. (a) From the unexpended balances of the United
States Coast Guard ``Acquisition, Construction and
Improvements'' account specifically identified in statement
of managers language for Integrated Deepwater System patrol
boats 110- to 123-foot conversion in fiscal years 2004 and
2005, $83,999,942 are rescinded.
[(b) For the necessary expenses of the United States Coast
Guard for ``Acquisition, Construction and Improvements'',
$83,999,942 is made available to procure new 110-foot patrol
boats or for major maintenance availability for the current
110-foot patrol boat fleet: Provided, That such funds shall
remain available until expended.
[Sec. 527. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall utilize
the Transportation Security Clearinghouse as the central
identity management system for the deployment and operation
of the registered traveler program, the transportation worker
identification credential program, and other applicable
programs for the purposes of collecting and aggregating
biometric data necessary for background vetting; providing
all associated record-keeping, customer service, and related
functions; ensuring interoperability between different
airports and vendors; and acting as a central activation,
revocation, and transaction hub for participating airports,
ports, and other points of presence.
[Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by any person other than the privacy officer
appointed pursuant to section 222 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 142) to alter, direct that changes be
made to, delay or prohibit the transmission to Congress of,
any report prepared pursuant to paragraph (5) of such
section.
[Sec. 529. No funding provided in this or previous
appropriations Acts shall be available to pay the salary of
any employee serving as a contracting officer's technical
representative (COTR) who has not received COTR training.
[Sec. 530. Except as provided in section 44945 of title 49,
United States Code, funds appropriated or transferred to the
Transportation Security Administration in fiscal years 2002
and 2003, and to the Transportation Security Administration,
``Aviation Security'' and ``Administration'' in fiscal years
2004 and 2005, that are recovered or deobligated shall be
available only for procurement and installation of explosive
detection systems.
[Sec. 531. From the unobligated balances available in the
``Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund''
established by section 506 of Public Law 108-90, $7,000,000
are hereby rescinded.
[Sec. 532. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Committee withholds from obligation $25,000,000 from the
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response,
Administrative and Regional Operations, until the direction
in the statement of managers accompanying Public Law 108-324
and House Report 108-541 is completed.
[Sec. 533. None of the funds appropriated under this Act or
any other Act shall be available for processing petitions
under section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
relating to nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act until the authority provided
in section 214(g)(5)(C) of such Act is being implemented such
that, in any fiscal year in which the total number of aliens
who are issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant
status subject to the numerical limitation under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act reaches the numerical
limitation contained in section 214(g)(1)(A) of such Act,, up
to 20,000 additional aliens who have earned a master's or
higher degree from an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) may be issued visas or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
[Sec. 534. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to pay the salaries of more than sixty Transportation
Security Administration employees who have the authority to
designate documents as Sensitive Security Information (SSI).
In addition, $10,000,000 is not available for the Department-
wide Office of Security until the Secretary submits to the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives:
(1) the titles of all documents currently designated as SSI;
(2) Department-wide policies on SSI designation; (3)
Department-wide SSI designation auditing policies and
procedures; and (4) the total number of staff and offices
authorized to designate SSI documents within the Department.
[Sec. 535. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used to change the name of the Coast Guard Station ``Group
St. Petersburg''.
[Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to patrol the border of the
United States except as authorized by law.
[Sec. 537. For the Secretary of Homeland Security to make
grants pursuant to section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005
(Public Law 109-13, division B) to assist States in
conforming with minimum drivers' license standards there is
hereby appropriated; and the amounts otherwise provided by
this Act for ``Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management'', ``Office of the Under Secretary for
Management'', ``Office of the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security--Salaries and Expenses'',
``Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection--
Management and Administration'', and ``Science and
Technology--Research, Development, Acquisition and
Operations'', are hereby reduced by: $100,000,000,
$20,000,000, $20,000,000, $2,000,000, $8,000,000, and
$50,000,000, respectively.
[This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2006''.]
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive
management of the Department of Homeland Security, as
authorized by law, $124,620,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$40,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Management, as authorized by sections 701-705 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341-345),
$146,322,000: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided, $26,070,000 shall
remain available until expended solely for the alteration and
improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and
relocation costs to consolidate Department headquarters
operations.

Department of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund

(rescission of funds)

Of the unobligated balances available in the ``Department
of Homeland Security Working Capital Fund'', $12,000,000 are
rescinded.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), $18,325,000.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, as authorized by section 103 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 113), and Department-
wide technology investments, $286,540,000; of which
$75,756,000 shall be available for salaries and expenses; and
of which $210,784,000 shall be available for development and
acquisition of information technology equipment, software,
services, and related activities for the Department of
Homeland Security, and for the costs of conversion to
narrowband communications, including the cost for operation
of the land mobile radio legacy systems, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the funds made available
until expended under this heading, no more than $33,029,000
shall be for the Homeland Secure Data Network: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated shall be used to
support or supplement the appropriations provided for the
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology project or the Automated Commercial Environment:
Provided further, That the Chief Information Officer shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, not more than 60 days after
enactment of the Act, an expenditure plan for all information
technology projects that: (1) are funded by the ``Office of
the Chief Information Officer'', or (2) are funded by
multiple components of the Department of Homeland Security

[[Page S7955]]

through reimbursable agreements: Provided further, That such
expenditure plan shall include each specific project funded,
key milestones, all funding sources for each project, details
of annual and lifecycle costs, and projected cost savings or
cost avoidance to be achieved by the project: Provided
further, That the expenditure plan shall include a complete
list of all legacy systems operational as of March 1, 2003;
the current operational status of each system; and the plan
for continued operation or termination of each system.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $83,017,000, of which not to exceed
$100,000 may be used for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
at the direction of the Inspector General.

TITLE II--SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS

BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Border and Transportation Security, as authorized by
subtitle A of title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), $9,617,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses.

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

For necessary expenses for the development of the United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
project, as authorized by section 110 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1221 note), $340,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the total amount made available
under this heading, $159,658,000 may not be obligated for the
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology project until the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and
approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the Secretary of
Homeland Security that:
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
enterprise information systems architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) includes a certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the project;
(5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

Customs and Border Protection

Salaries and Expenses

(including rescission of funds)

For necessary expenses for enforcement of laws relating to
border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural
inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and
animal imports; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation
of aircraft; purchase and lease of up to 4,500 (3,935 for
replacement only) police-type vehicles; and contracting with
individuals for personal services abroad; $4,922,600,000; of
which $3,000,000 shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for administrative expenses related to the
collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee pursuant to section
9505(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9505(c)(3)) and notwithstanding section 1511(e)(1) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)(1)); of which
not to exceed $35,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not less than $146,560,000
shall be for Air and Marine Operations; of which not to
exceed $49,980,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2007, for inspection and surveillance technology, unmanned
aerial vehicles, and replacement aircraft; of which such sums
as become available in the Customs User Fee Account, except
sums subject to section 13031(f)(3) of the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C.
58c(f)(3)), shall be derived from that account; of which not
to exceed $150,000 shall be available for payment for rental
space in connection with preclearance operations; of which
not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be for awards of compensation
to informants, to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of the Secretary of Homeland Security; and of
which not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be available for
payments or advances arising out of contractual or
reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement
agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to
immigration: Provided, That for fiscal year 2006, the
overtime limitation prescribed in section 5(c)(1) of the Act
of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(c)(1)) shall be $35,000;
and notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds appropriated in this Act may be available to compensate
any employee of United States Customs and Border Protection
for overtime, from whatever source, in an amount that exceeds
such limitation, except in individual cases determined by the
Secretary of Homeland Security, or the designee of the
Secretary, to be necessary for national security purposes, to
prevent excessive costs, or in cases of immigration
emergencies.
In addition, of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Customs and Border Protection'' in chapter 6 of title I of
Public Law 108-11 (117 Stat. 581), $14,400,000 are rescinded.

Automation Modernization

For expenses for customs and border protection automated
systems, $458,009,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not less than $321,690,000 shall be for the development
of the Automated Commercial Environment: Provided, That none
of the funds made available under this heading may be
obligated for the Automated Commercial Environment until the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure
prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security that:
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security's
enterprise information systems architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) includes a certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the project;
(5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement

For necessary expenses for the operations, maintenance, and
procurement of marine vessels, aircraft, and other related
equipment of the air and marine program, including
operational training and mission-related travel, and rental
payments for facilities occupied by the air or marine
interdiction and demand reduction programs, the operations of
which include the following: the interdiction of narcotics
and other goods; the provision of support to Federal, State,
and local agencies in the enforcement or administration of
laws enforced by the Department of Homeland Security; and at
the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
provision of assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies
in other law enforcement and emergency humanitarian efforts,
$320,580,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no aircraft or other related equipment, with the
exception of aircraft that are one of a kind and have been
identified as excess to United States Customs and Border
Protection requirements and aircraft that have been damaged
beyond repair, shall be transferred to any other Federal
agency, department, or office outside of the Department of
Homeland Security during fiscal year 2006 without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.

Construction

For necessary expenses to plan, construct, renovate, equip,
and maintain buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
customs and immigration, $311,381,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided
under this heading, $55,000,000 shall be available solely for
the completion of the San Diego Sector fence and $55,000,000
shall be available solely for Tuscon sector tactical
infrastructure.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for enforcement of immigration and
customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations; and
purchase and lease of up to 2,300 (2,000 for replacement
only) police-type vehicles, $3,050,416,000, of which not to
exceed $5,000,000 shall be available until expended for
conducting special operations pursuant to section 3131 of the
Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2081); of which
not to exceed $15,000 shall be for official reception and
representation expenses; of which not to exceed $1,000,000
shall be for awards of compensation to informants, to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of the Secretary
of Homeland Security; of which not less than $102,000 shall
be for promotion of public awareness of the child pornography
tipline; of which not less than $203,000 shall be for Project
Alert; and of which not to exceed $11,216,000 shall be
available to fund or reimburse other Federal agencies for the
costs associated with the care, maintenance, and repatriation
of smuggled illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds
made available under this heading shall be available to
compensate any employee for overtime in an annual amount in
excess of $35,000, except that the Secretary of Homeland
Security, or the designee of the Secretary, may waive that
amount as necessary for national security purposes and in
cases of immigration emergencies: Provided further, That of
the total amount provided, $15,770,000 shall be for
activities to enforce laws against forced child labor in
fiscal year 2006, of which not to exceed $6,000,000 shall
remain available until expended.

Federal Air Marshals

For necessary expenses of the Federal Air Marshals,
$678,994,000.

Federal Protective Service

The revenues and collections of security fees credited to
this account, not to exceed

[[Page S7956]]

$487,000,000, shall be available until expended for necessary
expenses related to the protection of federally-owned and
leased buildings and for the operations of the Federal
Protective Service.

Automation Modernization

For expenses of immigration and customs enforcement
automated systems, $50,150,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds made available
under this heading may be obligated until the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
receive and approve a plan for expenditure prepared by the
Secretary of Homeland Security that:
(1) meets the capital planning and investment control
review requirements established by the Office of Management
and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;
(2) complies with the Department of Homeland Security
enterprise information systems architecture;
(3) complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government;
(4) includes a certification by the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an
independent verification and validation agent is currently
under contract for the project;
(5) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland
Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and
(6) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.

Construction

Transportation Security Administration

Aviation Security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing civil aviation security
services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note),
$4,452,318,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007,
of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for official reception
and representation expenses: Provided, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, not to exceed
$3,391,948,000 shall be for screening operations, of which
$180,000,000 shall be available only for procurement of
checked baggage explosive detection systems and $14,000,000
shall be available only for installation of checked baggage
explosive detection systems; and not to exceed $1,060,370,000
shall be for aviation security direction and enforcement
presence: Provided further, That security service fees
authorized under section 44940 of title 49, United States
Code, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting
collections: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the General Fund shall be reduced on a
dollar-for-dollar basis as such offsetting collections are
received during fiscal year 2006, so as to result in a final
fiscal year appropriation from the General Fund estimated at
not more than $2,462,318,000: Provided further, That any
security service fees collected in excess of the amount made
available under this heading shall become available during
fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That if the Secretary of
Homeland Security exercises discretion to set the fee under
44940(a)(2) of title 49 United States Code, such
determination shall not be subject to judicial review:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 503 of this
Act, the Transportation Security Administration may
reallocate funding provided under this heading from passenger
and baggage screener pay, compensation, and benefits to
procurement and installation of screening technology with
fifteen days advance notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 44923 of title
49, United States Code, the share of the cost of the Federal
Government for a project under any letter of intent shall be
75 percent for any medium or large hub airport: Provided
further, That heads of Federal agencies and commissions shall
not be exempt from Federal passenger and baggage screening:
Provided further, That reimbursement for security services
and related equipment and supplies provided in support of
general aviation access to the Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport shall be credited to this appropriation and
shall be available until expended solely for these purposes.

Surface Transportation Security

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing surface transportation
activities, $36,000,000.

Transportation Vetting and Credentialing

For necessary expenses for the development and
implementation of screening programs by the Office of
Transportation Vetting and Credentialing, $74,996,000.

Transportation Security Support

For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security
Administration related to providing security support and
intelligence pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat. 597; 49 U.S.C.
40101 note), $491,873,000.

United States Coast Guard

Operating Expenses

(including rescission of funds)

For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of
the United States Coast Guard not otherwise provided for,
purchase or lease of not to exceed 25 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, payments pursuant to section
156 of Public Law 97-377 (42 U.S.C. 402 note) and recreation
and welfare, $5,476,046,000, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be
for defense-related activities; of which $24,500,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out
the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); and of which not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided, That none of the funds made available by
this or any other Act shall be available for administrative
expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the
United States: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available by this Act shall be for expenses incurred for
yacht documentation under section 12109 of title 46, United
States Code, except to the extent fees are collected from
yacht owners and credited to this appropriation.
In addition, of the funds appropriated under this heading
in Public Law 108-11 (117 Stat. 583), $16,800,000 are
rescinded.

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

For necessary expenses to carry out the environmental
compliance and restoration functions of the United States
Coast Guard under chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code,
$12,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Reserve Training

For necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as
authorized by law; operations and maintenance of the reserve
program; personnel and training costs; and equipment and
services; $119,000,000.

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

(including rescissions of funds)

For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction,
renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore
facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment
related thereto; and maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and
operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law,
$1,224,800,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out the purposes
of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)); of which $18,500,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2010, to acquire, repair, renovate, or
improve vessels, small boats, and related equipment; of which
$105,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2008, for
other equipment; of which $39,700,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2008, for shore facilities and aids to
navigation facilities; of which $73,000,000 shall be
available for personnel compensation and benefits and related
costs; and of which $988,600,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2010, for the Integrated Deepwater Systems
program: Provided, That the Commandant of the Coast Guard is
authorized to dispose of surplus real property, by sale or
lease, and the proceeds shall be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting collections and shall be
available until September 30, 2008.
In addition, of the funds made available under this heading
in Public Law 108-334 (118 Stat. 1306) for covert aircraft,
$13,999,000 are rescinded; and of the funds appropriated
under this heading in Public Laws 108-334 (118 Stat. 1306)
and 108-90 (117 Stat. 1143) for patrol boat (110 foot to 123
foot conversion) and Fast Response Cutter/110-123 foot patrol
boat conversion, $68,999,000 are rescinded.

Alteration of Bridges

For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges as authorized by section 6 of the Truman-
Hobbs Act (33 U.S.C. 516), $15,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

For necessary expenses for applied scientific research,
development, test, and evaluation, and for maintenance,
rehabilitation, lease and operation of facilities and
equipment, as authorized by law, $18,500,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to carry out
the purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)): Provided, That there may be
credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation
funds received from State and local governments, other public
authorities, private sources, and foreign countries, for
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and
evaluation.

Retired Pay

For retired pay, including the payment of obligations
otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for this
purpose, payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payment for career
status bonuses, concurrent receipts and combat-related
special compensation under the National Defense Authorization
Act, and payments for medical care of retired personnel and
their dependents under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, $1,014,080,000.

United States Secret Service

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Secret Service,
including purchase of not to exceed 614 vehicles for police-
type use, which shall be for replacement only, and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; purchase of American-made
motorcycles; hire of aircraft; services of expert witnesses
at such rates as may be determined by the Director of the
Secret Service; rental of buildings in the District of
Columbia, and fencing, lighting, guard booths, and other
facilities on private or other property not in Government
ownership or control, as may be necessary to perform
protective functions; payment of per diem or subsistence
allowances to employees where a protective assignment during
the actual day or days of the visit of a protectee requires
an employee to work 16 hours per day or to remain overnight
at a post of duty; conduct of and participation in firearms
matches; presentation of awards; travel of Secret Service
employees on protective missions without regard to

[[Page S7957]]

the limitations on such expenditures in this or any other Act
if approval is obtained in advance from the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives; research and development; grants to conduct
behavioral research in support of protective research and
operations; and payment in advance for commercial
accommodations as may be necessary to perform protective
functions; $1,188,638,000, of which not to exceed $25,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses;
of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be to provide technical
assistance and equipment to foreign law enforcement
organizations in counterfeit investigations; of which
$2,100,000 shall be for forensic and related support of
investigations of missing and exploited children; and of
which $5,000,000 shall be a grant for activities related to
the investigations of missing and exploited children and
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That up to
$18,000,000 provided for protective travel shall remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided further, That
the United States Secret Service is authorized to obligate
funds in anticipation of reimbursements from Federal agencies
and entities, as defined in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, receiving training sponsored by the James J.
Rowley Training Center, except that total obligations at the
end of the fiscal year shall not exceed total budgetary
resources available under this heading at the end of the
fiscal year.

Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

For necessary expenses for acquisition, construction,
repair, alteration, and improvement of facilities,
$3,699,000, to remain available until expended.

TITLE III--PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness

Management and Administration

For necessary expenses for the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness, $3,546,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

State and Local Programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
activities, including grants to State and local governments
for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $2,694,300,000, which shall be
allocated as follows:
(1) $1,518,000,000 for State and local grants, of which
$425,000,000 shall be allocated such that each State and
territory shall receive the same dollar amount for the State
minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 for formula-
based grants: Provided, That the balance shall be allocated
by the Secretary of Homeland Security to States, urban areas,
or regions based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and
unmet essential capabilities pursuant to Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8).
(2) $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention
grants, of which $155,000,000 shall be allocated such that
each State and territory shall receive the same dollar amount
for the State minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005
for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants: Provided,
That the balance shall be allocated by the Secretary to
States based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and unmet
essential capabilities pursuant to HSPD-8.
(3) $365,000,000 for discretionary transportation and
infrastructure grants, as determined by the Secretary, of
which--
(A) $200,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant
to the purposes of 46 United States Code 70107(a) through
(h), which shall be awarded based on threat notwithstanding
subsection (a), for eligible costs as defined in subsections
(b)(2)-(4);
(B) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security
grants;
(C) $10,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
(D) $100,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail
transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49,
United States Code), freight rail, and transit security
grants; and
(E) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection plan
grants.
(4) $50,000,000 for the technology transfer program.
(5) $40,000,000 for State grants pursuant to section 204(a)
of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of Public Law 109-13),
to remain available until expended, as determined by the
Secretary: Provided, That none of the funds made available
under this paragraph may be obligated or allocated for grants
until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives receive and approve an
implementation plan for the responsibilities of the
Department of Homeland Security under the REAL ID Act of 2005
(Division B of Public Law 109-13), including the proposed
uses of the grant monies.
(6) $321,300,000 for training, exercises, technical
assistance, and other programs:
Provided, That not to exceed 3 percent of the amounts
provided for grants under this heading shall be available for
program administration: Provided further, That the Government
Accountability Office shall review the validity of the threat
and risk factors used by the Secretary for the purposes of
allocating discretionary grants funded under this heading,
and the application of those factors in the allocation of
funds prior to the Department making final grant
determinations: Provided further, That the Government
Accountability Office shall have 20 days to complete its
review after it is notified by the Secretary that preliminary
determinations have been made, and the Government
Accountability Office shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the findings of its review prior to the Department making
final grant determinations: Provided further, That none of
the grants provided under this heading shall be used for
construction or renovation of facilities, except for a minor
perimeter security project, not to exceed $1,000,000, as
determined necessary by the Secretary: Provided further, That
the preceding proviso shall not apply to grants under
subparagraphs (A), (D), and (E) of paragraph (3) under this
heading: Provided further, That grantees shall provide
additional reports on their use of funds, as determined
necessary by the Secretary: Provided further, That funds
appropriated for discretionary grants under paragraph (1) and
law enforcement terrorism prevention grants under paragraph
(2) of this heading shall be available for operational costs,
to include personnel overtime and overtime associated with
Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness certified training, as needed: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
heading are exempt from section 6503(a) of title 31, United
States Code: Provided further, That of the funds provided
under paragraph (1) of this heading, $25,000,000 shall be
available until expended for assistance to organizations (as
described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and exempt from tax section 501(a) of such Code)
determined by the Secretary to be at high-risk of
international terrorist attack, and that these determinations
shall not be delegated to any Federal, State, or local
government official: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives the threat to each
designated tax exempt grantee at least 3 full business days
in advance of the announcement of any grant award.

Firefighter Assistance Grants

For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $615,000,000, of which $550,000,000 shall be
available to carry out section 33 (15 U.S.C. 2229) and
$65,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 34 (15
U.S.C. 2229a) of such Act, to remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of
this amount shall be available for program administration.

Emergency Management Performance Grants

For necessary expenses for emergency management performance
grants, as authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.), $180,000,000: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of the total
appropriation.

Counterterrorism Fund

For necessary expenses, as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to reimburse any Federal agency for the
costs of providing support to counter, investigate, or
respond to unexpected threats or acts of terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities,
$5,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
15 days prior to the obligation of any amount of these funds
in accordance with section 503 of this Act.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response

For necessary expenses for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, as
authorized by section 502 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 312), $4,306,000.

Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery

(including rescission of funds)

For necessary expenses for preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities of Emergency Preparedness
and Response, $203,499,000, including activities authorized
by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001
et seq.), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
(15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405),
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), and the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.):
Provided, That of the total amount made available under this
heading, $30,000,000 shall be for Urban Search and Rescue
Teams, of which not to exceed $1,600,000 may be made
available for administrative costs.
In addition, of the funds appropriated under this heading
in Public Law 108-334 (118 Stat. 1311), $9,600,000 are
rescinded.

Administrative and Regional Operations

For necessary expenses for administrative and regional
operations of Emergency Preparedness and Response,
$216,441,000, including activities authorized by the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App.
2061 et

[[Page S7958]]

seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 404, 405), Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.), and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.): Provided, That not to exceed $3,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses.

Public Health Programs

For necessary expenses for countering potential biological,
disease, and chemical threats to civilian populations,
$34,000,000.

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program

The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2006, as
authorized in title III of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (42 U.S.C. 5196e), shall
not be less than 100 percent of the amounts anticipated by
the Department of Homeland Security necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year: Provided, That the methodology for assessment
and collection of fees shall be fair and equitable and shall
reflect costs of providing such services, including
administrative costs of collecting such fees: Provided
further, That fees received under this heading shall be
deposited in this account as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2006,
and remain available until expended.

Disaster Relief

For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $2,000,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program, as authorized by section 319 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5162), $567,000: Provided, That gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans shall not exceed
$25,000,000: Provided further, That the cost of modifying
such loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a).

Flood Map Modernization Fund

For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101),
$200,000,000, and such additional sums as may be provided by
State and local governments or other political subdivisions
for cost-shared mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2)
of such Act, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That total administrative costs shall not exceed 3 percent of
the total appropriation.

National Flood Insurance Fund

(including transfer of funds)

For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), not to exceed $36,496,000 for
salaries and expenses associated with flood mitigation and
flood insurance operations; and not to exceed $87,358,000 for
flood hazard mitigation, to remain available until September
30, 2007, including up to $28,000,000 for expenses under
section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4104c), which amount shall be available for transfer
to the National Flood Mitigation Fund until September 30,
2007, and which amount shall be derived from offsetting
collections assessed and collected pursuant to section 1307
of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4014), and shall be retained and used
for necessary expenses under this heading: Provided, That in
fiscal year 2006, no funds in excess of: (1) $55,000,000 for
operating expenses; (2) $660,148,000 for commissions and
taxes of agents; and (3) $30,000,000 for interest on Treasury
borrowings shall be available from the National Flood
Insurance Fund.

National Flood Mitigation Fund

Notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(b)(3), and subsection (f), of section 1366 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c), $28,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2007, for activities
designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures
pursuant to such Act, of which $28,000,000 shall be derived
from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

National Predisaster Mitigation Fund

For a predisaster mitigation grant program under title II
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.), $37,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That grants made
for predisaster mitigation shall be awarded on a competitive
basis subject to the criteria in section 203(g) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 5133(g)), and notwithstanding section 203(f) of
such Act, shall be made without reference to State
allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocation of
funds: Provided further, That total administrative costs
shall not exceed 3 percent of the total appropriation.

Emergency Food and Shelter

To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11331 et seq.), $153,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That total administrative
costs shall not exceed 3.5 percent of the total
appropriation.

TITLE IV--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, ASSESSMENTS, AND SERVICES

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

For necessary expenses for citizenship and immigration
services, $80,000,000.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, including materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training; purchase of not to
exceed 117 vehicles for police-type use and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; expenses for student athletic and related
activities; the conduct of and participation in firearms
matches and presentation of awards; public awareness and
enhancement of community support of law enforcement training;
room and board for student interns; a flat monthly
reimbursement to employees authorized to use personal mobile
phones for official duties; and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; $194,000,000, of
which up to $36,174,000 for materials and support costs of
Federal law enforcement basic training shall remain available
until September 30, 2007; and of which not to exceed $12,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That the Center is authorized to obligate funds in
anticipation of reimbursements from agencies receiving
training sponsored by the Center, except that total
obligations at the end of the fiscal year shall not exceed
total budgetary resources available at the end of the fiscal
year: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2006 and
thereafter, the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to assess pecuniary liability
against Center employees and students for losses or
destruction of Government property due to gross negligence or
willful misconduct and to set off any resulting debts due the
United States by Center employees and students, without their
consent, against current payments due the employees and
students for their services.

Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related Expenses

For acquisition of necessary additional real property and
facilities, construction, and ongoing maintenance, facility
improvements, and related expenses of the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, $88,358,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Center is authorized to
accept reimbursement to this appropriation from Government
agencies requesting the construction of special use
facilities.

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

Management and Administration

For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and for management and administration of programs
and activities, as authorized by title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.), $168,769,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses.

Assessments and Evaluations

For necessary expenses for information analysis and
infrastructure protection as authorized by title II of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.),
$701,793,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

Science and Technology

Management and Administration

For salaries and expenses of the immediate Office of the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology and for management
and administration of programs and activities, as authorized
by title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et seq.), $81,099,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$3,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.

Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations

For necessary expenses for science and technology research,
including advanced research projects; development; test and
evaluation; acquisition; and operations; as authorized by
title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181
et seq.), $1,372,399,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the total amount made available under this
heading, $127,314,000 shall be for the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, of which $112,314,000 shall not be
available for obligation until the Secretary of Homeland
Security submits a staffing and management plan and an
expenditure plan for the office and the global systems
architecture, to include multi-year costs, that has been
reviewed by the Government Accountability Office and approved
by the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives: Provided further, That of the total
funds made available under this heading, $125,000,000 is
solely for the purchase and deployment of radiation portal
monitors for United States ports-of-entry and may not be
transferred or reprogrammed.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 502. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Homeland Security may be used
to make payments to the ``Department of Homeland Security
Working Capital Fund'', except for the activities and amounts
allowed in section 6024 of Public Law 109-13, excluding the
Homeland Secure Data Network: Provided, That any additional
activities and amounts must be approved by the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
30 days in advance of obligation.
Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act,
provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in
or transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2006, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program,
project, or activity; (3) increases funds for any program,
project, or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use

[[Page S7959]]

funds directed for a specific activity by either of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate or House of
Representatives for a different purpose; or (5) contracts out
any functions or activities for which funds have been
appropriated for Federal full-time equivalent positions;
unless the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, provided by
previous appropriations Acts to the agencies in or
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security that
remain available for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year
2006, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the
United States derived by the collection of fees available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure for programs, projects, or
activities through a reprogramming of funds in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by the Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel that would result in a
change in existing programs, projects, or activities as
approved by the Congress; unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of
funds.
(c) Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Homeland Security by this Act or provided by previous
appropriations Acts may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriations, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer under this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under subsection (b) of this section
and shall not be available for obligation unless the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives are notified 15 days in advance of such
transfer.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this
section, no funds shall be reprogrammed within or transferred
between appropriations after June 30, except in extraordinary
circumstances which imminently threaten the safety of human
life or the protection of property.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
notifications pursuant to this section or any other authority
for reprogramming or transfer of funds shall be made solely
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
Sec. 504. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2006 from appropriations
for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2006 in this Act
shall remain available through September 30, 2007, in the
account and for the purposes for which the appropriations
were provided: Provided, That prior to the obligation of such
funds, a request shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
for approval in accordance with section 503 of this Act.
Sec. 505. Funds made available by this Act for intelligence
activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the
Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2006 until the
enactment of an Act authorizing intelligence activities for
fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 506. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
a grant allocation, discretionary grant award, discretionary
contract award, or to issue a letter of intent totaling in
excess of $1,000,000, or to announce publicly the intention
to make such an award, unless the Secretary of Homeland
Security notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives at least 3 full
business days in advance: Provided, That no notification
shall involve funds that are not available for obligation.
Sec. 507. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
agency shall purchase, construct, or lease any additional
facilities, except within or contiguous to existing
locations, to be used for the purpose of conducting Federal
law enforcement training without the advance approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, except that the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center is authorized to obtain the temporary use of
additional facilities by lease, contract, or other agreement
for training which cannot be accommodated in existing Center
facilities.
Sec. 508. The Director of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center shall schedule basic and/or advanced law
enforcement training at all four training facilities under
the control of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to
ensure that these training centers are operated at the
highest capacity throughout the fiscal year.
Sec. 509. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for expenses of any
construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition project for
which a prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act
of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 3301), has not been approved, except that
necessary funds may be expended for each project for required
expenses for the development of a proposed prospectus.
Sec. 510. None of the funds in this Act may be used in
contravention of the applicable provisions of the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 511. The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to
research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect
and screen air cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest
date possible: Provided, That until such technology is
procured and installed, the Secretary shall take all possible
actions to enhance the known shipper program to prohibit
high-risk cargo from being transported on passenger aircraft
and continue to increase the level of air cargo that is
inspected beyond the level mandated in section 513 of Public
Law 108-334.
Sec. 512. Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United
States Code, for fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
may impose a reasonable charge for the lease of real and
personal property to Transportation Security Administration
employees and for use by Transportation Security
Administration employees and may credit amounts received to
the appropriation or fund initially charged for operating and
maintaining the property, which amounts shall be available,
without fiscal year limitation, for expenditure for property
management, operation, protection, construction, repair,
alteration, and related activities.
Sec. 513. For fiscal year 2006 and thereafter, the
acquisition management system of the Transportation Security
Administration shall apply to the acquisition of services, as
well as equipment, supplies, and materials.
Sec. 514. (a) None of the funds provided by this or
previous appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment
or implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Secure
Flight program or any other follow on or successor passenger
prescreening programs, until the Secretary of Homeland
Security certifies, and the Government Accountability Office
reports, to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, that all ten of the
elements contained in paragraphs (1) through (10) of section
522(a) of Public Law 108-334 (118 Stat. 1319) have been
successfully met.
(b) The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted within 90 days after the certification required by
such subsection is provided, and periodically thereafter, if
necessary, until the Government Accountability Office
confirms that all ten elements have been successfully met.
(c) During the testing phase permitted by subsection (a),
no information gathered from passengers, foreign or domestic
air carriers, or reservation systems may be used to screen
aviation passengers, or delay or deny boarding to such
passengers, except in instances where passenger names are
matched to a Government watch list.
(d) None of the funds provided in this or previous
appropriations Acts may be utilized to develop or test
algorithms assigning risk to passengers whose names are not
on Government watch lists.
(e) None of the funds provided in this or previous
appropriations Acts may be utilized for a database that is
obtained from or remains under the control of a non-Federal
entity.
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section
337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1448).
Sec. 516. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to process or approve a competition under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as
of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on
a temporary or term basis) of United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security
who are known as of that date as Immigration Information
Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative
Assistants.
Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated to the United
States Secret Service by this Act or by previous
appropriations Acts may be made available for the protection
of the head of a Federal agency other than the Secretary of
Homeland Security: Provided, That the Director of the United
States Secret Service may enter into an agreement to perform
such service on a fully reimbursable basis.
Sec. 518. The Department of Homeland Security processing
and data storage facilities at the John C. Stennis Space
Center shall hereafter be known as the ``National Center for
Critical Information Processing and Storage''.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2006''.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Appropriations Committee staff members and interns be granted the
privilege of the floor during the consideration of the fiscal year 2006
Homeland Security appropriations bill and any votes that may occur in
relation thereto: Shannon O'Keefe, Carol Cribbs, Kimberly Nelson, James
Hayes, Avery Forbes, Carolina Poarch, Pete Flynn, Jonathan Cahoon, and
Will Post.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the committee substitute is agreed to and
considered as original text for the purpose of amendment.
The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we turn now to the Homeland Security bill.
This is obviously a timely period for taking up this legislation in
light of what has happened in London. We recognize, once again, as a
result of the heinous crimes that were committed in London that there
are people out there who totally disregard innocent life and who are
willing to kill innocent individuals simply for the purpose of making a
political statement as to what

[[Page S7960]]

their cause is or what their presumed cause may be.
Of course, we were, unfortunately, focused on this fact by 9/11, but
maybe over the last 2 or 3 years the success of our Nation in resisting
attacks has caused a touch of complacency in this area. However, London
has to clearly remind us that complacency cannot be tolerated when it
comes to fighting these people who call themselves Islamic
fundamentalists and who are essentially killers, terrorists, murderers
without any moral creed or cause, and whose actions are totally
unjustified in any form of civilized society.
The Department of Homeland Security was set up in the post-9/11 world
in order to try as a nation to get our arms around the issue of how we
can best protect us in the United States of America. It was set up in
the context of other agencies that have responsibility for other areas
of protecting us relative to this war on terrorism.
Of course, we have our Defense Department which is, through its
extraordinary men and women, pursuing the fight against terrorism in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. We also have agencies, such as the Central
Intelligence Agency, the FBI, and the Justice Department, that are
committed to making sure they obtain the intelligence necessary to
protect us. But within this umbrella of agencies which are trying to
pursue this war on terrorism, there is included, of course, the
Department of Homeland Security.
The Department of Homeland Security was put together as an
amalgamation of different agencies. I think there were 22 initially
that were thrown together. Some of those agencies, when they were put
into the Department of Homeland Security, were already functioning
extraordinarily well and had a track record of success. Some of the
other agencies had a spotty track record. Regrettably, some of the
agencies did not have a very good track record at all. But they were
brought together for the purposes of trying to involve a coordinated
effort in the area of fighting terrorism.
I believe we have to recognize, as we pursue this fight on terrorism,
that the people we are fighting are driven by a philosophy which we as
a rational society, especially as a Western society, find hard to
fathom. The concept that you would kill innocent civilians simply for
the purpose of making a point is something which we find repugnant and
almost incomprehensible. But that is the nature of the people we fight.
We have to understand their purpose is not necessarily to win a global
war in the sense it has historically been perceived, such as World War
I or World War II, or even the Cold War. Their purpose essentially is
to assert their culture in a way that destroys any culture which they
perceive as alien to it, to assert their religion in a way in which
they perceive destroys any religion which they see as alien to it, or
any group of states which they see as alien to it. They are willing to
pursue this with fanaticism which allows them to develop individuals
and attitudes where people will strap bombs to themselves and attack us
or where they attack innocent individuals, as they did in London. And
thus, the threat is a threat of immense proportion, and it is a threat
which we have to pursue in a different way than we have pursued other
threats that have confronted our Nation.
We all understand this, but executing it has become difficult. I
believe we have not yet grasped as a nation how we execute in defending
ourselves from this type of threat. What we know is this, and our
approach must be tempered by it: We know we can order the priority of
the threats as they reflect relative to us. We know, for example, if
these individuals get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction--
chemical, biological or, God forbid, a nuclear-capable weapon--that
they will use that weapon. They will use it in a way which kills tens
of thousands, essentially hundreds of thousands of innocent
individuals. So we know that is the No. 1 threat we must confront.
We know also that as a nation, because we are a democracy and because
we are an open nation and because we seek to participate in the world
in an open and vibrant way, our borders are porous and that access into
this country is easy, and that represents, regrettably now, a threat to
us.
We know also that because we are such an open society and because we
are a society which is built around the concept of individual
responsibility and people being able to go out in the world and
participate in activities, that we have innumerable areas of
infrastructure, areas of individual participation and activity which
are open to attack, such as occurred in London. And that is an issue of
threat.

What we have attempted to do in this bill is take the resources we
have and focus them on a threat-based approach so that we basically
focus the most resources on the area where we see the greatest threat.
The way we structured this bill is that we are focusing most of the
energy of this bill, most of dollars in this bill, in two primary
areas, as far as new dollars are concerned. We are still spending a lot
of dollars in a lot of different places, but the new initiatives in
this bill are focused on trying to better get a handle on defending
ourselves from an attack by a weapon of mass destruction and, secondly,
making our borders, which are inordinately porous, less porous and
having better accountability as to who is coming into this country and
what their purposes are.
We moved a fair amount of money in this bill to try to accomplish
those two basic philosophical goals of addressing those two items of
threat. That does not mean we underfunded anything in this bill that
was already on the board. But it does mean we tried to focus this bill
a little bit better.
Within this legislation there are a lot of different agencies. As I
mentioned earlier, some of them are functioning extraordinarily well,
some are functioning in between, and some simply are not doing as good
a job as we hoped they could do. Regrettably, this agency, even though
it has only been around for 2 years, has had over 486 reports written
about it by either the inspector general, the CRS, or the GAO. I
brought them with me because I think they are so staggering in their
proportions it is worth looking at in physical proportions the number
of reports. There are three piles. If we take one pile, which I
probably cannot pick up, and put it on top of another pile--it will all
fall over, unfortunately--we end up with almost 3 feet 9 inches of
reports about things not going that well at the Homeland Security
Department. Each one of these reports is substantive. Each one of these
reports is worth review and requires action. They reflect the fact that
almost 3 years after this Department was put together, the Department
has some very serious problems, and they need to be addressed.
I congratulate the new Secretary, Mr. Chertoff, for his approach to
trying to get a handle on some of these problems. He is going to report
to us Wednesday or Thursday on what his second stage review is. He put
a lot of time into this, but I think his approach will probably be
based on the concept that we have to have, first, a policy-driven
approach and, second, it has to be systemwide. Today, there is too much
anecdotal reaction in the Department, there is too much haphazard
reaction, there is too much reaction to the crisis of the day. I think
his approach is going to be to put in place a much more systematized
approach. But that is not going to immediately resolve the problem.
Hopefully, it will begin the process of resolving the problems of this
Department, which are many and acute.
This bill does put in place a large number of what, for lack of a
better word, we in the Congress call fences, where we essentially say
to the Department: Before you get this money, you have to show us you
are going to do this effectively. It is not something I like to do. I
am a legislator; I am not a manager. I used to be a manager. I used to
be a Governor of a State. That is a management position. But when we
see a department which has as many functions as this Department and it
is not functioning correctly, regrettably, I do think it is the
responsibility of the Congress and especially the Appropriations
Committee, which has a unique oversight role, to step in and say before
we give you more money to do this, we want to make sure that money is
not going to be wasted, mismanaged, misplaced, or misappropriated, so
we are going to require you to do something else. So this bill has in
it a lot of what I would call fences.
The purpose of the bill, as I mentioned, is to fund more aggressively
those areas which we see as threats.

[[Page S7961]]

Obviously, after London, many people are going to feel that a threat
which needs to receive more attention is the question of how we handle
mass transit. I could not agree more. There is no question but in light
of the London attack--and we knew long before this with the Madrid
attack and before that with the Israeli situation--this is a clear area
where terrorists, who have no regard for human life, tend to focus
their heinous activity. We know mass transit is an issue, but the
question becomes how do we best protect mass transit.
We have put in this bill over the last few years literally tens of
millions, now hundreds of millions of dollars which is available for
upgrading security, for upgrading electronic surveillance, for
upgrading bomb dog activity, for upgrading the number of police
officers on mass transit. There is pending, in fact, within the Federal
Treasury about $115 million to $150 million that has not been spent.
There has been so much money put into this so quickly, it simply has
not been spent, and it is still available.
On top of that, there is the $7 billion which we have put into first
responder money which, if States want to reallocate some of that toward
mass transit protection, they can. That has not been spent. So there is
a lot of money sitting there for the purpose of helping mass transit.
If you talk with people who run mass transit, they say it is not
enough. But as a practical matter, it has not been spent yet. So
whether it is enough is clearly irrelevant because until it gets spent,
it is clearly enough.
Independent of that, however--the fact that there is still
significant dollars in the stream of things--we have the issue of how
to effectively defend mass transit. We all know mass transit is such a
huge enterprise where millions of people, on a daily basis--tens of
millions if you take all the transit systems in this country--are
moving in and out of different transit modes, whether it is trains,
buses, or ferries, and are moving in and out of these on a constantly
churning basis. The opportunities to attack this type of a system are
almost endless.
A professional terrorist--and clearly these people are professional.
They train for the purpose of killing people, using terrorist weapons.
The professional terrorist is always--almost always going to be able to
find, in a nation our size, with a transportation system of this size,
going to be able to find a point of attack that is not secure unless--I
doubt that we could spend anywhere near enough money. We have enough
money to spend to fully secure mass transit, and if we did we would
probably make mass transit nonfunctional.
Yes, we can raise the visibility by putting more officers on trains,
more bomb dogs and surveillance agents, and we should do that, but as a
practical matter the way you protect your mass transit system is the
same way you protect your other infrastructure systems. It is through
aggressive and robust intelligence. You have to know who these people
are before they attack you. That is the key to this exercise--robust
intelligence capability. And there is some irony because to accomplish
robust intelligence capability you have to go where the people come
from. Where do they come from? They come from the Middle East. We are
fighting them in the Middle East. Yet people who have concerns about
that want to put dramatically new dollars into the mass transit system.
Well, the best place to get intelligence, quite honestly, is the
breeding ground of these terrorists: Iraq, Afghanistan. And so that war
in Iraq and Afghanistan is, as the President has pointed out a number
of times, taking the war to them to find them before they can find us.
Then, once you capture the people, you have to get the intelligence
from them. That is why Guantanamo Bay is such an important part of
intelligence of our country and why people come down to the floor and
compare it to a Nazi concentration camp is such a gross misstatement of
our purpose there and the actual action there. It is totally
irresponsible to make statements such as that. No one has ever lost
their life at Guantanamo Bay, and the interrogations which occur there
occur under strict regimes. They are constantly monitored and meet all
the necessary responsibilities of legal and humane rights.
But we get vast amounts of information as a result of moving very bad
people from the Iraq and Afghanistan arena over to Guantanamo Bay. We
get a vast amount of information from those individuals which gives us
the intelligence we need.
Then, of course, you have the issue of profiling. Clearly, if you are
going to stop these people, you are going to have to profile. That is
being resisted. And then, of course, you have the issue of the PATRIOT
Act. Clearly, if you are going to stop these people, you have to know
what they are doing, and the way to do it is through electronic
interdiction of their activities to a large degree. Yet you have people
resisting.
Intelligence is the key to defending mass transit. Yet within this
body, regrettably, there is a lot of resistance to those elements of
our efforts which are necessary in order to effectively pursue strong
intelligence. But that is not an issue for this bill. The homeland
security intelligence role is not at the margin, but it is certainly
not at the center of the effort to gather intelligence. That is done by
other agencies--the Defense Department, CIA, and FBI. However, I
certainly am willing to entertain moving more money into mass transit.
We could probably do another $100 million in mass transit and not
affect this bill substantially. But once you get beyond that, you are
going to have to take it out of the deficit or someplace like that. But
will you buy more security with those dollars? Not a great deal, I
don't think, because the people you are dealing with know how to get
around those types of security initiatives however well you may create
a better sense of security.
This bill will, I suspect, over the next few days come under
amendment in the area of how better to protect our borders. Maybe we
will get better border security. The other part of the equation is how
you let people into this country who legitimately want to come to work
and are not seeking to do us harm but seeking to improve their
livelihood. The Guest Worker Program, maybe we will get into that
program, and certainly how best to address mass transit protection in
light of London. I am open to all of that. I am flexible. Our purpose
here is to make this agency work better.
In that context, I congratulate the Senator from West Virginia, my
ranking member, and who has joined us on the floor. He has been a
partner in putting this effort together. He is totally committed to
trying to make sure we have a much safer country and a stronger
Department of Homeland Security. He has done a great job of putting
forward his ideas, many of which I totally agree with, some of which I
may not agree with, but most of which I do agree with. I respect
immensely his years of service to this Nation, which have been
extraordinary, and his counsel, which is exceptional. I thank him and
his staff for the generous and extraordinary way they approach
everything, but especially this bill. As we move forward, I am sure he
will have some additional ideas of how we can improve it on the floor,
and I look forward to hearing those thoughts and ideas and I continue
to look forward as we move this bill down the road to passage sooner
rather than later because the Nation does need a Homeland Security
bill.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened intently to the remarks of
the very distinguished Senator as the chairman of this appropriations
subcommittee, and I have been very impressed by his remarks. But prior
to that, over a long period of time I have been very impressed with his
dedication to the service of the people he represents here and his
dedication to the Nation. He is an extremely able chairman. He has
experience in the executive field, as he has alluded to, and he has
experience in the committee system. He is preeminently fair in his work
on the subcommittee, very fair, always willing to listen, and most
charitable, may I say, toward me.
I am the ranking member on the subcommittee and on the full
committee. But I could never wish for anyone to be more fair, more
knowledgeable, or anyone whom I would respect more than this man from
the mountains of his

[[Page S7962]]

great State, and I have a tremendous admiration for him and a great
deal of fondness for him. He is a chairman sui generis and a gentleman
along with it. I like that part, too, especially.
Now, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee
has outlined the threat, and he has done so very well. I can't tell you
how much I have admired the way he has striven to put together this
bill and utilized the limited amount of moneys that are available to us
and do it in a way that will reach those areas that are in most need of
funding. I am immensely pleased with the work he has done. His work is
the foremost work, of course. As the ranking member, I try to help. I
do have a very able staff that works with the staff of the
distinguished chairman, and it is through this staff that I am able to
keep abreast of things and also to make my feelings known as well.
Mr. President, the Senate, then, has before it this bill for fiscal
year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations. I cannot commend too much
the distinguished chairman, as I have already indicated, and his staff,
for their work on this legislation. I also commend the thousands of men
and women who are on the front lines of America's homeland security.
They serve the Nation every hour of every day.
I welcome Chairman Gregg to his new duties as chairman of the
Homeland Security Subcommittee. He comes to it, needless to say, very
well prepared. He has a wealth of experience, a wealth of expertise.
The chairman targets limited resources--and I emphasize the word
``limited''--on future threats, not simply the threats posed by the
attacks of September 11. For the most part, the chairman has attempted
to allocate resources to those threats that represent the greatest risk
to the American people. In doing so he has, with my support, included a
number of improvements to the President's budget particularly with
regard to border security, air cargo security, funds for States to
implement the driver's license provisions of the REAL ID Act, as well
as funding to protect the ``all-hazards'' Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program.
The committee bill builds on the bipartisan border security
initiative that I offered along with Senator Craig to the 2005
emergency supplemental. Between the emergency supplemental enacted in
May and this bill Congress will have increased the number of Border
Patrol agents by 1,500, provided funds to train and house these agents,
increased the number of immigration investigators, the number of agents
and detention officers by 817, and increased the number of detention
beds by 4,190.
The chairman has to be commended for this, and I am profuse in my
admiration and my support for what he has done.
In addition, the bill contains an important protection for the
privacy rights of Americans. We need always to keep these rights in
mind. I thank Chairman Gregg for his support of language that I
recommended concerning secure flight, the Department's proposed new
airline passenger profiling system. The language would prohibit the use
of commercial databases for confirming the identity of airline
passengers. Such commercial databases are unreliable and potentially
invade people's privacy.

The bill before the Senate provides $30.8 billion for discretionary
programs, an increase of 4.6 percent. This is a very lean bill. The
committee was put in a difficult position as a result of the
administration's proposal to have the Appropriations Committee increase
the fees paid by airline passengers, a proposal that would have raised
$1.68 billion. The Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction
over airline fees and therefore could not approve the proposal. As a
result, the committee was forced to reduce spending below the
President's request by $389 million.
So the low subcommittee allocation and the fee proposal resulted in
cuts in firefighter grants, first responder grants, rail and mass
transit security grants, Coast Guard operations, and in the number of
Transportation Security Administration screeners. These cuts are very
unfortunate. It is regrettable that the administration's apparent lack
of understanding of the legislative process will have such a direct
impact on programs that are so important, that are important elements
of our homeland security strategy.
As the Senate considers this bill, I hope the Senators will look
favorably on amendments to restore the cuts in firefighter grants,
first responder grants, and mass transit and rail security grants. The
utterly tragic events in London last week remind all of us of the
imminent threat--the imminent threat, may I say--to the American people
that is posed by terrorist attacks here at home--here at home.
We have heard it said it is better to fight these terrorists in Iraq
than it is to fight them in New York City or in Washington. Of course
that is true. Nobody doubts that. But don't let anybody be fooled.
Don't let anybody be fooled. Fighting them in Iraq is not going to make
us secure from having to fight them here at home in Washington, New
York, Tampa, FL--wherever. Don't fall for that malarkey. That is pure
bunk. Of course we know what that is all about. But it has happened in
London. It happened before that in Madrid, and before that in Japan,
and it can happen here. No amount of argument, debate, or plain old
malarkey should convince anyone that it can't happen here. In my
judgment, it will. It is coming. These people take their time. They are
patient. They are not in a big hurry. And it is coming here. It is
coming here. The thing about it is these people know when and where and
how the attack will be made. We do not. So they have the advantages.
Let's just put that bunk to the side; forget it for now. There is
nothing to it. We are in jeopardy. The American people are in jeopardy
and we ought to understand that. Last Thursday, when asked if
additional funding was needed to secure our mass transit system,
Secretary Chertoff said, ``I would not make a policy decision driven by
a single event.''
I have a great deal of respect for the Secretary. He was down in my
office just this morning, outlining something with respect to the
surveys which he has been making and on which he intends to report
publicly, and also outlining his plans for the agency. I must say he
has a real grasp, a real feel of the full scope of the problems. I have
to compliment him for that.
But with all due respect for the Secretary, the alarm bells just
didn't start ringing last week. The alarm bells have been ringing for
years. There have been 16 bombings worldwide linked to al-Qaida. The
Senate should not be reducing our commitment to firefighters and first
responders, or to securing our mass transit and rail system. I am
pleased that the chairman has included my recommendation to direct the
Department to expedite its grantmaking process. All too often--I made
mention of this in a meeting with Secretary Chertoff in my office
earlier today--all too often, funds that were approved by Congress last
October will not be given to Federal, State, and local agencies until
this September, nearly a full year later. Americans are not made safer
by having funding for border security, port security, rail security,
and for hiring firefighters sit--where? In the U.S. Treasury.
On June 13, almost a month ago, I wrote a letter to Secretary
Chertoff, calling on him to focus on this problem as part of his review
of agency operations. I will not ask now, but I will later, that that
letter be made part of the Record.
Unfortunately, the Secretary has not seen fit to respond to my
letter. That is not worthy of a great deal of comment, but it is worthy
of some comment. I hope the Secretary's delay in responding is not
indicative of the administration's intent to continue leaving homeland
security dollars gathering dust in the Treasury in Washington, DC.
I said this to the Secretary this morning. I am particularly appalled
that the $150 million that Congress approved last October for mass
transit and rail security is still sitting in the Treasury. What in the
world? Why in the world hasn't this money gone out? What is it doing
sitting here in the Treasury? What in the world is wrong? I said it in
just about that fashion--perhaps not quite that loudly this morning in
my office, but I said it, nevertheless. I am appalled by this. What in
the world are we waiting on? The Department did not even announce until
April how rail and transit systems could apply for the funds, wasting

[[Page S7963]]

a full 6 months that the rail and transit systems could have used to
prepare for or to prevent a future attack.

Time and time again, the administration has talked a good game on
homeland security. Man, I will tell you, you just listen to the game
they talk and you feel, ``I can sleep better tonight. I will go home
now. I will watch the information about who is ahead in this game or
that game--I will just forget about all this other stuff.'' But it has
not followed through. The administration has not followed through with
a sustained commitment of resources and ideas. So I fear the
administration believes that it fulfills its commitment to securing the
homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security.
I voted against that, to start with, because I foresaw this. I don't
claim to have great powers along these lines. But with all my
experience--and I have had some. I have been around here quite a while,
longer than anybody else on this Hill--anybody: Anybody sitting in the
gallery, anybody out there in the offices, anybody downtown, or anybody
else. I have been around here longer in this Government, yes, indeed.
Well, so much for that. But that is some experience. I have had time to
see some things and to lament some things. And I have been critical of
both parties, both administrations, Democratic and Republican, over the
years. So I think I have some basis for saying the things I am saying.
Mr. President, America is not made safer by simply reorganizing boxes
on an organizational chart. Repeatedly, the energy, the initiative, the
resources, and the leadership for homeland security efforts have come
from--where? Guess where. From Congress, the people's branch.
In December of 2004, Congress authorized the hiring of 2,000 new
Border Patrol agents per year for 5 years; the hiring of an additional
800 Immigration investigators per year for 5 years to enforce our
immigration laws, and the funding of 8,000 new detention beds for the
holding of illegal aliens. But despite statements by Secretary of State
Rice and statements by former Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Loy
that al-Qaida is a threat on our porous borders, there was virtually
nothing in the President's budget to provide these additional resources
for border security--virtually nothing.
The bill that is before the Senate today commits real resources to
securing our border with regard to transit and rail security.
When terrorists blew up trains last year in Madrid, Spain, the
administration had no plan for securing transit and rail systems. The
horrific bombings last week in London have raised the same questions
that we raised last year. Could it happen here? Are we prepared?
According to the RAND Corporation, between 1998 and 2003, there were
approximately--I don't know why we say approximately 181, but there
were 181 terrorist attacks on rail targets worldwide. Get that:
According to the Congressional Research Service, rail systems in the
United States carry about five times--now, get that. According to the
Congressional Research Service, passenger rail systems such as Amtrak
in the United States carry about five times as many passengers each day
as do airlines.
Since 2001 I have offered seven different amendments to fund rail and
transit security and all of them, all seven, were opposed by the
administration and defeated: seven times.
Remember Robert Bruce? He was lying up there in the loft of that barn
and he had lost six times. He was about to give up until he saw that
spider try to swing his web from this corner to that corner. He watched
it six times and it failed. On the seventh time, lo and behold, that
spider made it. So Robert Bruce decided he would try it one more time;
seven times he tried it, he made it.
That number reminds me of that number seven again. Jacob liked Rachel
and he spoke to the old man--I refer to her father as the old man--
about that beautiful daughter. The old man decided he would drive a
bargain. He said, You can have her, but you work 7 years for her. So
Jacob worked 7 years. At the end of the seventh year he went to say to
the prospective father-in-law, How about it? Now I have worked my 7
years, I have carried out my part of the bargain, how about this nice
girl you have? I have come to get her.
The old man said, No, not yet. You work 7 more. I will give you Leah,
Rachel's sister. You can't have Rachel. The Bible says that Leah was
weak eyed. So all to his disgust, consternation, and sorrow, old Jacob
had to work 7 more years for Rachel.
Here we are talking about seven times. Since 2001 I have offered
seven different amendments to fund rail and transit security and all
seven, all of them, were opposed by the administration and defeated.
Despite opposition from the administration, it was the Congress that
created the Rail and Transit Security Grant Program that was first
funded in fiscal year 2005, and that is funded in this bill today.
I call on the administration to explain to the American people why
the $150 million that Congress appropriated last year has not been
given to rail and transit agencies to invest in more cameras, more
locks, more canine teams, more training. I ask the Senate to approve
additional funding for such grants for fiscal year 2006. The $100
million included in the bill is $50 million below last year. It is $1.6
billion below the level authorized for 2006 in bills that passed the
Senate last year.

While this administration has been focussing on the last attack
carried out by hijackers, not one of whom was from Iraq, very little
attention has been given to other vulnerabilities in aviation security.
While the Transportation Security Administration examines 100 percent
of checked baggage, most of the cargo that is stored in the same
passenger aircraft and on cargo planes is not inspected. The threat of
a bomb on an aircraft is not new. In 1988, 259 passengers aboard a Pan
Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, perished when a terrorist-placed
bomb exploded while the aircraft was 31,000 feet in the sky. Three and
a half years ago, Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to
blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with explosives he carried
onto the aircraft.
Yet, for 3 straight fiscal years, it has been Congress, this body and
the other body across the other end of the Capitol, that committed
resources to address this problem. Since fiscal year 2004, Congress has
added $85 million above the President's request to hire air cargo
inspectors and to advance research of innovative technologies to detect
explosives in air cargo.
What has the administration done with that funding? It has let $106
million sit in the Treasury. Six months after this fiscal year began,
less than 12 percent of the funding appropriated for air cargo has been
spent. I said this to the Secretary this morning. He will do better, he
says. It is taking him a while to get his arms around this. I believe
he will do better. Six months after this fiscal year began, less than
12 percent of the funding appropriated for air cargo has been spent. To
make matters worse, the President's budget request for air cargo
research and development in fiscal year 2006 was slashed in half.
The bill before the Senate continues the commitment to increasing the
inspection of air cargo. I commend Chairman Gregg for that decision.
Let me say it again: The bill before the Senate today, in this year of
our Lord, this bill continues the commitment to increasing the
inspection of air cargo. I commend Chairman Gregg for that decision.
When it comes to securing the Nation's chemical plant's--and I have
lots of them down in the Kanawha Valley and Kanawha County, southern
West Virginia when it comes to securing the Nation's chemical plants--I
imagine we probably have maybe the second largest, if not the largest,
concentration of chemical plants in the Northern Hemisphere right in
Kanawha County or in West Virginia. When it comes to securing the
Nation's chemical plants, the administration has been stuck in
quicksand. We know the threat is real. The FBI has warned us about the
threat. We know an attack at a chemical plant could cost millions of
lives. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that 123
chemical facilities, if attacked, could threaten the lives of millions
of people. My staff person says it would threaten the lives of over 1
million people. That is a lot of people.
For years, the administration has dragged its feet on securing our
chemical facilities. For years, many in the Senate have pressed the
administration

[[Page S7964]]

to do more, to show leadership. In response to my request, the
Government Accountability Office, the GAO--I don't much like that
second most recent name, the Government Accountability Office--the old
GAO recently released a report concluding that of the 15,000 chemical
facilities in the country, only 1,100 have complied with voluntary
security standards. It has been more than 2 years since the GAO urged
the EPA and DHS to develop a comprehensive strategy for the protection
of our chemical plants.
Last month, the administration finally changed direction on the need
to provide security standards to the chemical industry. However, the
administration has not yet proposed a specific plan or identified
resources to implement such standards.
This bill before the Senate includes two important directives related
to the protection of our chemical facilities. First, it requires the
Department to provide the committee the estimates of the resources
needed to implement mandatory security requirements for the Nation's
chemical sector. Second, it directs the Department to begin
vulnerability assessments of the Nation's highest risk chemical
facilities. I look forward to the administration following through with
a specific plan.
The bill before the Senate today includes $200 million for port
security grants, $50 million above the amount provided in fiscal year
2005. Once again, the administration's request was woefully inadequate.
It is the Congress that has taken the lead, the people's branch.
With the $200 million included in this bill, Congress will have
funded $843 million for port security grants since September 11. How
much has the administration requested over that time? Hear me, hear me
now. How much money has the administration requested over that time? A
measly little $46 million. Can you believe it? With the $200 million
included in this bill, Congress will have funded $843 million for port
security grants since September 11. How much has the administration
requested over that time, I ask again? A measly $46 million.
To make matters worse, the fiscal year 2006 request by the White
House included a proposal to have ports compete against other
nonaviation modes of transportation by lumping them together in a
limited pot of funding.
More than 9 million cargo containers enter U.S. ports annually but
only 18 percent are inspected. All it takes is a dirty bomb stuffed
into one of those 9 million containers to cripple our economy. The $150
million Congress approved last October is still sitting in the
Treasury. Why this administration continues to ignore the threat facing
our seaports is mind-boggling. We cannot afford to wait for the next
attack.
For each of the threats I have discussed today, the bill that is
before the Senate continues congressional initiatives to secure our
homeland.
Again and again, and I don't get tired of saying it, I commend
Senator Cochran, the first chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, for his leadership in 2003 and 2004. I again commend our new
committee chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, for giving clear direction to
the Department in the bill before the Senate. With the resources that
have been made available to the committee, Chairman Gregg has produced
a good bill. Regrettably, as a result of the President's proposal to
increase airline passenger fees which the Appropriations Committee
lacks the authority to approve, this bill does not have all of the
resources it needs to meet known vulnerabilities. It is essential that
the Department of Homeland Security be responsive, not bureaucratic,
while the threat we face is massive, and it is clear our response to
dealing with it is tepid and unfocused. It will take a commitment of
energy, imagination, and, yes, more funding, to better secure our
homeland. Again, I thank my chairman and the members of the staff on
both sides for their excellent work and long hours, weekends, they have
spent.
Mr. President, I referred to a letter which I had written to the
Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, on June 13 of this year. I ask unanimous consent that letter
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2005.
Hon. Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: You are to be commended for ordering a
review of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
organization, processes, and procedures. As you assess how to
improve agency operations, I encourage you to focus on a
matter that has been a continuing frustration since the
Department was established. Letting Federal dollars sit in
the Treasury in Washington, DC, does not make America safer.
There is no excuse for the appallingly slow pace of making
Department of Homeland Security funds available to Federal,
State, regional, and local agencies that are responsible for
actually making America safer.
Americans are made safer when our State and local police,
firefighters, and other security agencies hire, train, and
equip first responders, and when funds are made available for
border security and other law enforcement personnel. Yet, all
too often, the Department is slow to announce how State and
local agencies can apply for funds; and, all too often, DHS
agencies are slow to spend money. Congress approved funding
for Fiscal Year 2005 on October 11, 2004. Yet, most
application kits were not released by the Department until
April 2005, six months later. By the time applications are
prepared and reviewed and the money is awarded, it will be
the end of the fiscal year. This is time wasted that could
have been spent investing in our security.
Regrettably, there has been a consistent pattern of delay
at the Department.
Since October 2004, $65 million has been available under
the SAFER Act to hire local firefighters. Seven months later,
on May 30, 2005, the Department finally announced how our
local fire departments can apply for these funds. Funds are
not expected to be given to fire departments to hire
firefighters until the end of the fiscal year. Every day, our
1.1 million firefighters are prepared to put their lives on
the line. I do not understand why the Department waited so
long to issue a grant announcement.
Since October 2004, $150 million has been available to meet
the $6 billion estimated cost of securing our mass transit
systems. Over 9.6 billion transit trips are taken annually on
the various modes of transit service by Americans. Just a
little over a year ago, terrorists struck in Madrid, killing
190 and injuring 1,800 after setting off explosives on
commuter trains at rush hour. As the Madrid bombing proved,
the threat to transit systems is real. It is simply
unacceptable that the Department waited until April 5, 2005,
to announce how transit agencies could apply for the funds.
In October 2004, Congress approved $150 million for port
security to protect not only citizens' lives but also our
economy. The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that a major port
closure for one month due to a maritime terrorist act could
cost up to $60 billion in economic loss to the United States.
I do not understand why the Department waited until May 11,
2005, to announce how our ports could apply for those funds.
As a result, it will be the end of the fiscal year before
taxpayers' dollars will be used to make our ports safer.
In October 2004, bus security funds were approved by
Congress to put preventative measures in place on our buses.
It took six months for the Department to put out a notice of
how to apply for the funds.
Over the last three years, Congress has approved $400
million for the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program to reduce
risks and mitigate damage before disasters occur. According
to the most recent DHS expenditure plan, 95.5 percent of
those funds have not yet been spent, including $31 million
approved by the Congress in Fiscal Year 2003 and $136 million
approved in Fiscal Year 2004. Those funds could have been
spent to prevent loss of property and life; but, instead, the
money sits in the Treasury in Washington, DC., while local
communities battle a complicated application form and
bureaucratic procedures. Natural disasters do not wait for
the government to get it right.
The Flood Map Modernization Program was funded by Congress
to provide resources to update maps across the nation. Flood-
prone areas, particularly, need the maps to prevent damage to
property and to protect citizens' lives. Of the over $215
million available in the current fiscal year, on1y $3 million
has been obligated, slowing down this important process.
In July 2002, Congress approved an emergency supplemental
appropriation for PortSTEP, a port security table-top
exercise program. It took two-and-a-half years for the
Transportation Security Administration to launch the $20
million program.
In April 2003, Congress enacted $38 million through an
emergency appropriation for the Coast Guard to complete port
security assessments at tier-one strategic ports, our highest
priority ports. Two years later $16.8 million of the $38
million is currently unobligated.
Congress included funding in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 to
hire air cargo inspectors, addressing glaring security
vulnerabilities in the shipping of explosives on passenger
and cargo aircraft. As of March 31,2005, less than 12 percent
of the funding that Congress appropriated for additional air
cargo security measures has been obligated.

[[Page S7965]]

In 2001, Congress approved $21.6 million for the Customs
Service for improving security on the Northern border. In
2003, $14.4 million. was added. Despite the fact that we have
137 fewer border patrol agents than we had just seven months
ago, this money continues to sit in the Treasury in
Washington, DC.
As you complete your review of agency operations, I
encourage you to expedite the expenditure of homeland
security dollars. There is no reason for these funds to sit
in the Treasury. There is no evidence that the delay will
result in the funds being better spent when they are finally
made available to Federal, state, regional, and local
agencies. The longer we wait to tighten security, the greater
the opportunity for terrorists to strike.
Please let me know why it is taking so long to get money
out the door, and what specific systems will be put in place
to make sure that this irresponsible bureaucratic delay does
not continue.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Robert C. Byrd,
Ranking Member.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He
always brings a great deal of substance and thought to whatever issue
he decides to pursue on the Senate floor. Once again, in the opening
statement, he reflected that. He does outline many of the issues which
need to be addressed. He outlines them well and makes very strong
points. It is a result of a cooperative effort between his staff, my
staff, himself, and myself that we have gotten this bill to this point.
As he said, the purpose of this bill is to address the threats. That is
our goal.
Obviously, there is going to need to be, in light of the London
event, some adjustment in the accounts relative to mass transit, and
there may be other areas where the Senate wishes to work its will.
The basic goal of this bill, as the Senator from West Virginia has
said, and in which he played a major part, is to address the real
problems, the real threats that face this Nation. I continue to try to
do that, working with the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate all
his cooperation and his effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 2360.
Mr. REID. I first express my admiration for the two managers of this
bill. Of course, Senator Byrd is a legend, having held every leadership
position, sometimes more than once. I enjoyed very much serving in the
House with my friend from New Hampshire, and I recognize his stellar
career as a Governor of his State and now as chairman of the Committee
on the Budget and also the chairman of his subcommittee.

Amendment No. 1129

I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Patty Murray,
Senator Akaka, and Senator Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment
numbered 1129.

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

SECTION 1. VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--From any money in the Treasury not
otherwise obligated or appropriated, there are appropriated
to the Department of Veterans Affairs $1,500,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for medical services
provided by the Veterans Health Administration, which shall
remain available until expended.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The amount appropriated under
subsection (a) is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).
(c) This section shall take effect on the date of enactment
of this Act.

Mr. REID. I appreciate the managers of the bill allowing me to offer
this amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the tragic bombings in London are a sober
reminder of how vulnerable America and our allies remain to terrorism.
What happened in London last week is likely to be tragically replicated
if our country does not act boldly to reduce what ought to be called a
terror tax now imposed on the American people.
I call it a terror tax because when we pull up to the corner gas
station and pay $2.40 a gallon or so for gas, the reality is a portion
of that money is then turned over to foreign governments that ``back
door'' it over to Islamist extremists who use that money to perpetuate
terrorism and hate.
What I call the terror tax is not posted as a price at our gas pump.
We do not see it in our pay stub. It is not calculated in our balance
of payments to foreign governments. It is a tax measured not in dollars
and cents but in risk and insecurity to the American people. It is as
real as everything else the American people put their money toward each
week.
Of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans consume each day, almost
12 million barrels of it is imported. That percentage, now nearly 60
percent, is growing. It was only about 33 percent at the time of the
Arab oil embargo years ago. Our addiction to foreign oil has nearly
doubled in what amounts to just a few years.
In the next few weeks, the House and Senate will be sitting down as
part of an effort to write an Energy bill that must take as its
priority helping to shake us free of this addiction to foreign oil.
I voted against the Energy bill in the Senate because I felt it did
not do enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but I hope,
especially at this critical time, on a bipartisan basis during this
conference it will be possible to make this legislation better.
I believe it is important to do as much as possible to reduce the
terror tax that comes with our dependence on foreign oil. It is not
good enough to accept business as usual when our citizens pay record
prices at the gas pump, only to see foreign governments wink and nod
while terrorist groups make off with substantial amounts of money and
use those funds to target the United States. In my view, there is an
indisputable link not only between the American dependence on foreign
oil and the price our citizens pay at the pump, but between our oil
addiction and our vulnerability to attack here at home.
For this reason, as the House and Senate get together to look at a
strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I intend to propose
five concrete steps to reduce the terror tax.
First, I want the State Department to publish each year for the next
10 years a report on the flow of money paid by Americans at the gas
pump to foreign governments that ends up in the hands of Islamic
extremists who target America with acts of terror.
Second, since most foreign oil goes to the transportation sector, I
want the American automobile industry to be required to increase auto
efficiency by just 1 mile per gallon each year for the next 10 years.
Think about what a modest step that is--just 1 mile per gallon.
Otherwise, the auto industry ought to explain to the American people
why they cannot meet this objective that I am calling for that is so
important to the national security of our people.
Third, for each of the next 10 years, the Energy Department should
publish a list of the most energy-efficient cars in each of the major
types of vehicles so the auto industry would have to compete on the
basis of the most fuel-efficient automobiles.
Fourth, to increase the responsible production of oil in America, not
overseas, companies that increase oil production at existing wells
shall receive a 2-percent annual increase in their tax writeoffs for
this production for each of the next 10 years that the company
increases production from existing wells in the United States.
Finally, this bill must promote new alternatives to oil. I have
proposed a no-risk way to kick-start efforts to get hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles on the road within the decade. By creating incentives for
selling hydrogen vehicles and fuels, we would pay only for performance.
Only actions that put hydrogen vehicles on the road or provide stations
to fuel up would qualify for the incentives.
In the nearer term, other alternatives would become readily
available. They include cellulosic ethanol made from plant materials
grown by American farmers as well as electricity

[[Page S7966]]

produced by flexible fuel hybrid electric vehicles that can be plugged
in as well as refueled at the pump.
Getting a fair energy bill that reduces our dependence on foreign oil
is just about the most red, white, and blue step this Congress could
take. It is absolutely critical if we are to do everything possible to
ensure our national security. Experts from a range of political stripes
agree that the single most important step Congress can take to make
America more secure is to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign
oil.
As a member of the conference committee on the energy bill, I look
forward to working with my colleagues to secure these commonsense steps
to end the terror tax brought about as a result of our addiction to
foreign oil. Doing so is simply a matter of life and death for the
citizens we respect so much here at home.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is now pending on this bill an
amendment offered by the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, relative to
the Veterans' Administration. I am not sure how that is going to be
handled, but clearly the bill becomes tied up in that issue for a
while. I am not sure whether people are even going to come down and
debate that amendment, as it was offered last week to the Interior
bill. I am not really involved in that skirmish, but I do want to bring
us back to the essence of this bill and the purpose of this bill and
return to the fact that from my standpoint the biggest concern we have
to address is weapons of mass destruction. The second biggest concern
is border security.
I wish to talk a little bit about border security because I do
believe this is where the Homeland Security agency can make the largest
contribution toward trying to make our Nation more secure.
I know there is a lot of concern out there today about what happened
in England. But you have to remember that the people who probably
committed that act in England came from outside of England. They came
into England with evil intent. In fact, I have seen some early news
reports which have implied the detonating mechanisms used were of a
type you could not acquire in England; therefore, it is presumed that
the people who committed this act came from outside of England. I think
one can safely assume that, especially in light of 9/11 where the
people who attacked us came from outside our country, although in some
instances they came with legal visas.
So it is critical we get control of our borders. Last year, over 3
million people came into this country illegally--3 million people. The
estimate is somewhere between 11 and 15 million people are in this
country illegally. We know that a large percentage of those people,
especially people coming across our border with Mexico, are coming here
because they have a legitimate desire to work in America. They are
seeking jobs. I guess it is a reflection of the strength of our economy
and the strength of our Nation that people seek to come to America in
order to get a better livelihood and to give their families a better
chance of having a better livelihood.
Those people are not threats. Those people are here to put in a hard
day's work and make enough money to have a decent living. In many
cases, they are doing jobs Americans are unwilling to do. There ought
to be a way to address that concern, and it ought to be some sort of
guest worker program. Hopefully, we will address that as a Congress. We
should address that. I consider it to be one of the primary needs we
have to address.
In the context of homeland security, if we could in some way identify
effectively people who are coming across our borders who are coming not
with the purpose of ill-intent but with the purpose of having a decent
job, that would significantly reduce the number of people we would have
to focus on relative to the threat they present. So a decent and
intelligent immigration policy in this country, with an effective guest
worker program, is critical to our national security.
But that is not the responsibility of the Homeland Security agency.
The Homeland Security agency's purpose is to actually have the physical
people on the border who check the people who come across the border
and stop the people coming across the border illegally. The pile of
reports I referred to before--the actual plurality of them if not the
majority of them--reflect the failures of our ability to adequately
monitor our borders. We have found we are not doing a very good job on
our borders.

As I said, 3 million people are coming into the country illegally
every year--that is the estimate--and over 10 million people who are
probably here illegally already. A fair percentage of those folks are
not Mexican. They are coming from another country, but they are coming
across the Mexican border. And those people may very well represent
legitimate threats to our country. So we need to do something to
address this issue.
There are different levels where we need to address this issue. I
mentioned the guest worker program would be a major effort in this
area, but in the area of just plain security, there are initiatives
that need to be pursued. So what we did was we looked at what was
happening with our border security effort and concluded there were
certain programs on the border that needed really significant increase
in resources in order to be effective.
Some of them, unfortunately, could not take as much resources as we
would like to have given them because they simply could not handle it
effectively. The first was just simply feet on the ground. We need more
Border Patrol agents on the ground, especially on the southern border.
That is a feet-on-the-ground issue. Unfortunately, because of the
training capacity and because of the ability to hire people who want to
go into the Border Patrol as a career, we cannot add as many people as
we would like to add.
As was mentioned by the Senator from West Virginia, there was, 3 or 4
years ago, a proposal to hire 2,000 a year. What we found was the
Border Patrol simply could not find the people. And then they could not
train the people when they did find them. However, we decided a
significant increase was important. Working with the Senator from West
Virginia again, in the supplemental, we added 500 new Border Patrol
agents this year. We have now added another 1,000 agents with this
bill, for an additional 1,500 agents. So that is actually a little bit
outside the envelope of what the Border Patrol can effectively train.
We are also significantly increasing the commitment to the training
facilities so we can increase training capacity so that next year, when
we have this bill, it is my intention to add more than 1,500. I hope to
get up to 2,000 next year. The year after that, I hope to get to 2,500.
The goal is to get to 10,000 new Border Patrol agents within 5 years.
Whether we can reach it, I do not know. But if we can get the training
facilities up, get the infrastructure up that supports these people,
and get the Border Patrol agents up, then maybe we can do it
effectively. But the first step is to add these additional 1,500
agents.
Now, once you have the Border Patrol physically on the ground, they
are going to catch people. That is their job. The problem today is that
when they catch people they have to let them go. They send them over to
the court, and the court sends them out on their own recognizance. They
are supposed to return for a court date, and they never return. About
85 percent of the people who are asked to return do not return. Well,
that is not too surprising, really. They came here illegally. Why are
they going to return when they are told they can go away and come back
on a different date for their court appearance?
We need better and more capacity in the area of detention. So this
bill, working with the supplemental, again working with the Senator
from West Virginia, adds about 4,000 new detention beds. Again, our
goal is, within a limited period of time--hopefully not 5 years in this
case, hopefully even less--to be able to detain effectively anybody who
is caught who is other than a Mexican citizen coming across our border
with Mexico, to be able to detain that person as long as it is
necessary to make sure they are not a threat to us. It is something we
cannot do today. But this bill moves in that direction by adding 4,000
new beds in this area.

[[Page S7967]]

We also have the unmanned vehicle program. This program, which is an
important element of the surveillance of our borders, has fallen on
hard times. In fact, the vehicles were basically stopped about a year
and a half ago. They just stopped running them because they were not
working. They started again, and this bill attempts to get the unmanned
vehicle program running at a much more aggressive level. This is a
tremendous opportunity for us to survey the border using fewer
personnel more efficiently.
In addition, we have technology on the borders, the video and the
other types of sensor capability. Again, we have run into major
technology problems. Contracts were let that should not have been or
were let ineffectually. One more time we got a bunch of reports on this
one. While the program has been restarted, this bill tries to make sure
the program goes forward effectively. This is a fencing issue here. We
are saying we were going to give you a lot more funds, but we want to
make sure the funds are spent effectively.

Also in the area of people coming into this country legitimately who
actually are going through our immigration entrance system, we have
very significant issues of being able to track who they are and when
they come in and when they leave. In order to address that, we are
trying to set something up called US-VISIT which is a major new
technology initiative of extreme complexity. Therefore, I recognize it
is not going to come on line maybe in a perfect way.
What we are concerned about, speaking for the Senate and for the
subcommittee, is that the US-VISIT Program, which is going to purchase
massive amounts of software and hardware capability to go into the
immigration system, that that program not end up being like the
programs we have had in other major Federal agencies which have
initiated major complex IT initiatives, such as the Trilogy Program at
the FBI, that we not end up being halfway down the road, hundreds of
millions of dollars having been spent, and we realize we have a program
that doesn't work. This bill attempts to make sure that the US-VISIT
Program is being brought on line in a way that we have benchmarks and
we know the software is meeting the criteria and the regimes that are
appropriate to that type of software and that the hardware can
interface with it effectively.
This bill makes a major initiative in the area of basically putting
emphasis on the borders, both with the feet-on-the-ground issue, with
the technology issue, and with the capital infrastructure issue in the
area of border facilities and detention facilities. Therefore, I think
it is the right approach. Is it going to get our borders secure
unilaterally by this effort? Obviously not. But it is a step in the
right direction and part of the formula that should lead us to borders
which are more secure.
The simple fact is, as a nation, we are not going to be able to
protect ourselves from the significant threat of these individuals who
will come here for the purposes of killing Americans, and for no other
purpose, until we get effective control over the borders and know who
is coming in and why they are coming and make sure we do not allow or
are able to stop people who are coming into this country whose purpose
is to commit acts which will harm Americans. This bill is an attempt to
step down that road in a much more aggressive way.
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. GREGG. 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. 1133

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting the pending
amendment aside?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 1133.

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for Firefighter Staffing)

On page 81, line 22, strike ``For necessary'' down through
and including ``tion.'' on line 4, page 82, and insert the
following:
``For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), $615,000,000, of which $500,000,000 shall be
available to carry out section 33 (15 U.S.C. 2229) and
$115,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 34 (15
U.S.C. 2229a) of such Act, to remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of
this amount shall be available for program administration.''

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will not object to the chairman's
amendment. We need additional funds for the SAFER Firefighter Hiring
Program. But this amendment leaves the program to equip and train
firefighters $150 million below fiscal year 2005. Last year the
Department received $2.76 billion of eligible applications and could
only approve 25 percent of the applications. In response to this
incredible demand for firefighting funds, the bill will cut firefighter
equipment and training grants from $650 million to $500 million. So
while I don't oppose the chairman's amendment, I put the Senate on
notice that I will offer an amendment to restore the cuts in equipment
and training for our firefighters. I hope the Senate will agree to the
pending amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's point. My
purpose here is to recognize the fact that we put over $2 billion into
equipment, and we need to start focusing on training. This will move
$50 million over to the training side and still leave in the pipeline a
dramatic amount of money for equipment. We can address that issue down
the road, as the Senator from West Virginia represents he may wish to
do, but at this point I think this reallocation of funds is a statement
of policy that is appropriate.
I again ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1133) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. 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. 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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will speak at a later point about the
underlying bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is an
important piece of legislation. I say to the manager that I just
checked with the cloakrooms, and there is nobody coming to speak, so I
wanted to speak in morning business. I will have an amendment dealing
with the proposed passport requirements between the United States and
Canada, and I will address that later.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7968]]

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 this
afternoon, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of a resolution
which is at the desk and relates to the recent bombings in London;
provided further that no amendments be in order to the resolution or
preamble. I further ask that there be a moment of silence prior to the
vote on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. 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. 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 understand from my colleague from New
Hampshire that we will be voting on a resolution at 5:30 this evening,
expressing our condolences to our allies and friends who had to bear
the brunt of a terrorist attack, an aggressive terrorist attack, in
London. It is heartbreaking to see the results of these horrible
attacks against innocent people committed by terrorists who apparently
are determined to kill innocent people, as many as is possible, to make
their point, whatever their point is.
That attack reminds all of us again of how vulnerable we are and how
important homeland security is, and I think it underscores the
importance of this appropriations bill. Homeland security is critically
important. It means we have to have reasonable border security. It
means we have to have port security and a range of other issues. I want
to mention two things.
We have spent a lot of money and a lot of time dealing with security
of air travel, particularly commercial airlines. Now when you go
through the lines at the airports, they are searching for tweezers and
all those items that might be used as weapons. Sometimes there are long
lines. I know it is frustrating. We have devoted a lot of time and
effort in this country dealing with the last terror attack in which 15
of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens. Nineteen terrorists drove jet
airplanes loaded with fuel into buildings to be used as missiles, and
we are dealing with that a lot. We are spending a lot of money dealing
with this issue of airport security and aviation security.
My colleagues, and particularly one of my colleagues who departed the
Senate, Senator Hollings, have talked a lot about port security. We
have about 9 million containers coming in on container ships in this
country in a year--9 million containers in a year. A relatively small
percentage of those containers are inspected. If, God forbid,
terrorists should get a hold of a small nuclear weapon, the size of a
grapefruit or a basketball, and detonate a small nuclear weapon at one
of our docks in a container on a container ship, it could obliterate an
American city. Yet we have not spent nearly as much time dealing with
port security or, for that matter, rail security as we have dealing
with the issue of security at airports and security in commercial air
travel. We must do a much better job with respect to ports.
When we have that many containers coming into our ports with so few
being inspected, it leaves our country vulnerable.
I recall visiting a port one day. I come from a State without ports.
We do not have a water boundary. I was interested so I toured a port in
a major city. I asked: What is in that container on that ship?
That is frozen broccoli, they said.
Is it full of bags of frozen broccoli?
Yes, it is full of 100-pound bags of frozen broccoli.
How do you know that? Do you know what is in the middle of that big
old container?
No, we just know that is what it says on the bill of lading, frozen
broccoli.
What if, God forbid, somehow terrorists acquire a nuclear weapon and
put that in a refrigerated container on a container ship or any
container on a container ship destined for one of our country's major
port cities and detonate that nuclear weapon at the docks in the middle
of one of America's port cities?
We must find ways to address those issues, and we have not spent
nearly the resources necessary to give us adequate security at
America's ports. We have not spent nearly the resources necessary to
provide the security with this country's rail system.
We haul every day, all across this country, toxic material, dangerous
material all across America. If terrorists were to find a way to deal
with that and manipulate a terrorist attack in our rail system with the
kinds of materials that move on our rail system, we would be in a very
difficult situation.
As we review this legislation today and tomorrow, we need to continue
to rethink how do we improve, how do we make the adjustments necessary
to devote more resources for port security, especially port security
and rail security.
I did indicate we do need to control our borders. There is no
question we need to do that. But I think even the President expressed
surprise at the suggestion of the Department of Homeland Security that
with regard to the 4,000-plus-mile common border with Canada, we are
going to require every person moving back and forth through that common
border to have a passport.
In my judgment, that is an impractical way to provide security at
America's borders. As the President suggested, I hope the Homeland
Security Agency will rethink that. In our part of the country we have a
long and common border with Canada. Every day there is a substantial
amount of commerce coming back and forth. People farm on both sides.
People work on both sides, do business on both sides. To require a
passport in both directions would make no sense at all.
When I began talking about this before 9/11/2001, we had ports of
entry at the northern border ports that when they closed in the evening
security consisted only of an orange rubber cone put in the middle of
the road. The polite ones actually stopped and removed the cone before
they came across the border. Those who were not so polite would run
over it at 60 miles an hour.
So we have made improvements in those areas but much remains to be
done. I hope as we construct, talk about, and consider amendments to
this bill, we will finally understand that security means security in
every area, not just in aviation or commercial airports. The tragic
attack in London tells us once again how vulnerable some of these areas
are and I mentioned two today: our rail system, No. 1, and especially
No. 2, our port system, which renders much of our major and largest
port cities in this country very vulnerable to a devastating terrorist
attack. We must and we can and we will do better.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reid
amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of offering an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1142

(Purpose: To provide for homeland security grant coordination and
simplification, and for other purposes)

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I call
up the amendment No. 1142.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Carper, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Voinovich, proposes an
amendment numbered 1142.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator
Lieberman, to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. Let me note at the outset my appreciation for the
work that Senator

[[Page S7969]]

Lieberman has done on this issue. He and I have worked together with
members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee for the past 3 years on
this authorization to develop an improved homeland security funding
approach based on extensive hearings we have held, much consultation,
and hard work by our committee.
We are pleased to be joined by several cosponsors, including Senators
Carper, Coleman, Akaka, Voinovich, DeWine, Bingaman, and Salazar.
The amendment we offer would for the first time authorize a framework
for the billions of dollars the Department of Homeland Security
allocates each year to assist first responders and State and local
officials in helping to prevent terrorism and to prepare for an attack.
That important point bears repeating. The more than $8 billion that
Congress has appropriated for grants to States and localities for
terrorism prevention and response since 9/11 has never been
definitively authorized.
This is not a matter of an authorization having expired, which
happens quite frequently around here, but rather of a multibillion-
dollar program that has never been authorized. This is highly unusual.
In fact, my staff checked with CRS, which went back a decade and could
not find a single other grant program over $1 billion that has never
been authorized. Sure the appropriators have borrowed a funding formula
from the PATRIOT Act, although the bill before us does not use that
formula, but in truth the appropriators have had to legislate the
details of the Homeland Security Grant Program year after year. So, for
example, the House-passed version of this year's Homeland Security
appropriations bill determines the minimum allocation that each State
is to receive, establishes a strict timeframe for applications to be
submitted and for the Department to act on them, requires 80 percent of
the grants to be passed on by States to local governments within 60
days, determines for what funds can and cannot be used, and requires
grantees to submit reports on their use of funds. That is a lot of
legislative language on the House-passed appropriations bills, and
indeed the Senate version before us contains similar legislative
provisions.
These are the kinds of programmatic decisions that Congress is
supposed to determine through authorization bills, not each year anew
on an appropriations bill. What Senator Lieberman and I are offering
today is the specific, detailed authorization bill that this program
has never had. Frankly, we would prefer not to do this, not to offer it
to the appropriations bill. We believe our legislation, S. 21, which is
the product of numerous legislative hearings, two markups, and input
from countless interested parties and many homeland security experts,
should be considered by the full Senate on its own. The House recently
passed a companion measure. S. 21 is on the Senate calendar, having
been reported by the Homeland Security Subcommittee without dissent on
April 13. But there are no assurances that it will be brought to the
Senate floor. So we are offering our authorization bill as an amendment
to this appropriations measure.
Although Senate rule XVI generally prohibits authorizing on an
appropriations bill, ironically there is an exception when the House
has, in essence, opened the door by legislating on the matter in its
own bill. That is what has happened here, so we believe that rule XVI
is not implicated.

Mr. President, you may be saying, Why does this really matter? What
is important about this bill that it should be brought up rather than
allowing the situation to continue with slight tweaks and variations
and new legislative language on the appropriations bill, year after
year? Let me talk about the amendment, which is the text of S. 21 as
reported, with a few changes.
The amendment establishes a new formula for distributing homeland
security grant dollars. It determines how funds are to be allocated,
sets criteria to ensure that the funds are spent in ways that help
States and communities develop essential capabilities to prevent and
respond to terrorism, and it holds grantees responsible for achieving
results.
Perhaps the amendment's most important provisions are those that
inject needed accountability measures into the grants process. We have
all heard the horror stories about inappropriate spending of homeland
security funds. This waste is intolerable, but particularly so when
there are so many unmet needs that are scrambling for funds--needs
where the funding simply is not available. Our amendment will put into
place tough new standards to ensure that homeland security funds are
spent wisely and in ways that will help us better prepare for, or
respond to, or prevent a terrorist attack.
Let me refer to this chart which summarizes the accountability
measures that are included in the Collins-Lieberman provisions. The
first is tying spending to standards. This amendment requires that
States distribute and spend homeland security funds only in ways that
measurably help them meet preparedness standards and achieve essential
capabilities to be determined by the Department of Homeland Security.
In other words, no more spending homeland security dollars on leather
jackets in the District of Columbia or air-conditioned garbage trucks
in New Jersey. For that matter, even purchases of perfectly appropriate
items such as hazmat suits must be tied to achieving essential
capabilities set by the Department. This safeguard is designed to
prevent a community from purchasing equipment that it has no reasonable
expectation of needing. I know this is an issue with which the chairman
of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, has been particularly concerned.
The second accountability measure is a thorough annual audit by the
General Accounting Office to ensure that funds are not being wasted and
that the program is working as intended.
Third is greater coordination among the many grant programs that fund
prevention and response efforts. Our amendment would create a Federal
interagency committee to promote coordination of homeland security
grants throughout the Federal Government. In particular, this committee
would focus on eliminating redundant application, planning, and
reporting requirements faced by States, local governments, and first
responders in applying for and executing different Federal homeland
security-related grants.
Fourth are robust reporting requirements. These are the means by
which accountability can be enforced. The amendment requires grant
recipients to submit annual reports on their specific uses of grant
funds and their progress in achieving essential capabilities. These
reports would be submitted to the Secretary. The Secretary, in turn,
would be required to submit an annual report to Congress, providing an
accounting of how grants to States and communities are spent and an
evaluation of their progress.
Fifth are the remedies for noncompliance, what I call the enforcement
mechanisms. The amendment empowers the Secretary to terminate or reduce
grant payments if a State or locality fails to comply with all the
requirements of the grant.
In addition to these tough new accountability measures, our amendment
authorizes a funding amount that is adequate and a distribution formula
that is fair. This legislation dramatically increases the funds that
would be distributed based on threat, risk, and consequences. It also
maintains a meaningful level of funding for each State. Much of the
frontline responsibility for homeland security has fallen squarely on
the shoulders of our State and local officials and our Nation's more
than 9 million first responders. Communities across America have risen
to this challenge and developed scores of innovative homeland security
strategies. For these strategies to be implemented, however, all States
must achieve a baseline level of essential capabilities. At the same
time, we must direct resources toward locations and facilities that are
at higher levels of risk and vulnerability.
Both of these goals--helping each and every State come up to a
minimum level of preparedness and targeting funds to those areas and
facilities at greatest risk--require an adequate, steady, and
predictable stream of Federal funding. Absent that stream, we find
ourselves in an escalating argument over whether these resources are
being allocated and spent properly.
Unfortunately, this argument increasingly pits our urban centers
against our rural regions. We believe the bill that we have carefully
crafted strikes the right balance.

[[Page S7970]]

Let me acknowledge the hard work of Senators Gregg and Byrd in
putting together this appropriations bill. We share with them the goal
of a fair formula for allocating funds to States while increasing the
proportion of funds that would be distributed based on risk, but the
problem is unpredictability. We ask States to prepare multiyear plans
for improving their homeland security capabilities and yet each year we
threaten to develop a new formula for distributing Homeland Security
grant dollars. That is why in supporting our legislation, S 21, the
National Governors Association underscored the need for the
predictability that our amendment would provide.

On the chart behind me is a quotation from the Governor's letter. It
reads as follows:

To effectively protect our states and territories from
potential terrorists events, all sectors of government must
be part of an integrated plan to prevent, deter, respond to
and recover from a terrorist act. For the plan to work, it is
essential that it be funded through a predictable and
sustainable mechanism both during its development, and in its
implementation. A minimum allocation to each state and
multiyear authorization levels of funding will provide the
predictability necessary to implement statewide plans that
will assist governors in securing our nation.

This is, after all, a partnership with first responders, with local
governments, and with State governments.
Our amendment would provide the predictability States need to protect
our Nation. First, our amendment authorized a sufficient level to
reverse the trend of declining Homeland Security funding by authorizing
the program at the fiscal year 2004 level of $2.9 billion. As the chart
behind me demonstrates, funding for first responders is on the decline
by $900 million from 2004 to the level proposed in the President's
budget. We were reminded just last week that the war against terrorism
has not been won. The battle continues. It is our first responders who
are on the front lines. Do we truly believe that now, during a period
of heightened alert, is the time to scale back our efforts in
preventing and responding to terrorist attacks? I think not.
Our amendment also incorporates a balanced formula. Each State would
be guaranteed a minimum allocation of .55 percent of the total funds
appropriated for State and urban area grants. The minimum, however, is
scaled so that States with larger populations and higher population
densities would receive additional funds. We call this a sliding scale
baseline. It will promote a level of preparedness and provide
predictability. The remainder of the total funds would be distributed
to States and regions based on the Secretary's determination of risk
and threat.
As this chart shows, the amendment makes a grant investment in
threat-based funding. It increases the proportion of risk-based funding
by more than 60 percent. Moreover, under our sliding scale distribution
using factors the Department of Homeland Security employs now in its
risk-based approach, another 10.7 percent of appropriated funds would
be allocated only to the most populous and most densely populated
States.
These are important steps toward bridging that urban-rural divide,
and they balance the need for predictability for bringing each State up
to a minimum level of preparedness with a heightened emphasis on
allocating funds based on threat, risk, and consequences.
As the ranking member on our committee well knows, since he has
joined with me in all of these investigations, the choice must not be
between protecting skyscrapers or farms and feedlots that provide our
food supply, or chemical plants and industrial zones versus the rural
communities that trucks and trains carrying those hazardous chemicals
pass through. All funds beyond those necessary to cover the baseline
allocations, more than 60 percent of the total, would be distributed
based on the relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences faced by
an area from a terrorist attack. From this funding pool, the Secretary
would make threat-based grants to both States and metropolitan regions.
My colleague from Connecticut feels strongly about taking a regional
approach to homeland security. In allocating the risk-based formula,
the Secretary would prioritize grants with consideration given to such
factors as population, population density, critical infrastructure,
coastlines, international borders, previous terrorist attacks, elevated
threat levels higher than the rest of the Nation, as well as other
factors he deems appropriate.
While allowing judgment on the part of the Secretary, we specifically
delineated some of the critical factors--the ones I just read--that the
Department must take into account. In doing so, we take some of the
mystery out of the black box from which DHS now seems to generate some
of its funding decisions, decisions that result, for example, in
Minneapolis receiving funding but not St. Paul.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the urban-rural argument is the
assertion often made that locations outside of our largest cities have
no significant homeland security needs. This is demonstrably untrue. It
ignores a great deal of expertise. It ignores our history.

A recent study conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health,
with coleadership by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services
and participation by 26 States, shows that rural areas face unique and
profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and water
supplies as well as virtually our entire food supply are located
outside of urban areas. Work our committee has done on agro-terrorism
shows the potential threat to our food supply. In addition, rural areas
have far less capacity to deal with a terrorist attack or a public
health crisis.
In a letter describing its commercial equipment direct assistance
program, the Department of Homeland Security itself wrote:

When they face the common threat of terrorism, the needs of
smaller jurisdictions are very different from the needs of
larger metropolitan areas. Smaller agencies confront threats
to the transportation infrastructure, agriculture, water
supplies, power grids and other critical items spread out
over a wide geographic area.

I will highlight the next statement because the events preceding
September 11 show it is so true:

Terrorists may live and train in rural communities. Targets
such as pipelines and nuclear power plants are typically
located in smaller jurisdictions.

Indeed, among the most striking aspects of the report of the 9/11
Commission is the extent to which the terrorists did live, organize,
and train in America's smaller communities. The contacts they had with
smaller law enforcement agencies before the September 11 attacks are
striking, as well.
As the committee reconstituted the movements of the terrorists after
they arrived in the United States, the trail led to such places as
Venice and Coral Springs, FL, Norman, OK, Falls Church, VA,
Lawrenceville and Stone Mountain, GA and, of course, most personal to
me, Portland, ME. It was Portland, ME from which two of the hijackers,
including the ringleader, began their journey of death and destruction
on September 11. It is not just the large cities that attract those who
would do us harm. Indeed, often they feel more secure in hiding in our
smaller cities and communities.
As we seek to ensure that our communities, large and small, are
prepared to respond to a terrorist attack, we must not lose sight of
the need for prevention. Our amendment ensures that the prevention of
terrorist attacks, not just response efforts, receives a significant
share of Homeland Security funds. This is an area that law enforcement
groups tell us over and over again has been neglected.
Our amendment ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks
receives significant funds. It would for the first time authorize the
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program which funds prevention
activities by State and local law enforcement. Under the amendment, 25
percent of Homeland Security grant funding would be used for law
enforcement terrorism prevention, including information sharing, target
hardening, threat recognition, terrorist intervention activities,
interoperable communication, and overtime expenses incurred in support
of Federal homeland security efforts.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police recently released a
report that put it very well. They warned:

[[Page S7971]]

In our national efforts to develop the capacity to respond
to and recover from a terrorist attack we have failed to
focus on the importance of building our capacity to prevent a
terrorist attack in the first place.

We are never going to be able to protect every single target in this
country. That is why we have to pay attention to the prevention, the
detection, the law enforcement side, as well as the response side.
Because of our bill's emphasis on terrorism prevention, it has been
endorsed by the National Association of Police Organizations, the
International Association of Chiefs Of Police, the International Union
of Police Associations, the National Troopers Coalition, the United
Federation of Police Officers, the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Organization
of Black Law Enforcement Executives among others.
NAPO is the strongest voice supporting law enforcement officers in
the United States, representing more than 236,000 sworn law enforcement
officers as well as retired officers, and 100,000 citizens who share a
common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law
enforcement. They, too, have pointed out in a letter to Senator
Lieberman and me that we need to be sure State and local law
enforcement are properly supported, trained, and equipped to prevent
terrorism before it occurs.
I do not believe we can allocate Homeland Security dollars
effectively and efficiently unless we listen to and learn from the
advice of our law enforcement officers and other first responders.
Guided by a task force of first responders, the Secretary would
establish the essential capabilities I referred to earlier to ensure
that first responders have the support they need.
Preventing and responding to terrorism is a national challenge, but
preventing and responding to specific acts of terrorism in the urgency
of the moment is a regional challenge. We saw this after the September
11 attack on the Pentagon and in New York City when first responders
from outlying communities rushed in to make invaluable and heroic
contributions to the rescue operation.

We saw it again in simulation at the TOPOFF 3 exercise I observed
earlier this year with Senator Lieberman. This incident was a simulated
explosion and chemical attack at a waterfront festival in New London,
CT. The contributions by first responders from the outlying smaller
communities were enormous, but their efforts were hampered by a lack of
interoperable communications equipment.
Senator Lieberman and I saw some first responders who were carrying
as many as three emergency radios, which slowed the evacuation of those
who were playing the injured parties to hospitals throughout the
region. In a real attack, these delays--that incompatibility of
equipment--would have had devastating consequences.
Regional planning and coordination are essential, and our amendment
would shift the focus of local funding from individual cities to
metropolitan regions. Unlike the current Urban Area Security Initiative
under which DHS simply announces a list of cities it has selected to
fund, our amendment would establish an application process for
metropolitan region funding.
In applying for funding, communities would be given considerable
flexibility in forming regions that would make the most sense locally.
Our amendment provides that the regions within the 100 largest
metropolitan statistical areas would automatically be eligible to
apply, with additional regions eligible under certain circumstances.
Our amendment would also allow for regional coalitions--even those
spanning multiple States--to apply for grant funding together to
address common needs. I think this would lead to real breakthroughs in
strategy.
Let me give you a concrete example. Several Midwestern States are
joining together to take steps to prevent and, if necessary, respond to
acts of agroterrorism. That is exactly the kind of project that our
amendment would provide for and fund. Under current law, these States
could not seek funds as a group despite the common threats they face
and the common solutions they seek. Our amendment breaks out of this
rigid mold to allow States, counties, cities, tribes, and other
governmental units to think regionally and creatively as they seek to
prevent and prepare for terrorist attacks.
Our amendment would also put the State and local homeland security
planning process where it belongs, on the front end. This legislation
requires State and local jurisdictions to plan for how funds will be
spent before the funds arrive. Currently, much of the deliberative
planning on how funds will be spent is done on the back end, only after
DHS has allocated grants to States and urban areas.
Moreover--and this actually is another safeguard--our bill would
require States to spend money according to State plans approved by the
Department of Homeland Security. More advanced funding means funds will
be spent more quickly and according to a coherent strategy.
Whenever I meet with first responders, whether it is in my home State
of Maine or elsewhere, I am always struck by the fact that very few of
these brave, dedicated men and women first went into law enforcement,
firefighting, or emergency medical services ever thinking they would
end up on the front lines of a war against terrorism. They have been
handed an unprecedented and unimaginable challenge, and they have
accepted it bravely and willingly. They deserve the equipment,
training, planning, input, accountability, and stability that our
amendment would provide. They deserve to have this critical program
that is so essential to the security of our Nation properly authorized,
funded, and designed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor with
Chairman Collins of this amendment. I want to speak on its behalf.

Thanking Senate Colleagues

Mr. President, I do want to say on a personal matter, very briefly,
this is the first day I have returned to the Senate since my mother,
Marcia Manger Lieberman, left this Earth on June 26. The following week
I was observing a period of mourning.
We were blessed to have Mom live to the age of 90. She taught us a
lot of lessons throughout life: how faith and family and community
matter most. We are going to miss her, of course. But I want to take
this moment to thank all my colleagues who reached out to me and my
family, including the occupant of the chair, the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Burr, and my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator
Collins.
I thank you and everyone else for your calls and your letters and
flowers and baskets of food, all of which were a source of great
strength and comfort to my family, my sisters and me, and honor the
memory of the great lady I was blessed to have as my mom. So I thank
you all for that.

Amendment No. 1142

Mr. President, Mom, most of all, would say: Life goes on. Every day
get up and make the most of it. So I am very honored to have the
opportunity on this day to join with Senator Collins in offering this
amendment.
This amendment tracks S. 21, the Homeland Security Grants Enhancement
Act, which was reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee in April with strong bipartisan support. Senator
Collins and I believe that the ideas the committee endorsed represent
the most balanced, constructive approach to supporting those all across
America whom we ask to protect the rest of us from harm.
This amendment accomplishes many things, including the doubling of
the amount of money that will be delivered to States and localities
most at risk. It reduces the potential for waste. It authorizes
adequate funding for our Nation's first responders whom the Senator
from Maine has spoken of so eloquently. It establishes, for the first
time, a comprehensive framework for supporting homeland security
efforts by fully authorizing the essential grants programs that each
year have, unfortunately, been left to the whims of the appropriations
process and have left people all across America uncertain.

These are essential reforms to our grants process, made even more
compelling by the knowledge--underscored by last week's bombing in
London--that terrorists are out there, that they

[[Page S7972]]

will strike, and that we are involved in a world war. It is not like
any world war before. But this enemy has a mission. It is to destroy as
many of us as they can. And they will choose the battlefields, where
they will choose them.
This amendment responds to that threat in a most direct and sensible
way. We direct more money to the places that are at greatest risk of
terrorist attack, that are most vulnerable, and where the consequences
of an attack would be, obviously, disruptive to the people, to our
economic well-being, and to our very way of life. In other words, the
terrorists obviously strike without regard to the loss of life,
innocent life, but they also want to disrupt our society and create
fear.
This amendment responds to that threat in two ways: First, by
guaranteeing a higher baseline level of funding to the largest and most
densely populated States, States that are likely to be at more risk of
attack and to suffer greater consequences if they are attacked and,
second, by substantially increasing the funds we entrust to the
Homeland Security Secretary's discretion to allocate based on an
assessment of risk.
A key part of this amendment is also a desire to balance support for
those cities and States at high risk without sacrificing the security
of locations that may not be on the top of a target list today but
could very well be in the future. That is because this amendment
recognizes what I said a moment ago, that the terrorists aim to break
our confidence, to create panic, to take advantage of the openness of
our society. This is a big country. As a result, no matter how good our
intelligence is, we cannot be certain that in every case--maybe even in
most cases--we will be on notice about where the terrorists might
strike next.
This amendment recognizes the fact that terrorists alter their
methods of destruction, of murder, that one day they may strike
fortified targets such as military facilities, as they have in Iraq and
in Lebanon, and the next day they may strike soft targets, as they have
and did when they blew up a discotheque in Indonesia or took hostages
and brought an end to life at a school in Beslan, Russia.
Common sense, therefore, requires us to continue to build basic
capacity to prevent and respond to attacks wherever they may occur in
this country. And that means everywhere in this country. To build that
capacity over time, State and local officials need some predictability
of funding. They need to know when and how much assistance they are
likely to receive from year to year if they are to do what their
citizens expect them to do: to plan and carry out the best possible
homeland security throughout America. This is a difficult balance to
reach. But I feel confident that the Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee has achieved that balance in this amendment.
First, we double the amount of dollars over current levels for grants
based on risk. I want to emphasize that because some have criticized
the committee action, saying we do not pay attention to the experts'
predictions of risk. The fact is, we set aside over 60 percent of the
total amount authorized in this measure to distribute to States and
cities considered to be most vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
The rest of the money would be used to guarantee a minimum level of
preparedness in every State, although more highly or densely populated
States would get more money. So each State would be guaranteed a
minimum of 0.55 percent of the total amount appropriated. The high- and
dense-population States get a little bit more.
Beyond these formula changes, the amendment would streamline the
State homeland security grant process, require better planning and
therefore better spending, and add a dose of reality to the grants
distribution process. Unlike the Department's current opaque and
changeable approach for distributing the so-called Urban Area Security
Initiative grants, this amendment, the Collins-Lieberman amendment,
would allow metropolitan regions to apply for funding. The 100 largest
metropolitan areas could apply. They enter automatically this pool of
eligibles. And others could submit applications with the consent of
their Governor and the Homeland Security Secretary.
Each applicant would have an opportunity to make its own case based
on its specific risks, vulnerabilities, and needs. The Department of
Homeland Security would award the grants based on merit. There would be
no arbitrary limits on funding to areas that demonstrate they are at
risk, such as the population cutoff the Department instituted this past
year, saying that if you are not larger than a certain number of people
you cannot qualify for the Urban Area Security Initiative, even if you
have uniquely vulnerable assets, facilities in that area that in the
normal course of exercise of due diligence would require extra support.
Our amendment would encourage cooperative planning and execution
across jurisdictional lines by allowing at least two contiguous
jurisdictions to submit a regional application. In addition to
dedicating funding for the largest metropolitan areas in the country,
our amendment would, for the first time, allow States to apply for
risk-based funding and to make the case to the Secretary that there are
threats to their jurisdiction that require additional grant money to
address.
Another critical element of our amendment would be to require the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with
a task force of State and local first responders, to establish what we
call essential capabilities--in other words, targets for the levels and
quality of planning, people, and equipment different types of
communities need to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of
terrorism and other catastrophic events.
These essential capabilities will provide guidance to States and
localities, but they also provide benchmarks for measuring State and
national progress in achieving preparedness. Other accountability
measures--because we are authorizing a lot of money to be spent here
for a good reason, but we are requiring accountability as to how it is
spent--include, for instance, an annual GAO audit and new, more robust
reporting requirements for grant recipients and for the Department of
Homeland Security. This amendment would also give the Secretary the
authority to terminate or revoke grants if a recipient doesn't comply
with the accompanying requirements.
We honor the old proverb that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure. That is why, in the very contemporary context of the threat of
terrorism, our amendment dedicates 25 percent of authorized funds to
strengthen law enforcement efforts that are made to prevent attacks
before they occur. We have 700,000 pairs of eyes and ears on the ground
in every community across this Nation. What am I speaking about? Local
law enforcement officers. They are our foot soldiers, our boots on the
ground in the war on terrorism. But too often, up until now, they have
been left on the sidelines. The brake that stops that next attack on
New York, Washington, Los Angeles or any small or mid-size community
across America may well come from the alert work of a police officer
many thousands of miles away.
Senator Collins mentioned some of the small communities across
America that tragically played critical roles, inadvertently, in all
the activity that led up to the September 11 attacks against us. We
quite simply cannot afford to waste the talents of any law enforcement
officer in America. So we have to do what we can to facilitate,
encourage, and support their vigilance on our behalf.
Finally, our amendment authorizes $2.9 billion in funding for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007. That is the same level--not higher--as provided in
fiscal year 2004. Unfortunately, the trend for State homeland security
funding is pointing down, not up, even as we understand that the threat
remains at least as great as it has been up until now, perhaps even
greater. But at least a $2.9 billion authorization will send a strong
message that we will provide reliable and consistent funding to get the
job done at the local level and the State level, that we will not begin
to chip away at the funds that our allies at the State and local level
can expect from the Federal Government.
Our amendment improves upon the current approach and upon the
approach spelled out--I say with respect--in the underlying
appropriations bill. That is why the Collins-

[[Page S7973]]

Lieberman amendment has received support, for which the Senator from
Maine and I are grateful and honored, from the National Association of
Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the International Union of Police Associations, the National
Troopers Coalition, the National Fire Protection Association, the
National Association of Development Organizations, and many others--all
support this amendment. This is an expression of support. Indeed, I
think it should be taken as a plea for support by these organizations
that represent a broad swath of law enforcement officers at the State
and local level across America.
This amendment is a considered approach to the administration and
distribution of homeland security grants. We believe it strikes the
right balance between not only risk and population, high-risk areas,
according to the experts, and other areas that may well be at risk as
we go forward, but also risks between providing flexibility and
ensuring accountability. Most importantly, it provides our Nation's
first responders, who are also first preventers in our war against
terrorism, with a solid, long-term platform of support.
It has, once again, been a great pleasure to work with my friend and
colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, chairman of our committee. We were
grateful for the overwhelming bipartisan support of the committee for
this measure when it came out of committee as S. 21. We thank our
colleagues for that.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Connecticut for his excellent statement. We have worked very hard on
this issue for the past 3 years. It is my hope that our colleagues will
recognize the work that has gone into this measure, whether it is
coming up with a fair and balanced--I guess that phrase maybe has
weight toward it--carefully crafted formula or whether it is the
accountability measures that are in the bill that I also believe are so
important. Another member of our committee who has been a stalwart
supporter of the bill and has worked very hard in shaping many of its
provisions from his perspective as a former mayor of a major city is
our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman. I am very pleased he is
here to speak on behalf of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the chairman from
Maine and the ranking member from Connecticut, for the hard work they
have done in working in a bipartisan way and coming up with important,
practical, commonsense ways to deal with the threats to homeland
security that deal with the threats to major urban centers, that deal
with the opportunity--I want to talk about this a little bit today--and
the importance of working on a regional basis.
As a Senator from Minnesota, I represent the Twin Cities. I will talk
a little bit about the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, the
experience they had dealing with the urban area security initiatives
under the present system. The system needs improvement.
I rise today to offer my support for the bipartisan amendment offered
by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman that will streamline and
rationalize the State homeland security grant process. My State has a
wide range of homeland security interests. We share an international
border with Canada. We have two major cities in Minneapolis and St.
Paul. We have two nuclear reactors in Red Wing and Monticello. We have
a major port in the city of Duluth on Lake Superior, connected through
the Great Lakes system to the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Atlantic
Ocean.
Unfortunately, Minnesota witnessed an average 48-percent reduction in
the allocation of Federal homeland security dollars for this year. In
addition, when the urban security initiative grants were first
announced, Minneapolis's funding was cut from $12.2 million to $5.7
million, and St. Paul's funding was completely eliminated. I am not
here to complain about cuts in funding. I am here to raise concerns
about the present system, as my colleague from Connecticut discussed,
how opaque and changeable it is, and the difficulty of urban centers in
planning to meet homeland security needs.
As my colleague from Maine indicated, I am a former mayor. I had
hands-on involvement in this process. You need a greater measure of
certainty. When you talk about communities such as Minneapolis-St.
Paul, it is important to understand that you are dealing with regional
concerns, that you cannot cut out one city because it is slightly
smaller in size than the other city. I grew up on the east coast. I
moved to the Midwest 31 years ago. When I moved to the Midwest, when I
moved to St. Paul 1976, my mom, who was still in Brooklyn, thought the
Twin Cities were Minneapolis and Indianapolis. She didn't realize it
was Minneapolis and St. Paul. I excuse my mom. She didn't spend a lot
of time out of Brooklyn in those days. But I expect more from the
Department of Homeland Security. And in 2004 and 2005, anyone who looks
at a map knows the Twin Cities and understands they work hand in hand.
They are regional centers. They are divided by the Mississippi River,
but they are connected essentially. They share a bus system, an
airport, a land grant university. They both have significant major fire
departments that coordinate with each other, particularly in dealing
with issues of hazardous materials. The two cities work together on
responses for infectious disease outbreaks and other public health
threats.
Fortunately, the Department of Homeland Security, after much concern
was raised by the process this year, granted St. Paul eligibility to
share in Minneapolis's funding for this year. I don't think you can
have effective homeland security when cities endure wild fluctuations
in funding such as the 71-percent reduction the Twin Cities face this
year. So the Collins-Lieberman amendment makes common sense, practical
changes to the homeland security grant process to ensure continuity and
accountability in terms of money distributed to States and cities.
Again, you can't do homeland security well if you are involved in a
process that is opaque, that is changeable, that is prone to the wild
fluctuations. This amendment wisely encourages regional cooperation by
moving the focus of local funding from individual cities to
metropolitan regions. Again, the Twin Cities are an ideal example of
that. The reality is that, God forbid we faced a major terrorist attack
in the Twin Cities or in one of the surrounding suburban areas, the
Mall of America, one of the largest tourist attractions in the United
States, 35 million people a year right outside the Twin Cities, if that
were ever subject to a terrorist attack, clearly the departments of
Minneapolis and St. Paul would be responding to those concerns. That is
the world in which we live. We cannot isolate ourselves and live in
little bubbles anymore. So the importance of focusing on the regional
level reflects the reality of the world in which we live and the
geographical reality, and it simply makes sense.
Under the new formula, communities are given considerable flexibility
in forming regions that make the most sense locally. I would encourage
other areas such as Minneapolis-St. Paul to do that, to understand that
it is important to be able to combine resources, to maximize resources
to deal with common threats to the region. Within the amendment, a
region must be made up of two or more neighboring municipalities,
counties, parishes or Indian tribes and must include the largest city
in the metropolitan area. This will enable cities such as Minneapolis
and St. Paul to be considered as one region rather than separate
entities and benefit from the same funding stream. This makes sense.
For our Nation to be prepared, all States must be able to meet a
basic level of preparedness. This amendment will double the funds that
would be distributed based on threat, risk, and need while maintaining
a predictable and meaningful level of funding for each State.
A predictable stream of funding is critical for States and local and
tribal jurisdictions to embark on a long-term strategy of preparedness.
That is the path we are on in a world in which we are so much more
vulnerable. We need to plan as well as we can--plan for the long term--
and to have a strategy of

[[Page S7974]]

preparedness and to encourage cities and municipalities, counties,
parishes, and Indian tribes to work together to meet the threats that
are out there.
We currently require States to submit 3-year plans to the Department
of Homeland Security and it is unrealistic to expect States to
effectively plan ahead without providing some certainty on the funding
they should expect to receive.
This amendment also creates new audit provisions, requires mandatory
reporting, coordination among grant programs at different Federal
agencies, and that individual expenditures be tied to achieving
nationally established essential capabilities. So we are tying funding
to meeting needs that are out there, tying funding to maximizing
coordination, tying funding to achieving certain levels of
preparedness. Tying spending to achieving national preparedness goals
and holding States accountable to how funds are spent will prevent
wasteful expenditures on other items that are not needed. Homeland
security funding is not simply about getting more equipment in a
Federal agency; it is not a Christmas tree; it is meeting needs. What
we have in this amendment is to measure and make sure spending is tied
to meeting the levels of preparedness and effectiveness. Requiring
coordination among different Federal grant programs for first
responders will prevent recipients from purchasing duplicative or
incompatible equipment or training. The bottom line is that homeland
security dollars will be spent more wisely and effectively, and that is
what we should be doing.
This amendment is a great step forward in terms of contributing funds
on a regional basis and ensuring that communities have the tools they
need to work together to provide greater security for their residents.
I look forward to supporting this amendment today and I urge my
colleagues to support it as well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by Senators Collins and Lieberman that would provide for
homeland security grant coordination and simplification. I wish to
thank them both for working with me and the other Members of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs to include a provision in their amendment
that is very important to Indian Country.
This amendment is based on S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant
Enhancement Act, a bill that was reported out of the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee favorably and of which I am an
original cosponsor. S. 21 recognizes that no State is immune to
terrorist attack by requiring that each State receive at minimum .55
percent of appropriated funding. This is important to States like
Hawaii that are smaller in population, but still have critical assets
that need to be protected.
The Collins-Lieberman amendment also ensures that Indian tribes have
access to homeland security funding. With more than 50 million acres of
land comprising Indian Country, which includes dams, hydroelectric
facilities, nuclear power generating plants, oil and gas pipelines,
transportation corridors of railroad and highway systems, and
communications towers, tribal governments need to have funds to protect
and respond to threats of terrorism. Although the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 included tribal governments in the definition of ``local
governments,'' this distinction has not guaranteed that tribal
governments are consulted or involved in the protection of the United
States. Nor does the act ensure that Indian Country will receive
critical information regarding potential terrorist threats, and more
importantly, the act does not give tribal governments the authority to
detain potential terrorists who are found in Indian Country.
While the amendment does not fully address the homeland security
problems that some tribal governments are experiencing, it is a
bipartisan compromise that at the very least will ensure that Indian
tribes with critical homeland security needs will be able to apply
directly to the Department of Homeland Security for risk-based homeland
security grants.
I am pleased that my colleagues recognize that tribes should have the
same access to homeland security funding as the rest of the country.
This is an important first step for Indian Country to address homeland
security issues.
Again, I thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their work
on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________