[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18889-18892]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2555, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2004, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd amendment No. 1317, to fulfill homeland security 
     promises.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, yesterday when we presented this bill for 
consideration, we had opening statements describing the content of the 
legislation. It is the first appropriations bill that will provide 
funding for the new Department of Homeland Security. It provides 
funding in the amount of $29.326 billion for this new Department. It is 
a billion dollars over the President's budget request but consistent 
with the allocation under the budget resolution to this subcommittee.
  The additional funds are used primarily for training enforcement 
personnel and developing new equipment and technologies that can be 
utilized to better protect our homeland. State and local governments 
will get grants from the Department to help upgrade their capabilities 
in this area, not just against the war against terror and defeating 
terrorism but in dealing with natural disasters as well.
  The 22 agencies that previously existed that have responsibilities in 
this area have been folded into one organization under this new 
Department headed up by Secretary Tom Ridge. We are hopeful we can 
complete action on this bill by Wednesday evening, and we will be able, 
then, to start working to iron out differences between the House and 
Senate bills so when we come back from the break in August we can pass 
this bill and do our part to contribute to the timely consideration of 
all appropriations bills in time for the beginning of the fiscal year 
on October 1. We have asked Senators to let us know what amendments 
they intend to offer. We hope we can handle these amendments 
expeditiously.
  There was one amendment laid down yesterday by Senator Byrd that 
would add over a billion dollars to different accounts in the bill. We 
can take that amendment up. I am advised that Senator Byrd will be 
coming to discuss that amendment and other issues that are involved in 
this legislation later in the day. Until that amendment can be disposed 
of, we have an opportunity for other amendments to be called up. We can 
set aside the Byrd amendment and consider other amendments if it is 
agreed to.
  I looked at the list. There are 29 amendments that we know about. 
Most of them are being offered by Senators on the Democratic side of 
the aisle. We hope we can have the cooperation of all Senators to 
expeditiously consider the legislation and not drag out the 
consideration of amendments.
  I thank my friend, the Senator from Nevada, for working with us to 
look at ways to expedite the consideration of this bill. I appreciate 
his assistance, advice, and counsel in this process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has said, as the distinguished 
manager of the bill has noted, that he has no objection to moving to 
another amendment. The only caveat would be that at 3:30, or whenever 
we reconvene after the caucuses, that he be recognized and his 
amendment recur. That would give someone at least an hour and a half or 
thereabouts to work on their amendment.
  As I indicated to the distinguished majority leader, we are in the 
process of hotlining. We do have a list of amendments. I am going to 
step off the Senate floor now and make some calls and see if we can get 
someone to come over.
  There was some understanding that Senator Byrd would have the floor 
this morning, but that is not the case now. So maybe someone could come 
over when there is a relative quiet time, before the rush at the end of 
this bill takes place sometime later this week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the advice and information 
that the distinguished Democratic whip has offered us. We do hope 
Senators will come now and call up amendments. In the expectation that 
will be the case, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd 
amendment be set aside, and that Senator Byrd's amendment recur when we 
come back after our caucus recess today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1318

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1318.

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

    (Purpose: To appropriate $20,000,000 to the Office for Domestic 
 Preparedness to be used for grants to urban areas with large tourist 
                              populations)

       On page 58, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     59, line 17, and insert the following:
     any other provision of law, $2,908,000,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $1,750,000,000 for grants pursuant to section 1014 of 
     the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3711), of which 
     $500,000,000 shall be available for State and local law 
     enforcement terrorism prevention grants: Provided, That no 
     funds shall be made available to any State prior to the 
     submission of an updated state plan to the Office for 
     Domestic Preparedness: Provided further, That the application 
     for grants shall be made available to States within 15 days 
     after enactment of this Act; and that States shall submit 
     applications within 30 days after the grant announcement; and 
     that the Office for Domestic Preparedness shall act on each 
     application within 15 days after receipt: Provided further, 
     That each State shall obligate not less than 80 percent of 
     the total amount of the grant to local governments within 45 
     days after the grant award;
       (2) $30,000,000 for technical assistance;
       (3) $750,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in high-
     threat urban areas, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security: Provided, That no less than 80 percent of 
     any grant to a State shall be made available by the State to 
     local governments within 45 days after the receipt of the 
     funds: Provided further, That section 1014(c)(3) of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3711) shall not apply to these 
     grants;
       (4) $20,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in urban 
     areas with large tourist populations, to be used as 
     determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security; and
       (5) $358,000,000 for national programs:
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction or renovation of 
     facilities: Provided further, That funds appropriated for

[[Page 18890]]

     State and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     under paragraph (1) and discretionary grants under paragraphs 
     (3) and (4) of this heading shall be available for 
     operational costs, to include personnel overtime and 
     overtime.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment deals with our efforts to 
secure hometowns. First, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
Homeland Security Subcommittee for their efforts to bring a responsible 
bill to the Senate floor. As I have said to both the chairman and 
ranking member of this subcommittee, I think the bill's biggest problem 
is simply a lack of money. They did not have an easy task. The 
subcommittee did not have an easy task. The full Appropriations 
Committee did not have an easy task with this new subcommittee, created 
as a result of the 9/11 terror act.
  The subcommittee allocations this year have made it a challenge for 
each subcommittee. Unfortunately, the budget that Congress passed this 
year has made it nearly impossible to address all the needs of our 
Nation's emergency responders.
  A recent report, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, and 
directed by Warren Rudman, who, of course, we know is a longtime 
Senator from the State of New Hampshire, found that our Nation will 
need an additional--let's round it off to $100 billion--basically what 
he said is more than $98 billion over the next 5 years to meet all of 
our hometown safety needs, an additional $20 billion each year.
  Because of this fact, I am on the floor today to offer an amendment 
that will attempt to address one of the areas that I believe we have 
not sufficiently addressed; namely, the tourists that come to many of 
our Nation's cities.
  The United States is home to some of the most visited and cherished 
cities in the world. I applaud my friend, the distinguished President 
pro tempore of the Senate, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, for coming up, in the supplemental bill we just passed, with 
$50 million to promote tourism for the United States. The State and 
local governments in our country will make far more than what we spend 
by advertising, by promoting places in America for people to visit.
  I am always stunned when Senator Ensign and I have our ``Welcome to 
Washington'' meetings every Thursday morning. People come to Washington 
from all over Nevada, and a large number of them say: I have never been 
to our Nation's Capital before. They have been other places. I am 
always amazed when someone says: Yes, I have been to London. I have 
been to Paris or Mexico City but never Washington, DC. Washington, DC, 
is a beautiful city. It is our Nation's Capital. Certainly we should be 
proud.
  Not only do we have landmarks, such as the Washington Monument, the 
Lincoln Memorial, the Capitol, the White House, the beautiful Mall, but 
things are being built all the time to entice people to come here. It 
is too bad we do not do a better job of promoting tourism for our 
country because people who come to Washington, DC, see amazing things. 
If they have been here before, they see new things when they come back.
  Now under construction is the American Indian Museum. It is going to 
be a beautiful place on our Mall. In recent years, of course, we have 
added places to visit, i.e., the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial, which is 
a tremendous piece of work. They did a wonderful job in laying out the 
four terms this man served as President of the United States--the four 
times he was elected as President of the United States.
  One of the most moving items on that Mall is a memorial that was 
relatively recently constructed, the Korean Memorial, especially at 
nighttime. Those soldiers are lined up in their ponchos, with their 
rifles on their shoulders. You can just see them in the ``coldest 
war,'' as the Korean war is referred to.
  There are lots of places to visit in America. We should do everything 
we can to get more people to come here.
  Again, I commend the Senator from Alaska for working it out so we 
could have this money to promote the United States.
  Whether you visit the Nation's Capital, go to Disney World or 
Disneyland, or go to Chicago, the so-called windy city that is really 
not as windy as some might think--it is an extremely pleasant place, if 
you are not there in the wintertime. Chicago is a wonderful place. I 
was so impressed when we went to the National Democratic Convention 
there. I really didn't look forward to going to Chicago. I had been 
there basically in the wintertime at the airport, and those are not 
pleasant experiences. One of the nicest times my wife and I ever had 
was at that convention. Chicago is a beautiful city, with many places 
to see. And it is a place for visitors, for tourists.
  America's tourist destinations are a source of pride for our country, 
as well they should be. Our national parks are places that are the envy 
of the rest of the world.
  But in our cities, emergency responders take just as much pride in 
protecting those temporary residents, those tourists who make their 
homes in hotel rooms rather than apartments and houses. So we should 
make sure these emergency responders have the resources to protect us 
when we travel, just as they would protect us in a permanent residence.
  This may not seem like a major issue, but let's look at some of the 
facts. Tourists account for a sizable number of people in many of our 
larger cities. There are 15 cities with more than 45,000--45,000--hotel 
rooms, based on a study by Smith Travel Research. Each hotel room 
accounts for several visitors every day. That means just the hotel 
rooms in each of these cities is responsible for at least 100,000 new 
people, additional people each day. That is the size of a small city.
  In Nevada, we have cities that have a lot of people in them: Reno, 
Las Vegas, Henderson, and North Las Vegas; and then there are places 
that are pretty small by most standards.
  Las Vegas has about 130,000 hotel rooms. We have been very fortunate. 
The occupancy has been good even after September 11. In fact, in Las 
Vegas an average of about a quarter of a million people stay in our 
hotels each day. During most weekends, it approaches 350,000 or 
400,000. That tourist population of only 250,000 on a weekday in Las 
Vegas represents a city the size of Savannah, GA, or Tallahassee, FL.
  This amendment would correct that deficiency. It would correct it in 
Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Dallas, and other places where we have a 
lot of tourists on a daily basis. This amendment would set aside a 
relatively small amount. This bill is more than $25 billion but not $30 
billion, so this is $20 million for these areas where there are a lot 
of tourists. This amendment would not take away from any other 
worthwhile program. My amendment would simply add $20 million to the 
money we are already spending for homeland security. The Rudman report 
told us we need to give our emergency responders almost $100 billion in 
the next 5 years. So this means unless we do something we are giving 
our emergency responders $100 billion less than what they need. This 
amendment is a start to addressing the shortfall.
  We have a long way to go, but we have to start somewhere. It is quite 
clear this amendment is direct. It provides an additional $20 million 
to be distributed to cities with large tourist populations. The 
amendment has no offset. I have indicated that. There are very few 
opportunities for offsets in this bill since almost all programs are 
underfunded. So trying to take money from one place and putting it 
someplace else in this bill certainly would not be fair.
  I repeat, according to a task force chaired by Senator Rudman, 
current homeland security funding levels will fall $98 billion short of 
the needs of our Nation over the next 5 years. From the standpoint of 
simply directing a message to the American people, it makes sense that 
we take care of people no matter where they are or why they are there. 
We have to make sure people who are emergency responders--police, fire, 
emergency medical personnel--have the money to take care of people, 
whether they are tourists or permanent residents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Mississippi.

[[Page 18891]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the Senator from Nevada 
bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate by offering this 
amendment. His amendment goes directly to the provision of the bill 
that provides funds for discretionary grants to high threat urban 
areas. In the bill, we provide an appropriation for this program of 
$750 million. These are discretionary grants to be made by the Office 
for Domestic Preparedness to those who are considered by the Department 
to be in need of these funds to better protect the security of these 
specific urban areas.
  This is a discretionary program, and we are hoping that by defining 
the criteria to be considered by the Department, we help encourage the 
selection of sites. But we don't pretend to make those decisions here 
in the Senate or in the Congress. These are administrative decisions. 
If we got into the business of deciding which areas of the country, 
specifically which urban areas of the country should be entitled to 
these funds, it would be a very unwieldy process.
  What we have done is to try to define the kinds of characteristics 
that should be taken into account by the administration as they make 
decisions in the awarding of these grants.
  Vulnerability is one of those criteria. I will read now from the 
committee report, page 48, where this grant program is described. It 
says:

       The Committee expects the [Office for Domestic 
     Preparedness] to allocate these funds no later than 30 days 
     after enactment of the act. No less than 80 percent of 
     discretionary grants provided to any State shall be obligated 
     to local governments within 45 days of the State's receipt of 
     funds. In making grants to State and local governments, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall take into consideration 
     credible threat, vulnerability, population, cooperation of 
     multiple jurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness 
     plans, and identified needs of public agencies. The grants 
     may be made to single or multiple jurisdictions in the same 
     urban area.

  It is our judgment that the inclusion of the word ``vulnerability'' 
and also the statement with regard to population gives the Secretary 
the discretion to consider popularity as a tourist destination to be a 
vulnerability or characteristic that is consistent with vulnerability. 
Large hotels, as the Senator from Nevada describes, are, of course, 
vulnerable. A transient population that is not acquainted with the area 
as a resident might be could make them more vulnerable to a terrorist 
act. And while obviously the Senator has a legitimate concern for these 
communities and wants to be sure they are considered when the 
Department divides this money among other municipalities and local 
government agencies around the country, we think it is provided for 
already in the bill.
  More importantly, to go back to the statement I made at the outset of 
my response to the Senator, we don't need to get into the business of 
trying to convert this discretionary program into one where the 
Congress, by massaging the language and putting in additional criteria, 
ends up taking the discretion away or limiting the discretion that 
ought to be exercised by the Department. Many characteristics are going 
to be considered, but we hope we won't try to tie the hands of the 
administrator so tightly that this program loses its significance.
  High threat urban areas, we recognize, are entitled to Federal 
support in managing the threats to those communities, and it may cost 
more than States or local jurisdictions can manage to more fully and 
successfully protect the security interests of people in those areas.
  I am hopeful the Senate will reject the amendment. Specifically, the 
amendment is an add-on of $20 million without any offset. So it is 
subject to a point of order and would have to overcome that point of 
order. The Senate could waive the point of order, could approve a 
motion to waive, but that would be one way to join issue with this.
  I think our discussion here--the Senator's comments and the response 
I have made--can be interpreted as a colloquy that clarifies the 
authority the Secretary has to give consideration to the special 
vulnerability of cities and other localities that have a high degree of 
tourist population. He specifically mentioned Las Vegas. I am thinking 
specifically, too, about the gulf coast of Mississippi where we have a 
large number of tourists who come visit the resort areas and the 
tourists hotels, other attractions along the Mississippi gulf coast.
  That area might very well also qualify for consideration as a 
vulnerable area for funding under this provision. I think the Senator 
points out something the Secretary and the Office for Domestic 
Preparedness specifically ought to consider as they make these grants 
to so-called high-threat urban areas. These are discretionary, but we 
think the criteria we have listed and described in the committee report 
and in the colloquy we have had on this amendment the Senator offered 
will help guide the Department in making these grants and enable them 
to fully consider the vulnerability of areas with high density or high 
levels of tourist population. We think that would be appropriate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. How much is set aside in this bill for these discretionary 
grants?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from 
Mississippi. I am one of Secretary Ridge's fans. I came to Washington 
with him in 1982. Under very trying circumstances, I think he has done 
a very good job.
  I also want to elaborate on some of the problems we have in Nevada. 
We have about 2.4 million people who come from overseas to Las Vegas. 
So on any given day there are 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 people from other 
countries in Las Vegas. I misspoke before when I said there were 
130,000 hotel rooms; it is really closer to 150,000 hotel rooms in Las 
Vegas. It goes without saying that in those hotel rooms, which average 
about 90 percent occupancy, there are a lot of extra people.
  I do appreciate not only what the Senator from Mississippi said but 
how he said it. Probably $750 million for discretionary grants isn't 
enough, but it is certainly a lot of money. I hope those who work with 
Secretary Ridge will do what they can to protect people in destinations 
no matter how they got there or why they are there. Whether you are a 
resident of Georgia and you are in Nevada or a resident of Nevada and 
you are in Georgia doing a little tourist work, you still have to be 
protected; and whether you are from England or Memphis and you are in 
Las Vegas, there is still a requirement to take good care of the people 
who are there, make sure they have police and fire protection and 
emergency medical personnel.
  So I appreciate the work of the subcommittee, as I stated when I 
started my remarks. We have a problem in America today with security 
needs, and we in Congress have an obligation to do what we can to help 
State and local governments with problems that are national in scope. 
This is one area where we need help.
  At an appropriate time, after further discussion with the chairman 
and ranking member of the committee, I will make a determination as to 
whether this amendment should require a vote or whether I want to work 
on the basis of the colloquy with the Senator from Mississippi and 
withdraw the amendment. That decision will be made at a subsequent 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada. We will continue to work with him to 
be sure that we take into account the observations he has made, and the 
urban areas in his State will be dealt with fairly by the Office for 
Domestic Preparedness in the consideration of the allocation of grants 
from this fund.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 18892]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am going to propound two unanimous 
consent requests which we understand have been cleared on both sides of 
the aisle, and I make this request at the suggestion of the majority 
leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute amendment be 
agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment, provided that no points of order be waived by virtue of this 
agreement; provided further that the amendments that are now pending be 
modified so they are considered as pending to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30, 
the Senate stand in recess until 3:30 this afternoon. This would allow 
all Senators to attend an important briefing this afternoon, in 
addition to the party lunches at 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if it would not be 
to the benefit of especially the Senator and myself, but the Senate 
generally, if as soon as the Senator completes these unanimous consent 
requests we go into recess at that time rather than wait until 12:30?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to that and so modify my request in 
that way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________