[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19330-19361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1370

  Mr. STEVENS. I am bothered by the offset on this amendment. In the 
2003 bill, we provided $850 million to high-threat urban grants. This 
bill already contains another $750 million for high-threat urban 
grants. That is a total of $1.6 billion for high-threat urban grants.
  Every community in the country is affected by the alert system. Every 
community in the country faces increased costs. These megalopolises of 
the country, the large urban areas, are demanding that everybody pay 
more for them, but the smaller cities, the smaller counties, the 
smaller areas, have the same problem. On a per capita basis, it is a 
higher cost to provide protection to small areas than the high-threat 
urban areas.
  I do not know why we should have New York City and Philadelphia, in 
particular. They are the ones seeking this money. There is no question 
there is a need. But there is a need in Peoria. There is a need in 
Cincinnati. There is a need in Tucson. There is a need in New Orleans.
  The money they have taken for this is money that deals with homeland 
security nationally. One of the offsets takes moneys from the small 
universities in the country. We had letters from many Senators asking 
for money to assist in terms of research, the research base of the 
country dealing with homeland security problems. We ought to take a 
second look at what we are doing.
  We created this Department of Homeland Security 8 months ago. They 
already have in this bill and the bill we

[[Page 19331]]

already enacted $1.6 billion more than the rest of the country. Why 
should this happen now that we have an offset against two of the most 
important accounts in Homeland Security? I hope we can talk a little 
bit more about that before we vote.
  I will object to a time agreement until people understand what we are 
doing. Part of this money is from information analysis and 
infrastructure protection. It is a directorate, as they call it, in the 
new Department of Homeland Security. This will limit the intelligence 
warning and threat analysis functions of the Department we have just 
created. These are just being set up. This is for the 2004 costs of the 
Department we have just set up. Why should we take money from that? 
These are assessments of critical infrastructure, including chemical 
facilities, drinking water supply systems, arenas and stadiums, our 
Nation's seaports. This is the money being offset. Do Members with 
seaports want to put this money into an account that already has $1.6 
billion? We ought to stop and think about this.
  It would also be offset against the national communication system, as 
I understand. I will have to study this more deeply. The priority 
telecommunications programs could not be implemented. We have been 
interested in a national alert system. In the past, the national alert 
system went over the radio. Now, few people listen to the radio. They 
are on cell phones, they are on computers, they watch the television, 
cable. We are trying to get a national alert system. This offset goes 
against that study, how to put back into place a national alert system 
so the Nation will know, an area will know, if there is an extreme 
threat about which everyone should know.
  I understand the Senators from New York and Pennsylvania are trying 
to increase the amount of money available to their high-threat urban 
areas. I have a high-threat urban area in Anchorage, too, but we do not 
have as large a population and we do not have the $1.6 billion either.
  The Senate ought to think seriously about what we are doing. I intend 
to speak further if I can find additional information regarding the 
exact money that will be displaced by this amendment. The total amount 
of money here is too much, too soon. We ought to think about what we 
are doing. I hope others will come forward and take a look at what we 
are doing.
  For those who sent letters asking for money in these areas, 
particularly in the national intelligence systems and threat analysis, 
in the areas of chemical facilities, drinking water supplies, utility 
protection, transportation protection, protection of bridges, this is 
what the money is. Why should that go to New York and Pennsylvania 
because they have a problem? Everyone else has, but they have a lot 
more people. On a per capita basis, we have already given them more 
money. To give them this additional $250 million is going too far.
  I hope the Senate will listen and not adopt this amendment.
  I will return with greater details in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are listening to quite a tirade 
against giving money to the high-threat areas. The question is raised, 
Why? When you go to a hospital and you have a sick patient, someone who 
is really in trouble, he or she will be among the first to receive the 
medication. That is the situation about which we are talking.
  We lost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 most of them in New York. 
This is the focal point for economic activity--probably the most 
important financial center in the entire world. We look at the cities 
of Philadelphia and New York and there is New Jersey, right in the 
middle, with lots of commuters. We lost 700 innocent citizens on that 
day.
  We have $29 billion going into homeland security but we need more. I 
know where to take it from: Take it from the huge tax cut that was 
given to those who do not need it.
  For goodness' sake, the first round of emergency response grants had 
New Jersey and New York among the least compensated on a per capita 
basis. Our populations are squeezed together. New Jersey has the 
highest population density of all the States in the country. We have 
all kinds of important facilities, beside harbors and the financial 
center, that affect the way our country functions.
  To say, you got enough money, that's just not right. I repeat: when 
the Department of Homeland Security gave out the first round of grants, 
New Jersey and New York were among the States most poorly treated on a 
per capita basis and yet our two States paid the biggest price on 9-11 
when it comes to what constitutes a terrorist threat.
  We may be threatened here with repercussions because we want money 
for the ports, we want money for transportation, or otherwise. Threaten 
all you want, but you cannot idly threaten the citizens of New York and 
New Jersey and Pennsylvania and other high-threat urban areas, walk 
away, and say: You got enough money.
  I hope everyone is listening. What we need to do is recognize our 
areas of susceptibility and help those areas first. When it comes to 
toxic air or toxic water, we distribute the funds based on where the 
problem exists, where there are Superfund sites, and we try to give 
those areas more money so they can fix their problems.
  The whole country wept on September 11, 2001. Everyone was weeping. 
And they all felt susceptible. But some know, many know, there are 
areas that are more susceptible than others. Those places are 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and other high-density urban areas.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I know my colleague is aware the high-threat areas were 
not just New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania when the last round of 
money was given out. I know my colleague is aware that 30 cities got 
special money because the cities had special needs, including Boston, 
Denver, Philadelphia, Miami, Detroit, Newark, San Diego, Phoenix, 
Baltimore, Dallas, Buffalo, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, 
Sacramento, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Long Beach, New Orleans, Memphis, 
Cleveland, Tampa, Seattle, New York, Washington, Chicago, Houston, Los 
Angeles, and San Francisco. The high-needs areas are not simply in 
three States, they are in special areas.
  I ask my colleague two questions. Was he aware that 30 cities got 
this money? And this year we are putting less money into high needs 
than last year.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was not aware of the specifics. I just know that in 
the areas already hit very hard--New York, New Jersey--a very serious 
threat remains. There are port facilities that are not protected at 
all. There are rail facilities. There are all kinds of things that 
could be destroyed or disrupted in a flash with the right kind of 
weapon or terrorist plan.
  Whoever thought the Trade Center would come down--110 stories, just 
crash to the ground, melted into nothingness? No.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for another question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I sure will.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Our good friend from Alaska said we have needs on a per 
capita basis. But is my colleague aware that on a per capita basis the 
high-need States get less money? It is not the same. This is not evenly 
distributed on a per capita basis, because the formula here has .75 for 
every State--much higher.
  I believe in helping all the States but this is higher than we have 
ever seen in a formula distributing money to every State. As a result, 
a State such as Wyoming or Alaska, for instance, would get far more 
money on a per capita basis----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is the time of the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Who has the floor, Mr. President?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the floor.

[[Page 19332]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. On a per capita basis than even a larger, high-threat 
State. Is my colleague aware of that?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am absolutely aware of that. That is why I am 
surprised when I hear the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who knows 
this place better than anybody, who knows how desperately grants are 
sought and fought for, as he has so many times for his own State of 
Alaska, as he should, and how many times he has been successful, and 
how many times grants have been given to Alaska because his 
constituents needed the help.
  But what goes around comes around, as they say. Now its New Jersey 
and New York that need that kind of help and we shouldn't be turned 
away.
  With regard to the offsets for this amendment, I would prefer that we 
not take the money from communications and from science and technology. 
I would submit that there are other offsets, including the one I 
suggested a moment ago--one I would be most willing to forego--and that 
is the tax break that has come along. Take some of that money, the 
hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved, the billions of 
dollars over the next several years, and put that money back where it 
belongs, to protect our society.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey will reserve the word ``tirade'' with reference to me. I might 
have a tirade sometime on the floor. I have not so far. And it will not 
be because of an amendment like this.
  But I call the Senate's attention to pages 58 and 59 in the committee 
report. I will state to the Senator from New York that he is in error. 
The .7 applies to the basic grants; it does not apply to this program 
at all. The .7 does not apply to this concept we are talking about now, 
nor the money to which he is referring.
  If you look at page 58, it shows the committee recommendations for 
the information analysis and infrastructure protection system. It is a 
national system.
  I call your attention to page 59:

       The General Accounting Office has reported that chemical 
     facilities present an attractive target for terrorist 
     activity. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it 
     would cost $80,000,000 over 5 years for vulnerability 
     assessments at nearly 15,000 chemical facilities across the 
     United States. Therefore, the Committee [is directing this 
     money to be spent for that.]

  We make a direct request for a report on the matter. The systems we 
are dealing with here are systems that deal with the Nation. But, in 
particular, it is:

       . . . the creation of the National Cyber Security Division 
     within Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and 
     recommends $32,800,000 for the integration of physical and 
     cyber infrastructure monitoring and coordination from the 
     funds made available for information and warning advisories, 
     and $65,700,000 for cyberspace security from the funds made 
     available for remediation and protective actions.

  We expect to move into this whole concept of critical infrastructure 
protection. That needs:

       . . . key asset identification, field assessments of 
     critical infrastructures, and key asset protection 
     implementation to help guide the development of protective 
     measures to harden facilities and assets.

  It is a national program from which this money is being taken. The 
inference here is this is surplus money. This is not enough. We don't 
have enough for this system. We don't have enough money for what the 
Senators from Pennsylvania and New York want. But the point is, some of 
this protection starts at home. Some of it starts at home. Some basic 
concept of protection is the responsibility of every government in the 
United States. But the one responsibility we have here is the national 
system of identification of those facilities and assets that are 
critical, and also the establishment of a national alert system. This 
money is not enough for either one. But the Senators from New York and 
Pennsylvania want to take $250 million from a fund that is already 
insufficient, based upon the General Accounting Office report.
  I do hope Senators will take a look at how this money is allocated:

       Intelligence and Warning: Threat determination and 
     assessment, Information and warning advisories, Protecting 
     Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets: Infrastructure 
     vulnerability and risk assessment, Remediation and protective 
     actions, National Communication System.

  That gets the bulk of it, the national communication system, finding 
some way to put an alert system back in place that will notify 
everybody if there is a national disaster. That does not exist any 
longer. It did, back in the days, as I said, when we all relied on 
radio. That got tested once a week, in fact, or once a month--whatever 
it was. But how long has it been since you had a test on a system? 
There is no test possible coming through cell phones, through 
computers, through the cable systems, through the satellite systems. 
They are not coordinated at all. We need a national system of alert and 
this is going to go toward that, starting it up.
  The bulk of the money that they are taking is in protecting critical 
infrastructure and key assets. That is where $95 million is for the 
infrastructure vulnerability and risk assessment; $383.9 million for 
remediation for protective actions nationally. This is protecting the 
ports of New Jersey, of New York, of California, Florida, and even 
Alaska. But identifying the need for protection.
  Why take that money out when we are just setting up the Department of 
Homeland Security and this is the basic money we need now? We need it 
now.
  The Senators from New York and Pennsylvania want money to be there in 
case they need it if there is another national alert. There may not be 
one. But there is a need for this. The General Accounting Office 
insists the No. 1 responsibility of Congress is to deal with the 
vulnerability assessments of 15,000 chemical facilities and other 
similar assets around the country. Chemical facilities in particular, 
and the costs associated with protecting those chemical facilities, are 
essential to this homeland security.
  I urge the Senate not to take this action. It will also go into the 
Science and Technology Directorate, taking money from the research and 
development capabilities of the entire Department of Homeland Security. 
The reduction would severely limit the university-based centers 
program.
  As I said before, nearly every Senator has made a request. I have the 
list here, by the way. Here it is. These pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5--6 pages, 
single spaced, from Senators addressing this one particular account.
  Senators, if you ask for this money and you expect to get it--we have 
not earmarked any money; isn't that correct?
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is right.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no money earmarked. But money, as much as we 
could possibly put, is in the discretionary fund--and I think almost 
every Senator has asked for money in this area: Vulnerability 
protection, disaster assistance programs, homeland security initiative 
at the University of Washington, University of Nebraska. Maybe I should 
read them all, when we look at it: College of William and Mary, George 
Mason, VMI, Utah, LSU, Wichita, Montana State, Colorado, University of 
Delaware, Brown University, University of Rhode Island, University of 
Georgia, University of New York, SUNY Maritime College.
  I could go on and on. Almost every college that has a capability of 
being involved in this assessment and determination of how to protect 
these facilities has asked to get involved. We could not do that. So we 
set up a fund and the Department will determine how many of these 
universities can lock together and give us the assessment that the 
General Accounting Office says is absolutely essential.
  If you take the money for something that might happen, how are you 
going to know when it does happen?
  This is the beginning of the homeland security assessment of threats 
and establishing an alert system. This amendment takes from both. I 
think that is absolutely wrong. I hope we will get other people to 
comment on this

[[Page 19333]]

amendment. I understand the need. There is overwhelming need throughout 
the country for homeland security money.
  I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi, for what he has done, along with his staff. 
They have allocated it in a way that is really fair. These other 
amendments so far have been to add money beyond what we have available. 
This is taking money that has already been assigned by the committee 
and the subcommittee to a specific account and putting it in another 
account and saying it was shortchanged. But there is already money in 
that account. The account they are adding to already has in this bill 
$750 million. It had $850 million in the bill we passed earlier this 
year. That is enough. Compared to the rest of the demands in this 
country, that is enough for that fund.
  I urge the Senate to disapprove this amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
comments. He has put this matter in perspective. We appreciate his 
comments and his statements about the effect of this amendment on those 
parts of the bill that will have funds transferred from them to this 
so-called high-threat urban area account.
  When we started talking about this bill yesterday, we had Senator 
after Senator talking about adding money for new technologies and 
making sure that we develop and deploy new kinds of the most modern 
defensive systems we can have to defeat and detect terrorist attacks 
and to make our country share in security. One of those was an 
antimissile system for commercial aircraft. You may remember Senator 
Boxer was on the floor talking about immediately putting those 
capabilities in the domestic commercial airline industry. We have funds 
in the bill to do just that. But guess what. This amendment cuts those 
funds. This amendment would take money away from the antimissile 
defense capability fund where we are developing and will deploy the 
capability as soon as it is ready.
  Funds for universities throughout the country that are now eligible 
for grants for research into new technologies which will improve our 
capability to defend ourselves across a wide range of areas that we 
need to explore, develop, and deploy will be undermined by this 
amendment. The funds will be cut if this amendment is agreed to.
  We have had Members offering amendments for money for chemical 
industry infrastructure protection--special money going to the chemical 
industry. The money we have in this bill now for the chemical industry 
will be cut if this amendment is agreed to.
  The last vote we took on this was on the subject of waiving the 
Budget Act. Some Senators came up, and I heard them say, You are going 
to need 60 votes. They will need 60 votes to prevail to waive the 
Budget Act. So my vote really won't matter, since you already have 40 
votes to defeat this. I can vote for the amendment to add money, since 
it won't come from any other account.
  Some other Senators were concerned because we were going to violate 
the Budget Act. I heard some Senators say, If you could find an offset, 
I would vote for your amendment. Now we have an offset, and Senators 
are going to have to take a new look at this.
  This is not an automatic decision that can be made. But to think 
about its effect on those accounts and those activities which are going 
to be cut by this amendment, these are real cuts that are going to be 
made.
  I hope Senators will look carefully and balance their judgment 
against the need to add money for this account that is now in the $750 
million area.
  Think about this: We also put $750 million into this account when we 
passed the supplemental just a few weeks ago. We passed a supplemental 
for the remainder of this fiscal year and added $750 million for these 
same urban areas for which they now want to increase money. To me, that 
is not fair. That is not fair.
  People throughout the country have an equal interest. Whether you are 
in an urban area or a rural area, you have an equal interest in this 
being a balanced bill that treats all areas of the country the same in 
terms of the quality of the response we are going to make in our 
individual communities. You can't just channel the money to the big 
cities and expect it is going to solve our national problem. This is 
not a problem just for the big cities to solve. It is a problem for our 
country to solve. It is a national problem. It is not just a Federal 
Government problem. Every town and every city and every State ought to 
be able to share equally and fairly in the funds that are made 
available in this bill. If this amendment is agreed to, the fairness 
doctrine will go out the window.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I agree with the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska. His presentation was not a tirade. 
For those of us who have heard the Senator from Alaska speak on many 
occasions, there was nowhere near a tirade from the Senator from 
Alaska. That was a reasoned analysis of the substitution of funds.
  When the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, presents his argument, it has great weight. The 
subcommittee has very carefully considered the allocations. But this 
amendment seeks to make a rather modest change. We have here a $29 
billion appropriations bill.
  When you talk about high-risk areas, it is my view that $1 billion is 
a minimum. The figure might realistically be appraised for much more 
than $1 billion.
  It is true that during the course of the last vote there were many 
Senators in the well who voted against waiving the Budget Act and who 
said had there been an offset they would be favorably disposed. That is 
not a carte blanche commitment. It depends upon what the offset is.
  We are talking about two accounts. The information analysis, 
infrastructure protection, operating expenses still has a very 
considerable sum of money, $636.340 million. The science and technology 
research, development, acquisition and operations, where we have taken 
$62.640 million, still has more than $800 million.
  What we are looking at here really is an analysis of what the highest 
risk area is.
  Again, I come back to the activities of President Bush today. Where 
was President Bush today? He made a trip to Philadelphia. In 
Philadelphia, he went to the airport, which is high risk. Then he was 
on a long bridge which spans the Schuylkill River, which is high risk. 
Then he went along a highway again where there is very heavy congestion 
and high risk. Then he was at the seaport, again an area which is high 
risk. It is a matter of making an analysis.
  I have great respect for what the Senator from Mississippi has done 
on this subcommittee. Perhaps the total figure of $29 billion is not 
sufficient. Perhaps it ought to be slightly more--not to take an offset 
from these two accounts.
  But I supported the Senator from Mississippi on every one of his 
tabling motions. Other Senators have offered much greater amendments, 
one in the range of $1.8 billion. It is true that on one of the motions 
to table by the Senator from Mississippi on firefighters, I deviated on 
a motion to waive the Budget Act, which was nowhere near successful 
because of giving a little spiritual support to the firefighters who I 
think have done such an outstanding job. But I believe a careful 
analysis of the $250 million for high-risk areas contrasted with the 
funds that would have been taken from these other accounts which are 
still very well funded is appropriate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before we vote on this amendment, I am 
reminded that attacks have been thwarted in three locations. And if 
attacks have been thwarted, that suggests there is a certain risk 
attached to those locations. One is the World Trade Center, another is 
LAX Airport, and

[[Page 19334]]

the third is the Space Needle in Seattle. As far as I know, there were 
no attacks threatened in Wyoming and many other places around the 
country. So when we look at this issue, I think we ought to get 
focused.
  First of all, Secretary Ridge is the arbiter of the discretionary 
fund. He is the expert. He gives out this additional money. We, the 
Senate--Democrats and Republicans--nominated him to make these 
decisions. If the nondiscretionary part of the budget runs about $28 
billion, I don't know that these particular accounts are the places 
where we have to go to get the funding. And we can ask Secretary Ridge 
to be aware that we are most concerned because of the high-risk nature 
of the New York/New Jersey region.
  I hope in this case we will take seriously what we talk about so 
much: That we cannot be secure, no matter how good we are in 
Afghanistan, no matter how good we are in Iraq--and we have been 
terrific. Our people have fought valiantly. They have done what is 
asked of them. There are not enough of them. And when someone suggested 
there were not enough of them, such as General Shinseki, he was kind of 
kicked out of the Corps.
  So we have to look at this and ask, what constitutes security? It is 
not having enough bombs and planes. It is making sure that bombs and 
planes don't come our way, don't come to our soil.
  You may have heard the prediction that was leveled by the former 
Secretary of Defense when he said, within a decade, if things go along 
as they are, we could be looking at a nuclear explosion on American 
soil.
  I think we ought to step up to the idea and express our interest in 
preventing any kind of a terrorist attack. We have had a couple, and 
they were devastating, not only to the lives and families who were hurt 
but to the morale of this country.
  I think we ought to say: Look, these are areas that are constantly 
under concern for a terrorist attack. Let's put the money there to make 
sure we are taking special care of them, just as we would a patient who 
is especially sick and we have a limited amount of medication. We give 
it to that patient, not to those who might get sick.
  That is the situation we face. I hope we will get enough support to 
carry this through. The message is important. And I leave it to 
Secretary Ridge to deal with his discretionary responsibility to 
allocate the funds.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no Senators who want to speak 
on this issue who have not already spoken. I think we are ready for the 
vote. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1370.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is 
absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Dayton
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1370) was rejected.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the two managers. The next amendment that 
we will offer will be the Reed of Rhode Island amendment. The Senator 
from Rhode Island has agreed to 30 minutes on his side. Following that 
amendment, Senator Byrd wishes to offer an amendment. Following the 
debating on those two amendments, I ask that there be a vote on those 
two amendments with Senator Byrd's vote coming first and the vote on 
Senator Reed coming next. Those votes would be on or in relation to 
those two amendments with no second-degree amendments in order.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent agreement 
be amended to allow the Senator from Mississippi whatever time he shall 
consume in opposition to the Reed amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree to that amendment, and I thank the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1372

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

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and 
     Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 1372.

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

  (Purpose: To appropriate $100,000,000 for grants to public transit 
 agencies to enhance public transportation security against terrorist 
                                threats)

       On page 49, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:


                            Transit Security

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration related to land transportation security 
     services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and for other purposes, 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2004, 
     which shall be available for grants to public transit 
     agencies for enhancing the security of transit facilities 
     against chemical, biological and other terrorist threats: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make 
     such grants pursuant to threat assessments previously 
     conducted by the Transportation Security Administration and 
     the Federal Transit Administration: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall enter into a memorandum of understanding 
     regarding transit security. Provided further, That not later 
     than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to 
     Congress that includes--

[[Page 19335]]

       (1) the amount of funds appropriated to the Transportation 
     Security Administration (TSA) that have been allocated for 
     activities designed to improve public transportation 
     security;
       (2) the number of full-time TSA personnel engaged in 
     activities designed to improve public transportation 
     security;
       (3) the strategic plan of the TSA for improving the 
     security of our Nation's public transportation systems; and
       (4) recommendations from the TSA for any policy changes 
     needed to ensure that the TSA, in coordination with other 
     agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, will 
     effectively improve public transportation security for our 
     Nation's transit riders.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate debated a 
comprehensive amendment by Senator Byrd with respect to deficiencies in 
this bill regarding resources for homeland security. Essentially, what 
Senator Byrd was trying to do was to match the resources we need with 
the rhetoric we have heard about protecting the homeland of the United 
States.
  I am disappointed Senator Byrd's amendment did not prevail. Within 
that amendment, there were resources devoted to transit security. 
Today, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Sarbanes to 
address what I think is an amazing and unacceptable lack of resources 
and investment for securing and protecting our Nation's trains, buses, 
and ferries. Indeed, these vehicles and these transportation modes 
provide transportation for millions of Americans each day, and they 
require protection.
  I want to be clear. This is not the fault of the committee, and 
certainly not the fault of the chairman who has done an extraordinary 
job in securing an additional $1 billion for the subcommittee's 
allocation. But the fact is that the administration has not asked for 
sufficient resources to protect the transit systems in the United 
States. Again, this is why, together with Senator Sarbanes, I am 
offering this amendment to add $100 million for the protection of our 
public transit systems.
  Each day, millions of Americans, old and young, rich and poor, every 
kind of American, board a bus or a train to go to work, school, or a 
doctor's appointment. Each year the Federal Government spends billions 
of dollars to build and maintain these systems. Yet to date, 
shockingly, the Federal Government has only invested below $90 million 
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for transit security if we exclude the 
very special circumstances of rebuilding transit systems that were 
attacked and severely damaged during the September 11 attack.
  We have recognized the need to protect our airlines and we have spent 
billions of dollars to do so, but there is the same compelling need to 
protect the transit systems of the United States.
  There are two major reasons we must protect these transit systems: 
First, we want to avoid, preempt, and prevent, a terrorist event 
involving a transit system; second, we need transit systems that have 
interoperable communications, trained personnel, and additional 
equipment to mitigate the consequences of any type of terrorist event 
in the United States.
  It is quite clear transit systems are a target of terrorists. 
According to a report in 1994 by John P. Sullivan and Henry I. 
DeGeneste: ``Transit systems are attractive targets for a number of 
reasons. They carry large numbers of people within concentrated, 
predictable areas and timeframes. They are accessible since they 
provide easy user access. Finally, their target-rich infrastructure 
which often covers extensive geographic areas frequently renders 
countermeasures impractical.''
  So we know this. Indeed, the Federal Transit Administration knows it. 
To their credit, they have taken meager resources to provide transit 
assessment assistance to any transit system that is required or 
requested. They have been able to advise these transit systems. But 
advice is not dollars. Advice does not build or buy equipment that will 
protect commuters in our transit systems.
  We already know transit systems are a target, in many cases targets 
of choice. The Mineta Institute indicates that between 1997 to 2000 
there were 195 terrorist attacks against transit systems worldwide. 
Most of these attacks were against buses. I should point out, 90 
percent of these attacks occurred against buses. In the Middle East, we 
have seen the horrific pictures of buses blown up by suicide bombers. 
No one wants to see such pictures in the United States.
  Of course, the most horrific example of a terrorist attack against 
transit was the 1995 sarin gas attack in Japan where 11 people were 
killed and 5,500 innocent people were injured due to the work of a 
small band of crazed individuals.
  We understand there is a great potential for terror attacks against 
transit systems. Given the increasing danger of proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, these transit attacks could be horrific in 
the future.
  I also mention that not only do we need to avoid attacks against 
transit, we need to be prepared in the case of another terrorist attack 
in the United States. I refer to testimony before my subcommittee last 
year, as I chaired the subcommittee with respect to transit's role in 
September 11. The first is a statement by Jenna Dorn, the Administrator 
on the Federal Transit Administration.
       At 8:52 a.m. on September 11th, minutes after the first 
     hijacked jet plowed into One World Trade Center, a Port 
     Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) train master gave life-saving 
     instructions to conductors and operators.
       A train from Newark, carrying about 1,000 passengers, had 
     just pulled into the station below the World Trade Center. 
     The train master told the crew to keep everyone on the train, 
     board everyone in the station, and immediately depart for the 
     Exchange Place stop in Jersey City. Public transportation 
     employees immediately evacuated passengers who mistakenly 
     left the train.
       A train from Hoboken carrying another 1,000 people was just 
     behind the Newark train. The train master told that crew to 
     keep the doors closed at the Trade Center and head 
     immediately to Jersey City.
       The train master then told another train in Jersey City to 
     discharge all passengers and head back to the World Trade 
     Center to evacuate remaining travelers and transit personnel. 
     That train departed with its precious cargo at 9:10 a.m., 40 
     minutes before the first building collapsed.
       That train master, Richie Moran, and PATH's emergency 
     response plan, saved thousands of lives. As we watched the 
     death toll climb in New York, it is astounding to realize 
     that no one riding the PATH or New York City subway lines 
     that morning was injured.

  That is not an accident. That is the result of good communications, 
planning, training, all the issues that they showed in New York City. 
But let me suggest the level of planning, training, and equipment in 
New York City is not duplicated in many cities around this country--and 
it should be.
  Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts 
from the statement by Richard A. White, the general manager of the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, who talks of the 
integral role of that system in evacuating personnel during the attack 
on the Pentagon.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       On September 11, when WMATA was needed most, and in the 
     midst of regional chaos, Metrorail and Metrobus were ready, 
     and delivered for the National Capital Region. We operated 
     the equivalent of back-to-back rush hours virtually without 
     incident, after the Federal Government and other regional 
     employers sent hundreds of thousands of workers home around 
     mid-morning. We were operating the entire day. We did what we 
     do best. We moved large numbers of people safely and 
     efficiently.
       Throughout the day, the WMATA workforce performed 
     extraordinarily. Not once did an employee put their own 
     individual concerns ahead of their sense of duty to the 
     customers. The transit police, the bus and rail operators, 
     the station personnel, the customer service representatives--
     everyone--demonstrated their dedication to our mission of 
     moving people safely and securely.
       Further, we never lost communications throughout the day. 
     We established and maintained contact with local State, and 
     Federal authorities, and we communicated with our riders 
     through in-system messages, our phone system and over the 
     internet through the website.
       WMATA, blessedly, suffered no property damage, no loss of 
     life, and no injury to any of its employees nor to any of our 
     customers on that terrible day.


[[Page 19336]]

  Mr. REED. Senator Sarbanes and I asked for a GAO report on transit 
security. The GAO visited 10 transit properties all over the country of 
varying sizes and characteristics. They surveyed 200 of the 6,000 
transit operators of the Nation. Their report clearly indicates the 
compelling need for Federal assistance.
  In addition to that, it clearly indicates the scope of that system. 
Of just eight of the transit systems that had conducted professional 
security assessments and asked professionals to come in and review 
procedures, equipment, personnel, the cost to upgrade these systems, 
for just 8 out of 6,000, was $700 million. If we were to upgrade all of 
our transit systems in this country, it would be on the order of 
billions of dollars. Yet, those costs have not been met by the 
administration for this compelling need.
  The administration has barely funded transit security, about $88 
million. Some of this, frankly, was discretionary funding from the 
Department of Homeland Security which they, to their credit, decided to 
commit to the issue of transit security.
  We have to provide the resources. In addition, we have to also ensure 
that there is appropriate responsibility and oversight. That is why our 
amendment also calls on the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Transportation to sign a memorandum of agreement to 
ensure that the two agencies, as well as the Federal Transit 
Administration and the Transportation Security Administration, have in 
place strong linkages, coordination, and understanding of their mutual 
and separate roles. We have been repeatedly assured that this agreement 
was imminent. It has yet to be produced, yet to be issued. Our 
amendment asks that this be done expeditiously. My colleague, Senator 
Sarbanes, will address these points also.
  Our position today is not to cause panic but to prevent panic by 
having the resources so that our transit systems are not targets of 
terrorists and that our transit systems can, in fact, provide value to 
the support in the wake of any type of attack on a major urban area in 
the United States by terrorists. This is a well-crafted amendment. 
Certainly the need is there. I urge support of the amendment.
  I recognize at some point the chairman may raise a budget point of 
order against my amendment, and at the appropriate time either I or 
Senator Reid of Nevada will move to waive the point of order. I urge my 
colleagues to support my motion to waive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. What is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 19 minutes allocated to the Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me 8 minutes?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield 8 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor the 
amendment offered by my able and distinguished colleague from Rhode 
Island, Senator Reed. I commend him for his very strong leadership on 
the important issue of enhancing the security of our Nation's public 
transit systems. By allocating $100 million for transit security, this 
amendment would enhance the safety of millions of Americans.
  Every workday, 14 million Americans ride buses, subways, light rail, 
and ferries in cities and towns all across America. Transit systems 
throughout our Nation link people to jobs, to medical care, to 
shopping, to school, and to other essential services.
  More and more, Americans are recognizing the benefits that transit 
has to offer. Over the last 6 years, transit ridership has grown faster 
than any other mode of transportation.
  These riders expect and deserve transit systems that are reliable, 
that are safe, and that are secure.
  As chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and 
Transportation, Senator Reed, during the last Congress, convened six 
hearings to examine our Nation's public transit systems, with two of 
those hearings fully devoted to the security question. One hearing took 
place just a few weeks after the attacks on September 11, and the 
second shortly after the first anniversary of those attacks.
  The witnesses at those hearings included the Federal Transit 
Administrator, representatives of transit agencies, including Richard 
White, the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority, and representatives of transit labor.
  I commend the record of those hearings to all of my colleagues. They 
were extremely well done.
  The witnesses testified about the contribution transit made to the 
Nation on September 11, something my colleague already made reference 
to. That morning, transit agencies across the country ran extra trains 
and buses as long as needed to move people safely out of city centers.
  Transit played a particularly vital role in New York and Washington, 
the two cities directly under attack that day. Without the vibrant 
transit systems in place in those cities, timely movement of our people 
would have been impossible.
  As more and more Americans are using public transportation, it is 
clear that transit must be a vital component of any city's emergency 
response plan.
  As my colleague indicated, according to the Mineta Transportation 
Institute in San Jose, CA, surface transportation was the target of 
more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2000, and transit systems 
are the mode most commonly attacked.
  The witnesses before Senator Reed's subcommittee explained that 
public transportation faces unique security challenges.
  By its nature, transit must be easily accessible. It runs on 
identified routes and at published times, and it uses an extensive 
network of roads and rails spanning a wide geographic area.
  It obviously is not feasible to screen all passengers and baggage 
before boarding, as is done in airports, or to check the identity of 
all who wish to use the system.
  But, according to the witnesses who appeared before Senator Reed at 
those hearings, there are measures that transit agencies can take to 
improve their security, such as conducting vulnerability assessments, 
developing emergency plans, investing in security equipment, and 
training employees--which was repeatedly emphasized to us as something 
that would improve the security of our systems.
  But these improvements do not come without cost, and the lack of 
available funding was identified as a major impediment to making 
transit systems more secure.
  Early last year, Senator Reed and I joined in asking the General 
Accounting Office to review transit agencies' response to the threat of 
terrorism, and to identify the challenges they face in enhancing the 
security of their systems.
  The GAO report, released last December--and I commend this report to 
my colleagues--found that transit agencies have taken a number of 
steps, particularly since September 11, to improve security.
  At the same time, the report identified significant remaining 
security needs. Consistent with the testimony of our witnesses, the 
report found that insufficient funding--insufficient funding--is ``the 
most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure 
as possible.''
  In fact, at the 10 transit agencies they visited, the GAO found 
hundreds of millions of dollars in identified security needs.
  Our Nation's transit agencies have made good use of the limited 
resources they have had available, but this report demonstrates that 
new resources will be needed in the future to safeguard the security of 
our Nation's transit systems.
  The pending legislation does not demonstrate the commitment necessary 
to help transit systems become more secure.
  I believe we owe it to our Nation's transit riders to do more.
  This amendment takes a critical step in the right direction by making 
$100 million available for transit security, to be allocated by the 
Department of Homeland Security according to threat

[[Page 19337]]

assessments that have already been conducted by the Transportation 
Security Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.
  Assessments have been conducted. The priorities are there. We can 
move these funds quickly out into the field in order to enhance 
security.
  Transit agencies could quickly put this money to use, investing in 
security equipment, conducting training exercises for transit 
personnel, and otherwise enhancing their systems' ability to resist 
attack.
  This is an investment that we cannot afford not to make--an 
investment we cannot afford not to make.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the able and 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $100 million in 
additional spending for grants for public transit agencies to enhance 
security of transit facilities against chemical and biological attacks. 
The bill already provides $71 million for the Science and Technology 
Directorate to develop and deploy chemical, biological, and nuclear 
sensor networks. Public transit facilities are in line to benefit from 
this appropriation.
  The Science and Technology Directorate is piloting chemical and 
biological sensors in subways that will demonstrate an integrated 
chemical detection and response system for six subway stations by 
September of this year.
  The amendment would place the Transportation Security Administration 
in charge of deployment of detectors prematurely, before the research 
and development has determined the best technology to accomplish the 
goal. The bill before the Senate which the subcommittee and the full 
committee have approved also includes $25 million for the Department to 
develop standards nationwide for detection sensors.
  There is no offset for this additional spending in the amendment, and 
it would, therefore, cause us to exceed the limitations of the budget 
resolution. Therefore, I make a point of order under section 302(f) of 
the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in 
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not timely at this time. 
Time remains for the sponsor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, is it not correct that a motion to waive 
the Budget Act would be debatable and would be debatable under the 
unanimous consent agreement? My purpose is not to cut off anyone's 
right to debate under the rules of the Senate or under the terms of the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive would be debatable. Under 
precedent, the point of order should not be made until all time has 
expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the purpose of our amendment is not 
necessarily to impede any deployment of technology. It simply 
recognizes that even if this technology is deployed, tested, or 
evaluated in 6 stations or 100 stations, the cost of implementing this 
system and other systems--the amendment talks about protecting 
transportation facilities, not just subway lines, but buses and 
interurban transportation, all types and modes of transportation--even 
if you could deploy, the cost would be significant.
  Our amendment asks that this budget recognize those significant 
costs.
  Again, there is no question that the chairman has tried his best to 
come up with the resources to try to meet this need. But the need is so 
staggering--billions and billions of dollars. The funds in this bill 
devoted to transit security is so meager that our amendment simply 
tries to strike a balance. The $100 million would go to help systems 
buy equipment and train personnel. All of that is necessary.
  We also would ask that the Department of Homeland Security issue the 
plans they have long said they were going to do between the proper 
transportation and the proper homeland security to coordinate their 
activities with respect to transit security.
  I urge the amendment be adopted.
  I further point out that even if we were to adopt this amendment--I 
understand at the appropriate moment the Senator from Mississippi will 
make a budget point of order--this is truly a very modest downpayment 
on the cost of ensuring that all of our transit systems, our buses, and 
our subway systems have the same degree of preparedness as we are 
trying to develop for our airlines and for other modes of 
transportation.
  If we reject this amendment, we will simply be in a situation where 
we might be able to demonstrate a few projects, and we might be able to 
test the system, but we will never deploy those systems across the 
Nation in transit systems. There are 6,000 transit systems.
  Again, it is $100 million, just a meager downpayment for what is 
really a multibillion-dollar requirement for the United States.
  I recognize that the Senator has said he is proposing to make a point 
of order.
  At this point, I yield my time in anticipation of such a point of 
order.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield whatever time remains on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last November Congress enacted the largest 
reorganization of the Federal Government in half a century. At that 
time, the Senate was under extraordinary pressure to pass a bill 
quickly. The President traveled the country giving campaign speeches 
accusing the Senate of not caring about homeland security. The Senate 
responded by hastily approving the massive reorganization before 
Members had a chance to study the contents of the 484 pages that were 
dropped into our laps just a few days before the vote.
  There were a lot of items in that legislation that would not have 
survived scrutiny had the Senate spent more time debating the bill. A 
number of Senators objected to certain provisions in the bill and 
introduced amendments. But those amendments were never considered 
because the Senate voted to shut off debate.
  A good many Senators wanted to put the bill behind us even if it 
meant settling for a bill that needed more scrutiny. One of the 
imperfections that the Senate was willing to accept was the 
unprecedented secrecy that was given to the new Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Although the original version of the bill took a responsible, 
moderate approach to ensure public accountability, the final version 
that was dumped on the Senate gave the Department carte blanche to 
conduct its operations in secret.
  I filed amendments to scale back this excessive secrecy, as did 
several other Senators. But those amendments were never considered 
because, as I have already indicated, debate was shut off by cloture.
  Now we read in the papers that full advantage is being taken of the 
secrecy in the Department. Their friends and contributors in the 
private sector have a seat at the homeland security table. Corporate 
leaders and campaign contributors have been awarded coveted seats on 
the advisory committees that make policy recommendations to Secretary 
Ridge and to others in the Department.

[[Page 19338]]

  Consequently, not only do these companies have a direct role in 
shaping our homeland security policy, but they also have direct access 
to Department officials who award the private sector contracts for 
implementing those policies.
  Last month, for the first time, the Homeland Security Advisory 
Council met to provide advice and recommendations to the Homeland 
Security Secretary about this Nation's homeland security needs.
  It is my understanding Secretary Ridge took the opportunity to remind 
the council that the Homeland Security Department was soliciting a wide 
array of innovative counterterrorism technologies. ``There are several 
million dollars available to the private sector,'' Secretary Ridge 
said. That information no doubt would have been more than just passing 
interest to the members of the advisory council. With six CEOs and a 
member of the board of directors from three top companies, the Homeland 
Security Advisory Council represents some of the top business interests 
that are in competition for government contracts related to homeland 
security.
  It is worth noting that, according to the New York Daily News, of the 
818 members chosen to sit on the advisory committee, 11 members have 
collectively given more than $200,000 in direct contributions to the 
Republican Party at a time when questions are already being raised 
about the propriety of former aides to Secretary Ridge lobbying a 
Homeland Security Department for Government grants. It is troubling 
that the Homeland Security Secretary would risk further damage to the 
Department's credibility by naming to advisory council representatives 
of top companies that are vying for homeland security contracts and 
grants.
  At a time when questions are being asked or raised about the 
preferential treatment given to major corporate campaign contributors 
in bidding on Government contracts, it is disconcerting that companies 
such as Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly, Conoco-Phillips, Black & Decker, 
Procter and Gamble, and Lockheed Martin are representatives serving on 
the advisory council.
  This volunteering by these companies of their CEOs and board members 
to serve on the advisory council may well be a selfless act of 
patriotism, but that does not stop them from profiting from the 
contracts and grants awarded by the Department.
  Eli Lilly used its connections to use a provision in the Homeland 
Security Act to shield vaccine makers from lawsuits relative to the use 
of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative once added to 
childhood vaccines.
  Dow Chemical received $1.4 million in port security grants from the 
Homeland Security Department last spring.
  Lockheed Martin won a long-term contract to help modernize the Coast 
Guard, a contract that could be worth up to $17 billion. It also 
contracted to assist the Transportation Security Administration in 
developing CAPPS II, a controversial data tracking system that will 
reportedly collect information about nearly every adult American who 
buys an airline ticket.
  Despite the specter of the conflict of interest, and despite numerous 
warnings from Government watchdog groups, the advisory council has been 
exempted from public disclosure laws. The American people have no way 
of knowing what is being discussed or what advice is being recommended. 
There is no way to identify the financial interests of these council 
members in any advice or recommendations they may make to Secretary 
Ridge.
  With a $40 billion homeland security budget and the expectation that 
the Federal Government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in 
the coming years on homeland defenses, corporate America is salivating 
over the money that is to be made from the grants and contracts being 
doled out by the Homeland Security Department.
  Also, being at the table when advice is given to the Homeland 
Security Secretary can be a very powerful tool. That is all the more 
reason the Congress should provide the American public with some kind 
of check to ensure that the advice being given to the Secretary is in 
the best interests of the Nation's defenses and not just in the best 
interests of companies soliciting a Government contract.
  I am concerned about the makeup of these advisory committees and how 
they are being used. We have no way of knowing what kind of 
recommendations these corporate CEOs are making to Secretary Ridge or 
what actions this Department is taking in response to those 
recommendations. We have no way of knowing whether there are real 
conflicts of interest when contracts are awarded to the same people who 
recommended the contracts in the first place.
  By requiring that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, my amendment will ensure that Congress 
and the American people know how these advisory committees are being 
used. This law has served us well for over 30 years for advisory 
committees throughout the Federal Government. It includes long-accepted 
protections for sensitive information relating to law enforcement and 
national security, so there is no danger of disclosing information that 
would make our Nation more vulnerable.
  My amendment will require that the Department disclose basic facts 
about who is participating in these advisory committees and what kinds 
of recommendations are being made. The American people have a right to 
know that the Department of Homeland Security is acting in their best 
interests, not simply in the interests of any administration's friends 
in the private sector. This knowledge will strengthen our homeland 
security efforts, not weaken them, and will ensure public confidence in 
the policies that any administration--not only this one, but any future 
administration--chooses to follow.
  The safety of the American people is at stake. I believe the 
amendment will make the people safer and better informed.
  I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the amendment is 
proposed by Mr. Byrd, for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Levin.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton's name be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Levin, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1373.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds appropriated under this Act from being used 
   by any advisory committee that has been exempted from the Federal 
                        Advisory Committee Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 616. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to fund the activities of any advisory committee (as 
     defined in section 3 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act) 
     that has been exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.) pursuant to section 871 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, section 871 of the Homeland Security Act 
allows for an exemption to the Federal Advisory Committee Act so that 
meetings of advisory committees at the Department of Homeland Security 
could go forward in emergency and other unforeseen situations.
  To form an advisory committee, the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
requires notice of meetings, publication of meetings in the Federal 
Register, timely public release of documents associated with the 
advisory committee meetings, and so forth, including making reading 
rooms available for members of the public to read the documents that 
are being discussed by the advisory committee.

[[Page 19339]]

  The Department of Homeland Security and its representatives, when 
this legislation was being developed, convinced the committee and the 
Congress to grant a narrow exemption to the Department to permit it to 
do its job in emergencies to protect and respond to threats to protect 
the homeland.
  For example, it was suggested if we had another attack, such as we 
experienced on September 11, and damages were caused to the 
telecommunications systems of the east coast, the Department would need 
to convene a committee of experts and people who understood things that 
needed to be done to put the telecommunications systems back in running 
order. And they may not have time to put a notice of an advisory 
committee meeting in the Federal Register, or to give publication or 
notice of the meeting, or to have what the act requires: timely public 
release of documents associated with the meeting to be held.
  It was the view of the Congress, at the time the act was written 
creating the Department of Homeland Security, that there were emergency 
situations that could develop that would require such an exemption.
  Also, the Department suggests that it requires the ability to meet 
with private sector officials in private from time to time, as 
necessity might require.
  The Department, as I understand it, has not invoked this exemption up 
to this time, so there is no indication that they are abusing the 
exemption that has been granted them. They are following the provisions 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, I assume, in every other 
respect. We have received no notice. I have no information personally 
that any violations of the act have occurred.
  The Senate passed the Homeland Security Act just months ago, and the 
Department has been operational only since March, I think, of this 
year. So to repeal a part of the Homeland Security Act in an 
appropriations bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and where 
there has been no indication of abuse, seems to be unnecessary.
  So I hope the Senate will reject the amendment that is offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Secretary can, under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, exempt committees from notice rules in an 
emergency under existing law, whenever he determines it is necessary 
for national security.
  It is important that this amendment be adopted. We are not just 
talking about this administration. We are not just talking about this 
Secretary of the Department. We are saying that there should not be a 
blanket exemption available to any Secretary of this Department, when 
we keep in mind that from a national security standpoint, the 
Department is exempted, the President can exempt it, the Department 
head in this case can exempt it.
  But there are matters other than national security which are 
important and which are discussed by this Department. For the 
protection of the American people not only under this administration 
but also under other administrations that may come and may go, this 
amendment should be adopted. It is in the interest of the American 
people that they be protected and that we know that the American people 
know who is being asked to make recommendations, what recommendations 
are being made and whether those recommendations are in the interest of 
the American people.
  I hope the amendment will be adopted. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1374

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Mr. 
Durbin. I believe it has been cleared on the other side of the aisle. 
The manager will speak to that. I send to the desk the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1374.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for a report to Congress on information systems 
               interoperability, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in collaboration 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
     shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Select Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives on the status of the 
     Department's efforts to--
       (1) complete an inventory of the Department's entire 
     information technology infrastructure;
       (2) devise and deploy a secure comprehensive enterprise 
     architecture that--
       (A) promotes interoperability of homeland security 
     information systems, including communications systems, for 
     agencies within and outside the Department;
       (B) avoids unnecessary duplication; and
       (C) aids rapid and appropriate information exchange, 
     retrieval, and collaboration at all levels of government;
       (3) consolidate multiple overlapping and inconsistent 
     terrorist watch lists, reconcile different policies and 
     procedures governing whether and how terrorist watch list 
     data are shared with other agencies and organizations, and 
     resolve fundamental differences in the design of the systems 
     that house the watch lists so as to achieve consistency and 
     expeditious access to accurate, complete, and current 
     information;
       (4) ensure that the Department's enterprise architecture 
     and the information systems leveraged, developed, managed, 
     and acquired under such enterprise architecture are capable 
     of rapid deployment, limit data access only to authorized 
     users in a highly secure environment, and are capable of 
     continuous system upgrades to benefit from advances in 
     technology while preserving the integrity of stored data; and
       (5) align common information technology investments within 
     the Department and between the Department and other Federal, 
     State, and local agencies responsible for homeland security 
     to minimize inconsistent and duplicate acquisitions and 
     expenditures.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the approval of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1374) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to be reconsidered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1375

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Feingold. This, too, has been discussed with the manager of the 
bill who will speak to it himself. I send the amendment to the desk and 
ask that in the reporting of the amendment, that further reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The amendment will be reported by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1375.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report on the activities of the Department of 
Homeland Security with respect to the development of best practices for 
             emergency responders, and for other purposes)

       On page 59, at the end of line 23, after heading insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, That not later than January 1, 2004, 
     the Office of Domestic Preparedness shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives a report detailing efforts to assess and 
     disseminate best practices to emergency responders which, at 
     a minimum, shall

[[Page 19340]]

     discuss (1) efforts to coordinate and share information with 
     State and local officials and emergency preparedness 
     organizations; and (2) steps the Department purposes to 
     improve the coordination and sharing of such information, if 
     any.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the adoption of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1375) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1373

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if under the order it is permitted, we 
are ready to proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment on which we just 
debated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1373. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. Reid I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is 
attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Dayton
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1373) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1372

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are 6,000 transit systems throughout 
the United States in every State in the Union. All of them need 
additional resources to improve their security. We know they are 
targets. Worldwide, there already have been 195 attacks against transit 
systems from buses in Israel to a sarin gas attack against the subway 
system of Tokyo which killed 11 and injured over 5,000 individuals.
  To fully protect all of these systems, the GAO has estimated we would 
need billions of dollars. The Reed-Sarbanes-Clinton amendment is a 
modest first step to authorize the appropriation of $100 million for 
grants to transit systems for equipment, training, and other security 
needs. The need is clear. The threat is obvious.
  I urge support for this amendment and retain the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the funding in this amendment is not 
offset. It adds $100 million to the spending in the bill. It therefore 
violates the Budget Act.
  I made a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act; that the amendment provides spending in excess of the 
subcommittee 302(b) allocation. The yeas and nays have been ordered on 
the motion to waive the Budget Act. That is the vote.
  I urge Senators to vote no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) 
are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is 
absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bennett
     Dayton
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill in general. 
Secondly, I thank the chairman and ask unanimous consent for the two of 
us to engage in a bit of a colloquy. I also thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for allowing me to go forward first with this very brief 
colloquy.

[[Page 19341]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, within the larger discussion of how 
homeland security funds are allocated, there is a very clear need for 
some limited discretionary authority for State officials to reallocate 
homeland security funds to needs not foreseen months earlier and which 
may arise due to increased threat assessments.
  During my discussions across the State of Missouri about homeland 
security, nearly every police chief and every first responder tells me 
the same thing: Look, don't tie our hands on how we are going to use 
money you give us. Leave us some discretion on how to use those funds.
  My colleague and friend, Senator Kit Bond, has heard the same message 
all over Missouri.
  On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security asserts it 
must tightly control how every dollar is spent.
  I appreciate the need for accountability given the Department's 
mission. I also appreciate that in many instances our first responders 
know best how to allocate these funds and that sometimes very 
legitimate concerns fall outside the narrow spending guidelines of the 
Department.
  Accordingly, the amendment I would have offered--and I am not going 
to offer it--would have expressed the sense of the Senate that:

       Five percent of State grants may go to provide security 
     costs as identified by the Office of Domestic Preparedness 
     for ``non-national security special events'' as approved by 
     the Department of Homeland Security.

  In closing, I will give a very brief illustration of my point for the 
chairman and the Senate. In August, St. Louis is going to host a Jewish 
Youth Olympics called the Maccabi Games. It is a great event. It is 
going to draw over 5,000 Jewish youth from around the globe. The 
State's own Homeland Security Office threat assessment team stressed 
the need for greater security, but there is no latitude to reallocate 
even a modest sum from the monies awarded to the State.
  Clearly there are instances where greater latitude is needed, and I 
appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me and with Senator 
Bond to address this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the advocacy of the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri for increased latitude in spending 
authority by State officials. I agree that greater flexibility is 
needed to use homeland security funds to meet special security needs 
such as this.
  I hope the committee of jurisdiction will consider a mechanism to 
allow spending a limited amount of State grant funds as my colleague, 
Mr. Talent, suggests for ``non-national security special events'' which 
may present particular security concerns. Certainly, the Maccabi Games, 
which he cites as an example, would fall within this category.
  I look forward to working with the Senators from Missouri on this 
important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I close by thanking the chairman and the 
Senator from West Virginia and look forward to working with the 
chairman and the committee to establish a means for greater latitude in 
how Federal homeland security funds are expended.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1376

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1376.

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

  (Purpose: To clarify the prohibition on contracting with corporate 
                              expatriates)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON APPROPRIATIONS AVAILABILITY TO 
                   CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.

       No funds in this Act shall be available for any contract 
     entered into after the date of enactment of this Act by the 
     Department of Homeland Security with--
       (1) an inverted domestic corporation (as defined in section 
     835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 
     6 U.S.C. 395)),
       (2) any corporation which completed a plan (or series of 
     transactions) described in such section before, on, or after 
     the date of enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 395), or
       (3) any subsidiary of a corporation described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid 
of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is truly appropriate that Senator Reid 
be the principal cosponsor of this amendment because this is an issue 
which he has raised over the years with great passion, great feeling. 
This would just as appropriately be a Reid-Levin, et al., amendment as 
well as my offering it on our behalf.
  Young men and women are putting their lives on the line for us and 
our country while some corporations have stiffed our country, 
renouncing their citizenship, going through phony reincorporations in 
Bermuda or other tax-haven countries to avoid paying taxes. This 
process is called corporate inversion. It is one of the abuses about 
which we all know as a shell headquarters being opened up in a tax 
haven, while all the benefits of living in America remain, all the 
benefits we would hope to provide in this bill--for instance, 
protection, homeland security, police, fire, port security. They take 
advantage of all the other services which are provided to these 
particular corporations. But because a shell headquarters has been 
opened up for a few of these corporations in Bermuda, they have avoided 
paying taxes.
  They continue to use our roads and our law enforcement, our education 
system. They use our free trade laws. But then they avoid paying taxes 
by opening up a post office box and a computer in a tax haven.
  One of the colleagues of ours who was most deeply involved in trying 
to correct this was Paul Wellstone. He said: If they want to make that 
decision, we haven't yet stopped them from gaining the tax benefits, 
but at least let's not give them government contracts while they are 
doing this type of activity. And when he was alive, our dear friend and 
colleague Paul Wellstone offered an amendment such as the one Senator 
Reid and I are offering today that was adopted. It was modified in 
conference so that it came back in such a weakened state that there are 
still some loopholes in it which need to be closed.
  That is what this amendment does. Basically what this amendment does 
is provide that the language of the amendment will apply to the 
subsidiaries of the fake corporations in Bermuda or elsewhere so that 
we get to the actual corporation which has remained in America and that 
we also apply this to new contracts to corporations which have already 
inverted, as the word goes. We obviously would not in any way attempt 
to affect existing contracts. We don't intend to do that. We don't do 
that. In fact, we can't do that in any event under the Constitution.
  What we do believe, as Paul Wellstone passionately believed, is we 
don't have to provide advantages through contracting with these 
companies, if they have chosen to abandon this country and to take the 
unpatriotic course of creating these phony headquarters and a tax haven 
while they are still here, in fact, enjoying all of the services of 
this country.
  To reiterate, while young men and women are putting their lives on 
the line for us and for our country, some corporations are stiffing our 
country, renouncing their citizenship, and going through phony 
reincorporations in Bermuda or other tax haven countries to

[[Page 19342]]

avoid paying taxes. This process, called a corporate inversion, is one 
of the most egregious of all of the tax haven abuses that we know 
about--just a shell headquarters being opened up in a tax haven, but 
all of the benefits of living in America continue. These corporations 
continue to use our roads, use our law enforcement, use our education 
system, use our markets and use our free trade laws, among other 
things, but they avoid paying billions in taxes by setting up a post 
office box and a computer in a tax haven. One of the architects of 
these inversions warned that for companies planning on doing this, 
patriotism was going to have to take a backseat to profits--boy did she 
have that right.
  Inversions are unfair to the taxpayers who are left holding the bag 
and unfair to the U.S. companies that are doing the right thing by not 
inverting but who nevertheless are at a competitive disadvantage 
because of these sham moves. Last year, Senator Wellstone tried to do 
something about this problem, and we in the Senate agreed with him. 
Senator Wellstone introduced an amendment to the Homeland Security Act 
which prohibited inverters and their subsidiaries from entering into 
homeland security contracts with the government. We adopted the 
amendment. Why, Senator Wellstone wondered, should those that renounce 
their citizenship to avoid paying taxes--and who nonetheless receive 
all of the benefits of being U.S. citizens--get rewarded further 
through homeland security contracts? Why would we continue to permit 
inverters to take advantage of the competitive edge their sham moves 
have provided them for as long as they've been inverted? Why should 
good corporate citizens that do not engage in this egregious behavior 
continue to be penalized for doing the right thing and staying in the 
U.S.? There were no good answers to these questions last year when we 
passed the Wellstone amendment, and there are no good answers to these 
questions today.
  Unfortunately, the Wellstone provision came back from conference so 
watered down that, when it was passed as part of the Homeland Security 
Act, it actually did nothing. All of those who engaged in these 
specious inversion transactions in past years can still enter into 
homeland security contracts--the current prohibition in the law only 
applies to future inverters, not those that did so previously. This in 
reality means that the law applies to no one, because no one is going 
to invert in the future in light of Senator Grassley's statements that 
the tax benefits sought from future inversions won't be recognized. The 
competitive advantage these inverters enjoy vis-a-vis every other U.S. 
company therefore remains undisturbed.
  The gutted version of the prohibition also only prevents the foreign 
``parent'' corporations, i.e., the paper Bermuda companies, from 
entering into homeland security contracts with the government. This, 
too, does nothing, because the U.S. ``subsidiaries,'' actually the main 
company but because of the inversions called subsidiaries, are actually 
the ones entering into the contracts with the government. Prohibiting 
the shell parents from entering into homeland security contracts 
therefore has no impact whatsoever on inverted companies or the 
homeland security contracts they wish to receive.
  My amendment would correct these two glaring loopholes in the current 
law, neither of which would exist had we stuck with the Wellstone 
amendment which we passed last year.
  First, this amendment would prohibit those that inverted in the past 
from receiving future--and I stress the word future--homeland security 
contracts in fiscal year 2004. The existing law lets inverters continue 
to take advantage of the competitive edge they enjoy over other U.S. 
companies by letting them enter into future homeland security 
contracts. We therefore continue to reward these companies for their 
decisions to invert on paper to a tax haven.
  Second, this amendment, consistent with the Wellstone amendment, 
would apply the prohibition on fiscal year 2004 homeland security 
contracts to the subsidiaries of the foreign ``parent'' corporations. 
As I mentioned, the current law prohibits only the foreign parent from 
entering into homeland security contracts. This does nothing because 
the U.S. ``subsidiaries'' are actually the ones entering into the 
contracts with the government. This amendment would correct that 
obvious problem.
  That is the entire amendment. There is nothing new here: Both of 
these changes are identical to what we all agreed was the right 
solution just last year. Those that have engaged in these inversion 
pretenses should not continue to be rewarded for their egregious 
conduct to the detriment of their U.S. competitors and the U.S. public 
at large.
  This provision is not retroactive. It does not affect existing 
contracts. It refers exclusively to future homeland security contracts, 
i.e., to contracts entered into in the future. We are not asking 
companies to provide any refunds for past contracts or to break 
existing homeland security contracts. It is solely meant to apply to 
contracts in the future, on a going forward basis, not those in the 
past.
  Failure to correct this problem will continue to give companies that 
entered into these sham deals a significant competitive edge over the 
other U.S. companies out there. Listen to what some U.S. companies who 
compete with inverters have said. Stanley Tools of New Britain, CT, a 
tool manufacturer that itself contemplated inverting prior to changing 
its mind and doing the right thing, stated: ``Not only are we 
disadvantaged against our foreign competitors, but two of our major 
U.S. competitors have a significant advantage over Stanley Works 
because they have already reincorporated [in Bermuda].'' Conair 
Corporation of East Windsor, NJ, a personal and healthcare products 
manufacturer, stated: ``Our competitors have registered in Bermuda and 
evade paying a great deal of American taxes which makes it very 
difficult and unfair for Conair to operate in an environment where 
people are price-conscious of the products they are buying.''
  It is a fact that U.S. companies that compete with these inverters 
are at a competitive disadvantage because of the tax and other benefits 
that inversions provide. Failure to act now will continue to skew the 
playing field against the U.S. companies who have chosen to remain in 
the U.S. and pay their taxes like the rest of us.
  Inverted companies have received unjustified benefits of moving their 
P.O. box to Bermuda. These ill-begotten gains have meant years of lower 
U.S. taxes while competitors pay taxes, giving inverters a competitive 
edge over other U.S. companies. As a result of their fake move to a tax 
haven, these companies have had the best of all worlds for far too 
long, all to the detriment of their U.S. competitors, the U.S., and the 
public as a whole.
  The solution for these companies is easy--come back home. No 
headquarters, jobs or operations would need to be moved since it was 
all a paper transaction in the first place. That is their decision but 
it is ours as to whether we will give them more contracts.
  Companies that entered into these transactions knew this could 
happen. Laws change all the time, and these inverters knew that some 
may not be pleased with their decision to put profits ahead of 
patriotism. They weighed the risks at the time and decided that 
renouncing their U.S. citizenship was the way they wanted to go. That 
was their choice, and they made it. The choice we have now is whether 
we want to continue to reward unpatriotic companies that enjoy all the 
benefits of being in the U.S.--our police, roads, security provided in 
this bill but don't pay their share of the countless benefits they 
receive year in and year out.
  We should not continue to reward the inversion pretense. It is unfair 
to the U.S. companies forced to operate on an uneven playing field, and 
it is unfair to the rest of our taxpayers who pay their fair share. 
Let's do what we intended to do when we passed Senator Wellstone's 
amendment last year.
  I understand this amendment may be accepted. I haven't had a chance 
to

[[Page 19343]]

talk to our good friend from Mississippi. I don't know that for sure. I 
ask him at this time whether or not the rumor mill is correct that, in 
fact, this might be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to advise my good 
friend from Michigan that I am prepared to accept the amendment and 
recommend it be approved.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate my good friend's 
words, as always, and his counsel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1376. Without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1376) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on another matter, this is an amendment 
which I had intended to offer but will not. I want to spend about 2 
minutes discussing the formula which is in the bill before us relative 
to the distribution of the homeland security first responder grant 
funds. Typically bills have what is called a small State guarantee. 
That is not unusual. What is unusual in this bill is that the 
guarantee, the set-aside for small States, is so unusually high. That 
means other States with larger populations have less funds available to 
them because of the small State guarantee. It is deeply troubling to 
those of us who are from larger States, be it California, New York, 
Ohio, Illinois, or many others. Due to this small state minimum, many 
other States do not receive what we consider to be an equitable or fair 
portion of the funds that are in here.
  There has been great debate over the level of funding because of this 
small State guarantee. The leading organization that analyzes Federal 
grants, the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, has stated the 
structure ``of the three quarters of 1 percent guaranteed minimum as a 
base represents a departure from traditional small State minimums which 
are typically half of 1 percent or less.''
  There is an authorization bill moving along, which has come out of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is the Homeland Security 
first responder grant authorization bill. It also has the same formula 
in it, three quarters of 1 percent. Again, this is a rare and unusual 
formula. But this is not the time, in my judgment, to force the 
resolution of this issue. Better it be resolved on the authorization 
bill, which is on the calendar, so we will address it at that time. I 
know feelings run deep in all of our States on this issue. Those of us, 
however, who represent more populous States really believe this 
particular formula is overreaching. It is almost unprecedented, prior 
to the Homeland Security agency coming into effect.
  We will save the debate on my amendment or other amendments similar 
to it for a different day. I thank those Members of the Senate who have 
worked so closely with me on this amendment. Senators from many of the 
populous States who believe very strongly about the issue have worked 
closely with me on it. I simply tell them I hope this decision meets 
with their approval. It seems to me the wiser course, rather than on an 
appropriations bill where there are some technical problems with this, 
is to raise it instead on an authorization bill. Hopefully by then all 
of us can come together and figure out a more traditional way of 
protecting the small States with some kind of a minimum guarantee. I 
will not offer the amendment tonight.
  I thank my cosponsors, including Senators Boxer, Feinstein, New York 
Senators, my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, and other 
Senators who have been very supportive. Senator Voinovich and I, for 
instance, in the Governmental Affairs Committee, worked on an approach 
to this that is somewhat different than the amendment I was going to 
offer. I know how deeply Senator Voinovich feels about this formula, 
and I welcome his support on a related amendment.
  I see the good Senator from Texas on the floor. I will yield to her 
because she has been very deeply involved as well. She and I have had 
some very productive conversations about the subject. She and many 
other States believe very strongly as I do about it. I thank her and 
all others who have been supportive of trying to resolve this in a fair 
way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from 
Michigan, it is my intention to talk a little bit later in this process 
about this same formula issue. We have a problem with the formula not 
fairly representing the needs of the large States. It is my hope--and I 
do have a commitment from all of those involved--that we will get the 
authorization bill that will allow us to address this inequity in the 
formula because right now, the high-risk areas do not include one of my 
cities that is one of the top 10 largest cities in America, and it is 
not considered high risk. What are we thinking? So I want to talk about 
that later.
  I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 1364

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 1364 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1364.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 62 of the bill, line 12, after ``investigations'' 
     insert the following:

     ``: Provided, That the Under Secretary for Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response may provide advanced funding to 
     authorized entities performing duties under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) who respond to disasters declared by the 
     President''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that would allow 
the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response--basically 
the disaster relief part of the homeland defense agency--to provide 
advance funding for nonprofit entities performing duties they are asked 
to perform in major disasters.
  Organizations such as the Red Cross have been unable to bring their 
coffers back up because of the many disasters we have had in our 
country over the last few weeks. It is essential that they be able to 
be called by the Under Secretary to go to a disaster and to provide 
immediate help to people. The Red Cross is often first to arrive with 
real help, such as medical help and help for people because their homes 
are flooded, or they have been in a hurricane. They went to Guam in the 
last few months when Guam had this terrible hurricane that wiped out so 
much of the island, and they spent about $17 million. They were able to 
recoup some, but not all, of those funds. So their coffers are low.
  This amendment allows them to have advance funding when they are 
called to respond to a disaster and they are not able to provide that 
funding up front, as you would hope you would be able to do in the 
future. I think this amendment is acceptable. It will certainly help 
the Red Cross and other nonprofit agencies that just don't have the 
capability to run to the bank and borrow, in 24 hours, money for their 
disaster needs.
  Until they can get their coffers built back up, I hope we can help 
them with this problem because we are asking a lot of them in return. 
They do a great job, and we want to provide the help for them to do 
that job for the disasters they are called to serve.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment offered

[[Page 19344]]

by the Senator from Texas, and we are prepared to accept it. I 
recommend that it be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1364) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Dole worked very hard with me 
on this amendment. It was a joint effort. I particularly thank Senator 
Cochran and Senator Byrd, along with Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Reid, for helping us work out the language on this 
bill. A lot of people had jurisdictions and everyone agreed that this 
was necessary. I appreciate the cooperation of all of the Senators who 
helped work this out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1378

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 1378.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Department of 
 Homeland Security's Undersecretary for Science and Technology should 
   take all appropriate steps to ensure the active participation of 
    historically black colleges and universities, tribal colleges, 
Hispanic-serving institutions, and Alaskan Native serving institutions 
              in Department sponsored university research)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. __. It is the sense of the Senate that the Department 
     of Homeland Security's Undersecretary for Science and 
     Technology should take all appropriate steps to ensure the 
     active participation of historically black colleges and 
     universities, tribal colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions, 
     and Alaskan Native serving institutions in Department 
     sponsored university research.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
suggesting that historically black colleges and universities be 
considered as appropriate recipients of certain funds under the 
Homeland Security Department.
  The amendment has been cleared on this side of the aisle, as well as 
on the other side.
  Mr. BYRD. It has been cleared on this side, may I say to the Senator 
from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1378) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1379

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Bayh, 
     for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. McCain, 
     Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1379.

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

 (Purpose: To require a plan for the enhancement of the operations of 
   the Office of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a plan for enhancements of the operations of 
     the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection 
     Directorate in order to--
       (1) meet the personnel requirements of the Directorate;
       (2) improve communications between the Directorate and the 
     intelligence community; and
       (3) improve coordination between the Directorate and State 
     and local counterterrorism and law enforcement officials.
       (b) In addition to the matters specified in subsection (a), 
     the plan shall include a description of the current assets 
     and capabilities of the Information Analysis and 
     Infrastructure Protection Directorate, a strategy for the 
     Directorate for the coordination and dissemination of 
     intelligence and other information, and a schedule for the 
     implementation of the plan required under subsection (a).

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with funding in the 
Office of Information Analysis. We have reviewed it and recommend that 
it be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1379) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1380

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1380.

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

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to conduct a review and to 
 report to Congress on all of the data-mining programs relating to law 
enforcement and terrorism currently under development and in use in the 
                    Department of Homeland Security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General shall conduct a review 
     and report to Congress on all of the data-mining programs 
     relating to law enforcement and terrorism currently under 
     development and in use in the Department of Homeland 
     Security.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared with the 
managers on both sides of the aisle. It provides for a report from the 
General Accounting Office on the data-mining programs from the 
Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I join in the request of the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1380) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1381

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. Akaka, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1381.

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

(Purpose: To allow the Secretary flexibility in determining priorities 
                       for firefighting vehicles)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. 6. When establishing priorities for firefighting 
     vehicles in the Firefighter Assistance Grants program, the 
     Secretary shall take into consideration the unique 
     geographical needs of individual fire departments.


[[Page 19345]]

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill to help protect our ports and 
coasts from fire by making a small change to criteria for spending the 
appropriations for the Firefighters Assistance Grants program. I thank 
the floor managers for their assistance and their support.
  The amendment has the support of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. The language will permit FEMA the flexibility to give fire 
boats equal consideration to fire trucks when awarding grants for 
purchases of fire vehicles under the Firefighter Assistance Grants 
program.
  Ports security is critically important for Hawaii which imports 80 
percent of its products. Ninety-eight percent of these products are 
brought to Hawaii by ship, and about half of these products come 
through Honolulu Harbor alone.
  Many of the Nation's largest cities are located on the water, whether 
an ocean, a harbor, or a major river or lake, where thousands of people 
may live or visit. Suburban areas spreading out from a city can also be 
on the water, having marinas or piers. Commercial ports are essential 
to our economy. Ninety-five percent of all U.S. trade flows through the 
Nation's more than 400 ports.
  In a major industrial port area having the necessary marine 
firefighting equipment could prevent serious consequences for the port, 
a State, or even the national economy. My state of Hawaii is only one 
example. Eighty-five percent of all refined fuel products for the North 
East come from Delaware River ports. If a ship were to burn and sink in 
the single channel serving the ports the price and distribution of 
petroleum products in the North East could be seriously affected.
  The Firefighters Assistance Grants program under the U.S. Fire 
Administration is a major source of federal assistance to local fire 
departments around the Nation. It is a necessary and popular program 
that has distributed hundreds of millions of needed dollars to fire 
department nationwide.
  Purchases of firefighting vehicles are authorized under the 
Firefighter Assistance Grant program. However, the U.S. Fire 
Administration 2003 program guidance does not encourage fire 
departments to submit grants for fire boats. Fire trucks are given a 
priority one and fire boats a priority three in the Vehicle Acquisition 
Program priorities for urban areas. In suburban and rural areas, fire 
boats are a priority four. Due to funding constraints, the program 
guidance notes that it is unlikely that vehicles that are not listed as 
priority one or priority two would be funded.
  The Nation's fire boat resources are old and underfunded--a number of 
fire boats are more than 60 years old. If a fire department decides it 
wants a fire boat rather than a fire truck to meet its particular fire 
and disaster response needs it should be able to submit an application 
to that effect. Such an application should receive equal consideration 
to an application for a fire truck.
  My amendment is revenue neutral. It does not seek to add to the $750 
million appropriated for the firefighter assistance grants' program in 
FY 2004, although the efforts by Senator Byrd and other Senators to 
increase the appropriations are timely and worthwhile. Rather, the 
intent of my amendment to put fire boats on equal footing with fire 
trucks in the firefighter assistance grants program if the geography of 
a local fire department makes the acquisition of a fire boat important 
to their fire fighting capabilities.
  I thank my colleagues for the time, and I look forward to the 
Senate's support for their amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the 
managers on both sides. It provides the Secretary of Homeland Security 
with flexibility in determining priorities for firefighting vehicles.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens of Alaska be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1381) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1382

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 1382.

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

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a 
report on the air traffic control communications void over the Gulf of 
                                Mexico)

       On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 616. Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall conduct a study and submit a report with 
     recommendations to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the Senate regarding the status of the air traffic control 
     communications voids and gaps in tethered aerostat coverage 
     around the United States, such as those existing in the 
     central Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides 
of the aisle. The amendment provides for a report from the Department 
of Homeland Security regarding radar coverage gaps at our Nation's 
borders.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1382.
  The amendment (No. 1382) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1383

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was just 1 year ago that the Senate was 
preparing to begin debate on the creation of a Department of Homeland 
Security. The September 11 attacks had occurred just 9 months earlier, 
and fear that more had to be done to protect the homeland pervaded.
  In that atmosphere, at a time when few wanted to look too closely at 
the fine print for fear of being labeled a stumbling block to the 
enhanced security of the American people, the administration pushed 
through a bill to create a huge new Federal department, the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  The budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $28.5 billion, 
a level well below that needed to meet the Nation's true and pervasive 
homeland security challenges. Billions of those dollars are up for 
grabs in that budget for entities outside the Department, and outside 
the Government.
  The administration repeatedly reminds the American people that the 
next terrorist attack could come any day, any time, anywhere. Do not 
think that companies have not noticed. The Department's budget is being 
eyed like a huge honey pot. Thousands of U.S. companies are reinventing 
themselves, repackaging products, rearranging priorities, renaming 
operations, and just plain salivating to cash in on what they hope will 
be hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on domestic defense.
  Some companies would like to sell their wireless communications 
systems to Government emergency response agencies. Others are hoping to 
win a Government contract to produce an antidote for anthrax. Still 
others are pitching their software as an ideal tool for integrating 
sensitive computer systems in the defense community. One company is 
trying to persuade the Federal Government to buy its dial-up

[[Page 19346]]

video technology to install onboard thousands of airplanes to monitor 
cabin security. One software giant has already sold its financial 
management software to the Transportation Security Administration.
  Go to the Washington Convention Center and one will find vice 
presidents of homeland security divisions standing in promotional 
booths describing homeland security technology that would be ideal for 
the Homeland Security Department. Publicly, the Homeland Security 
Department says it will judge businesses upon merit, but that is not 
stopping the more experienced insiders from quietly gobbling up 
contracts with the help of Washington's lobbying corps.
  The campaign finance research group PoliticalMoneyLine reported last 
spring that in early 2002 there were 157 companies registered to lobby 
on homeland security issues. By April 2003, the number had more than 
tripled to 569, and this month the New York Times reported that the 
number had grown to 799. A New York Times editorial read, in part, the 
big boom in lobbying in Washington in the past 18 months has been in 
the lucrative world of homeland security where the role of new 
registrants intent on selling the Government antiterror products and 
services has grown fivefold to 799 and counting.
  So lobbying firms are creating whole new departments for the sole 
purpose of lobbying for homeland security contracts. In fact, the 
homeland security lobbying industry has blossomed full flower. The 
spring rains have not had any impact on them. I failed to set out my 
tomato plants this year because of the heavy rains, but the rains have 
not stymied the growth of these lobbying activities.
  The Federal Homeland Security Department is still being stitched 
together while the homeland security lobbying industry has blossomed 
full flower. Among these lobbyists are a number of former aides to 
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge who are lobbying on behalf of 
companies seeking contracts with the new Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Last April, the New York Times reported that at least four of 
Secretary Ridge's senior deputies at the White House are working as 
homeland security lobbyists, as is his chief of staff from his days as 
the Governor of Pennsylvania.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article from the New York Times 
news service be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BYRD. The Times article is dated April 29, 2003.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial to 
which I earlier referred, dated July 8, 2003, be printed in the Record 
at the close of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BYRD. Many Senators may not be surprised by these revelations. It 
is a well-established practice for former Government workers to lobby 
their old colleagues. What is alarming about this situation is how 
quickly Secretary Ridge's former aides stepped into new careers as 
domestic security lobbyists. Those very people responsible for setting 
up the Homeland Security Department are the first people standing in 
line with their hands out. These are the same people who argued so 
vociferously in favor of rolling back the civil service laws to allow 
contractors more access to Government work. They said that the new 
Secretary must have the flexibility to run the new Department, to hire 
and fire public servants, and now some of those same people are working 
for the very companies that are competing for homeland security 
contracts.
  The Homeland Security Secretary has promised to put into place strict 
ethical standards to make sure the agency's decisions are based on 
merit. I commend him for the promise but I am impatient for the follow-
through. Chairman Cochran has taken the bold step of not earmarking 
first responder, science and technology and infrastructure funds for 
specific communities or specific technologies. This action places a 
great deal of discretion in the hands of the Secretary and his staff. 
We must make sure that in allocating the funds contained in this bill, 
that the decision making process is fair, even-handed and free of 
improper outside influence.
  So, I am offering an amendment to apply the same ethical post 
employment standards that apply to Senators and their senior staff to 
employees of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of 
Homeland Security within the White House. All employees who have an 
income of 75 percent or more of a level II of the Executive Schedule, 
which is comparable to a Senator's pay, would be prohibited from 
lobbying the Department of Homeland Security or the Office of Homeland 
Security for one year. An individual who violates this restriction 
would pay a civil penalty equal to 100 percent of all gross receipts 
received by the individual from the conduct that violated the 
restriction.
  The appearance of impropriety is enough to suggest that we cannot 
wait for Secretary Ridge to issue new ethics rules for his sprawling, 
young department. The administration has pinned the hopes of the 
American public on this new department being able to protect them from 
another terrorist attack, and even the appearance of a conflict of 
interest undermines the department's mission.
  We cannot afford to handicap this new department. I urge the adoption 
of my amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

         [From the New York Times News Service, Apr. 29, 2003]

                  From Ridge Aide to Security Lobbyist

                           (By Philip Shenon)

       When Tom Ridge arrived here after the Sept. 11 attacks and 
     opened the White House Office of Homeland Security, he 
     quickly surrounded himself with a group of trusted deputies, 
     many of them drawn from the staff he had assembled when he 
     was governor of Pennsylvania.
       But when Ridge was sworn in this year as the first 
     secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, many of his 
     inner circle did not follow. They took a spin through 
     Washington's revolving door, emerging as lobbyists whose 
     corporate clients want contracts from Ridge's multibillion-
     dollar agency.
       Lobbying disclosure forms filed in Congress show that at 
     least four of Ridge's deputies at the White House office are 
     now working as ``homeland security'' lobbyists, as is a chief 
     of staff from his days as Pennsylvania governor.
       They are a small part of a booming new lobbying business in 
     Washington that is focused on helping large corporations get 
     a share of the billions of dollars that will be spent by the 
     vast domestic-security bureaucracy that Ridge oversees.
       Ridge and the Homeland Security Department, with a budget 
     of about $40 billion this year, are obvious targets for an 
     array of industries and their lobbyists in the capital.
       ``My one year is up, so I can lobby him and lobby the White 
     House and lobby the Hill,'' said Rebecca Halkias, who was 
     Ridge's legislative affairs director in the White House, 
     referring to the one-year ban on contacts between former 
     senior government officials and their colleagues.
       Halkias, who also managed Ridge's Washington office when he 
     was governor, is now a partner in a lobbying company, C2 
     Group, and congressional filings show that her clients 
     include Tyco electronics, which is eager to sell its wireless 
     communications systems to government emergency-response 
     agencies.
       ``I'm not really comfortable talking about homeland 
     security lobbying,'' Halkias said in a brief telephone 
     interview, declining to answer most questions. Asked if she 
     was concerned about any conflict of interest in lobbying 
     Ridge, she said, ``This conversation is over,'' and hung up.
       There is nothing unusual about former government workers 
     lobbying their old colleagues. The surprising thing about 
     Ridge's former aides is how quickly they chose to take up new 
     careers as domestic-security lobbyists.
       Ridge's spokesmen at the Homeland Security Department said 
     that he was giving no special attention to products that were 
     being promoted by lobbyists who had worked for him at the 
     White House or in Pennsylvania.
       The boom in domestic-security lobbying is viewed 
     skeptically by government watchdog groups, which say they 
     intend to monitor closely how the department spends its money 
     and how Congress appropriates money to Ridge.
       ``Homeland Security appears to be viewed by the lobbying 
     firms as a huge honey pot,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president 
     of Democracy 21, a group that advocates restrictions on 
     corporate lobbying.

[[Page 19347]]

     
                                  ____
                               Exhibit 2

                [From the New York Times, July 8, 2003]

                     Opinion: Security Against Pork

       The big boom in lobbying in Washington in the past 18 
     months has been in the lucrative world of homeland security, 
     where the roll of new registrants intent on selling the 
     government antiterror products and services has grown 
     fivefold, to 799 and counting. That is a whole new level of 
     competitive importuning, contact wooing and just plain 
     salivating after this year's $30 billion budget at the new 
     Department of Homeland Security. The more polished capital 
     lobbyists usually work with some subtlety. Still, as The New 
     York Times' Philip Shenon has reported, some of the pioneers 
     in this burgeoning field talk candidly to potential clients 
     of securing your piece of the homeland security pie, and of 
     offering expertise to avoid the land mines and find the gold 
     mines in homeland security.
       Among these post-Sept. 11 lobbyists are several former 
     aides to Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary. Ridge 
     has assured Congress that these are proven public servants 
     who will have no inside track on reaching and profiting from 
     his agency. The secretary also promised lawmakers two months 
     ago that there would be strict ethical standards to make sure 
     that his agency's contract decisions were based on merit, not 
     political favoritism. Interim rules are in place, the agency 
     emphasizes. The new standards, not yet announced, cannot come 
     a moment too soon for Tim Hutchinson, a former Republican 
     senator from Arkansas who is now a lobbyist. The other day, 
     he sent out an e-mail message inadvertently, by his account 
     about a client, an Arkansas maker of antidotes to germ 
     warfare. The client's Washington schedule includes a meeting 
     with Asa Hutchinson, the lobbyist's brother, who also happens 
     to be an undersecretary of homeland security. The e-mail 
     wound up in the hands of rival lobbyists and, soon after, The 
     Washington Post. Both brothers stress that the meeting will 
     be social, not business. We do not doubt this, thanks to the 
     disclosure of the e-mail note. But we avidly await the tough 
     lobbying standards promised by Ridge to see security from 
     politics established as one of the hallmarks of homeland 
     security.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I read it, this amendment would single 
out employees of the new Department of Homeland Security and have 
different standards for them compared with other executive branch 
employees.
  We have come to appreciate the government-wide ethics standards as 
representing a level playing field that has been the foundation of 
other Federal ethic laws as well; a single government-wide system of 
public financial disclosure requirements where officials, officers, and 
employees of the Federal Government has been in place for the last 14 
years. The government-wide Ethics Act of 1989 created a level playing 
field for all three branches of Government. This act was a successful 
bipartisan effort to reform and strengthen Federal ethics standards. 
The goal of uniformity is a recurring theme in the legislative history 
of that act.
  This amendment would break the equanimity of the current system. When 
we start treating one Department or Agency different from another, we 
could end up with a patchwork of different standards, unworkable and 
unfair, as employees transfer from one Department to another in the 
Federal Government.
  I must oppose the amendment that singles out the new Department of 
Homeland Security for different treatment than other executive branch 
agencies and departments.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the able Senator from Mississippi is correct 
in stating that this provision would apply postemployment standards to 
more employees at the Department of Homeland Security than other 
executive departments. The amendment applies the same standard, as I 
indicated, as is applied to Senators and their senior staffs.
  The reason I believe this amendment is appropriate is that the 
legislation creating the Department gave the Department extraordinary 
authorities. For example, the Department has extraordinary flexibility 
with regard to civil service rules and procurement standards. Secretary 
Ridge and his staff were given unusual discretion and perhaps that is 
why lobbyists are swarming all over the Department.
  I believe my amendment is appropriate. I think it is in the interests 
of the American people that we adopt this amendment. Congress should do 
no less. I urge my colleagues to join in voting for the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1383.

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

(Purpose: To provide post-employment lobbying restrictions on employees 
   of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Homeland 
         Security within the Executive Office of the President)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESTRICTION OF FUNDING.

       None of the funds made available under this Act or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of an individual who 
     is employed by the Department of Homeland Security or the 
     Office of Homeland Security within the Executive Office of 
     the President at a rate of pay that is equal to or greater 
     than 75 percent of level II of the Executive Schedule, unless 
     that individual signs a contract with the applicable 
     employing department or office under which--
       (1) the individual agrees to the restrictions described 
     under section 207(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) in the event that the individual violates such 
     restrictions, the individual agrees to pay a civil penalty 
     equal to 100 percent of all gross receipts received by the 
     individual from conduct that violated the restrictions.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1383. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is 
absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bennett
     Dayton
     Edwards
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Pryor
  The amendment (No. 1383) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 19348]]


  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on the Byrd amendment, I voted ``no,'' but 
it was not recorded. Had they recorded my vote, my vote would have been 
``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from 
Texas has an amendment.
  The Senator from Texas has indicated she is not going to offer the 
amendment. I told several Senators she was, but she is going to speak 
after the vote.


                federal law enforcement training centers

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to make sure that the chairman of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee is aware of an issue of the utmost 
importance to the security of our Nation's homeland, namely the 
training of our Federal law enforcement officers who are charged with 
preventing, mitigating and investigating attacks on America.
  We have hired a number of federal law enforcement officers since the 
events of September 11, and we, quite appropriately, continue to hire 
more. We fail the American people, however, if we don't give these men 
and women the training necessary to do the job we have asked of them.
  Our responsibility does not stop there. We must retrain Federal law 
enforcement officers whose mission has changed since that fateful day. 
We must also commit to providing advanced training so these officers 
will have the most current knowledge and abilities as they take on this 
Herculean challenge.
  We are fortunate to have state-of-the-art facilities for just these 
purposes located on Glynco, GA and Artesia, NM. The Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center is charged with providing basic and 
advanced training to the law enforcement officers working for the 
Federal Government. Unfortunately, these facilities are not always 
efficiently used because there is no centralized authority responsible 
for the scheduling of training. I believe this problem is easily solved 
by placing this authority in the hands of the Director of the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Center. Would the chairman be amenable to this 
idea and commit to working toward this goal?
  Ms. COLLINS. I agree with the assessment of the Senator from New 
Mexico of the situation with respect to the training of our Federal law 
enforcement officers and I am pleased to pledge to work with the 
Senator to address the problem he has presented. In fact, I believe S. 
1245, which was recently reported unanimously out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, may provide the appropriate vehicle for making this 
change.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for her 
consideration and support for our Federal law enforcement officers. I 
look forward to working with her to continue to strengthen our homeland 
security.


     virginia military institute contribution to homeland security

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
great capabilities that one of the institutions of my State can offer 
to our Nation in homeland security, and ask my distinguished colleague 
from Mississippi to consider it as he proceeds through the budget 
cycle. That institution, the Virginia Military Institute, has for over 
163 years provided a unique environment to develop young men and women 
into citizen-soldiers--leaders with the broad skills necessary to keep 
America and its values secure regardless of the threats we may face.
  In the wake of September 11, 2001, new challenges have arisen for our 
Nation, not only to our physical well-being but also to the social and 
moral fabric of our society. As in the past, VMI is responding to help 
safeguard our country, by preparing civilian, government, and corporate 
leaders to succeed on the new domestic battlefields of the 21st 
century. To do so, VMI and the Commonwealth of Virginia are undertaking 
the establishment of the Center for Preparedness and Homeland Security, 
which will bring together Federal, State, military, business, and 
community leaders to undertake research, and develop new policy and 
response mechanisms to secure our homeland. It will engage in 
educational curriculum development, training and outreach programs, and 
national conferences to disseminate policy best-practices as widely as 
possible. In addition, VMI has already been asked to join one of the 
handful of distinguished educational institutions compromising the 
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, one of this country's most 
important assets for training and policy development in the first-
responder communities.
  Although no additional funding will be available for individual 
projects through this bill, I have been informed by the Appropriations 
committee that a new program will be established under the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness in FY04 for Emergency Training Grants, providing 
a sum of $60 million in peer-reviewed competitive grants to develop new 
capabilities for first-responders and disaster planning. I can offhand 
think of no educational program which would fit more appropriately into 
this mission area, and I will strongly encourage VMI to apply for a 
share of this funding. I would also ask my distinguished colleague from 
Mississippi to look at the valuable contributions VMI can make in this 
area and give every consideration appropriate to provide an opportunity 
for this great institution to secure reasonable resources.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very familiar with the institution 
my friend from Virginia speaks of, VMI, and I assure my colleague that 
I will work with him to ensure that the necessary resources are 
provided to it.


                           Letters of Intent

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman and ranking 
member in a colloquy regarding letters of intent for the installation 
of airport security equipment.
  The bill before us includes $309 million for the installation of 
Electronic Detection Systems, also known as EDS, at our Nation's 
airports, which is an increase of $309 million over the President's 
request.
  I applaud the inclusion of these funds as our Nation's airports face 
increased security demands and limited growth in passenger traffic 
revenues in the wake of September 11. My State's airport authority, the 
Rhode Island Airport Corporation, RIAC, was amongst the first airports 
to have EDS screening of all passenger bags. However, RIAC was forced 
to place these large machines in the terminal waiting area at my 
State's main airport, T.F. Green, causing significant disruption. Since 
that time, RIAC and my office have worked to make sure that the TSA and 
FAA are aware of this situation and the need for Federal assistance to 
modify the terminal at T.F. Green to increase the efficiency of the 
facility, the security of the EDS machines, and ease of passenger 
movement.
  I would ask my colleagues, the Senators from Mississippi and West 
Virginia, if it is their understanding from the Transportation Security 
Administration that the level of funding included in this bill is 
sufficient to meet the needs of airports such as T.F. Green which are 
far along in the planning process and that the TSA believes that it 
cannot expend more than the $309 million in fiscal year 2004?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is my understanding from the TSA that the $309 
million for LOI's in our bill is sufficient to meet the expected 
demands of airports that are ready to begin formal design and 
construction.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur with the distinguished Chairman's assessment and 
support the Senator from Rhode Island's efforts to assist his State's 
airport.
  Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues for providing this level of funding, 
and I look forward to working with them to ensure that our Nation's 
airports can successfully meet their security needs.

[[Page 19349]]




             Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman and ranking 
member in a colloquy regarding the increasing demand for investigative 
work by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Rhode 
Island.
  Neither the Bureau nor its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service, has 
stationed a permanent investigator or special agent in Rhode Island. 
Several years ago, two special agents were designated to serve my State 
but were stationed in Boston, where they have frequently been pulled 
away to other duties.
  Without a permanent investigative presence in Rhode Island, serious 
and growing challenges remain unad-
dressed, including financial crimes, money laundering, and the 
smuggling of narcotics and other contraband that enter by marine 
vessels and on international flights at Rhode Island's T.F. Green 
Airport.
  The legislation before us includes an additional $20,300,000 to 
increase investigations staffing for the Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement. I applaud the chairman and ranking member for 
providing these funds and for including language in the committee 
report recognizing the need to devote additional resources to the core 
investigative missions of the Bureau. I would ask my colleagues, the 
Senators from Mississippi and West Virginia, to join me in urging the 
Bureau to ensure that Rhode Island and other underserved States receive 
a permanent investigative presence to meet these growing challenges.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
bringing this important issue before the Senate today. The committee 
report that accompanies this Homeland Security appropriations bill 
calls on the Bureau to review staffing nationwide and to submit a 
comprehensive deployment plan, to include existing and newly funded 
positions. We expect the Bureau to use these additional staffing 
resources to address any pressing needs.
  Mr. BYRD. I concur with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and 
I support the interest of the Senator from Rhode Island in establishing 
an investigative presence in his State. There is no substitute for 
having investigators and special agents on the ground who are closely 
familiar with the ports of entry and organizations they are required to 
monitor.
  Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I look forward 
to working with them to ensure that the Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement can successfully meet its investigative 
responsibilities in Rhode Island and throughout the Nation.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this first appropriations bill 
for the Department of Homeland Security should have been a highpoint in 
our shared quest to secure the homeland. In the anguished days after 
September 11, Members of both parties were able to unite around our 
commitment to fight for a different, more secure future. The new 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should be a monument to that 
commitment. But the Department and its partners cannot make a 
difference without real resources to fight terrorism here at home. This 
bill does not provide those resources, and it does not provide them 
because the President has refused to lead on this issue.
  We are fighting a war on terrorism that demands our full energy and 
determination. It must be waged not only overseas, but also at home. 
Yet President Bush has repeatedly balked at carrying out a serious 
effort at homeland defense. In the face of numerous expert reports 
chronicling the terrorist threat to U.S. citizens and property here at 
home--and the need for a dramatic infusion of new Federal funds--
President Bush has consistently failed to embrace the challenge of 
homeland security with vision or resources.
  Recall that President Bush had to be dragged to the table to consider 
a Department of Homeland Security. For months, President Bush rejected 
calls by myself and others to create a Cabinet-level department that 
could robustly tackle the daunting challenge of homeland security. 
Critical time was lost as the administration continued to insist that 
the monumental task of securing our homeland could be handled by a 
policy advisor in the White House without budget or line authority over 
any of the Federal workers tasked with our homeland security. But when 
the administration changed tacks and signed onto the idea of a new 
department last summer, I welcomed them to the cause. And when the 
legislation was passed to create the department, I held out hope that 
the administration would now vigorously address the vulnerabilities in 
our homeland defenses.
  Sadly, that trust was misplaced. Having belatedly agreed to create 
the Department of Homeland Security, the President now refuses to seek 
the resources DHS--and its partners at the State and local level--must 
have in order to succeed. Even before the legislation to create the 
department went through, I had urged the White House to boost spending 
on critical homeland security programs. Yet throughout the last 
appropriations cycle, the administration resisted repeated Democratic 
attempts to obtain more resources for first responders and other 
critical homeland security accounts. Whether the question was equipping 
our first responders, bolstering our border personnel or money for 
transit security--to cite just a few items--the administration kept 
saying no.
  Then, in February, with the Department of Homeland Security nearly 
launched, the President sent the Congress a status quo budget for 
homeland security for fiscal year 2004--requesting only $300 million 
more than it planned to spend on homeland defense activities in the 
preceding year. Incredibly, the President's request included no new 
money for first responders, no new money to equip our hospitals and 
public health clinics to combat bioterrorism, and no money at all for 
port security grants. The President's proposed budget actually cut 
funds for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, an agency 
whose urgent work is just beginning. It provided almost no money to 
assess and help protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. It was a 
business-as-usual budget, when we needed a call to arms to address the 
dire new threats confronting us. And that timid request drove the 
budget debate this spring and shaped the broad contours of the 
appropriations bill before us.
  I can hardly overstate the gravity of this failure to lead. The 
Federal Government may have no more fundamental obligation than to 
provide for the common defense. Today, as September 11 so painfully 
showed us, that means more than building a strong military and 
deploying our outstanding servicemen and women in hot spots around the 
world. Now, it also means securing our borders and, within the country, 
building a network of shared security with our State and local 
governments. We must equip and empower our frontline homeland defense 
workers--be they Customs inspectors, baggage screeners, local police 
and firefighters or public health professionals--just as robustly as we 
have readied our soldiers, sailors, and airmen for combat overseas.
  Homeland security is expensive. We must invest in the people and the 
technologies that can prevent or help respond to terrorism, and that 
means making substantial new investments in our services and 
infrastructure. We must employ, train and equip top-flight first 
responders. We must hire more border personnel, create biometric 
security systems, install information sharing networks and develop 
biological and chemical testing and treatment capabilities. Securing 
the Nation's ports, as well as chemical and nuclear plants, must become 
a top priority. In transportation, we must move beyond aviation and 
also secure mass transit, highways, rails, air cargo, container 
shipments, pipelines, tunnels, and bridges. Dollars alone will not 
solve these challenges, but they certainly cannot be conquered without 
more resources. Nor should we ask State and local governments, who are 
already facing the worst fiscal crises in

[[Page 19350]]

decades, to shoulder an unfair portion of the burden. The war against 
terrorism is a national fight, and a substantial portion of the 
financial responsibility falls to the Federal Government.
  That is why, in February, I called for an additional $16 billion for 
homeland security in fiscal year 2004, including an additional $7.5 
billion for grants for first responders. My proposal advocated 
significant new resources for port security grants, public health 
preparedness, heightened security in all modes of transportation, 
critical infrastructure protection, and more. I argued that we must 
approach homeland security with the same urgency, and resources, that 
we would deploy against terrorists overseas. In the same vein, last 
month I sought to authorize $10 billion for first responders in fiscal 
year 2004 during consideration of S. 1245, a bill to improve the 
process for distributing first responder grants to State and local 
governments, in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, my 
amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.
  An expert task force has recently delivered the same message about 
the urgent needs of our first responders. An Independent Task Force of 
the Council on Foreign Relations, led by former Senator Warren Rudman 
and former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, called for 
billions more to equip and train the Nation's first responders. The 
report's title says it all: ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously 
Unprepared.'' The task force, which included a former Director of the 
FBI and CIA as well as a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
found a nation still ``dangerously ill-prepared to handle catastrophic 
attack on U.S. soil.'' It found fire departments without proper 
breathing apparatuses and interoperable radios, cities without the 
means to determine whether terrorists had struck with dangerous 
chemicals or other hazardous materials, and public health labs 
incapable of responding to a chemical or biological attack. This expert 
task force concluded that government would need to spend an additional 
$98.4 billion over 5 years to prepare the Nation's first responders. 
The administration's response to the warning from this respected 
commission? The administration brushed off the report's spending 
recommendation as ``grossly inflated.''
  The administration simply cannot be listening to our first 
responders. Far from seeming inflated, the funding recommendations of 
the task force report only corroborated what I have heard from first 
responders around the country, including testimony before the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. First responders need equipment such as 
personal protective clothing, respirators, and devices for detection of 
chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. They need training to 
use such equipment effectively and to learn how to respond to a serious 
terrorist attack. However, local fire and police officials at our 
hearings told the committee that they do not have the resources to pay 
for training or equipment that they need to prepare for a possible 
attack.
  For instance, Captain Bowers of Prince Georges County, MD, told the 
Governmental Affairs Committee that approximately 57,000 firefighters 
lack personal protective clothing and many fire departments do not have 
enough portable radios to equip more than half of the firefighters on 
shift. Indeed, most emergency workers still do not have the training or 
the equipment they require. State and local governments and first 
responder organizations cannot train and equip these personnel on their 
own, and they are not getting the help they need from the Federal 
Government. The administration's own budget documents estimate that 
only about 80,000 first responders were trained and equipped in 2002 
with funding at the Federal level of $750 million.
  Unless this administration provides significantly more funding, it 
will take us decades to train our first responders to cope with weapons 
of mass destruction. That is time we do not have.
  First responders are not the only homeland workers left in the lurch 
by this administration. Independent experts and the General Accounting 
Office, GAO, have cited substantial shortfalls in other areas of 
homeland security as well. Transportation security is one glaring 
example. By law, the Transportation Security Administration is 
responsible for security in all modes of transportation. But TSA has 
thus far focused almost exclusively on commercial aviation, leaving 
treacherous weaknesses in other transportation systems--a problem I 
outlined in a July 9 letter to Secretary Ridge. With respect to 
maritime transportation, the Coast Guard has identified billions of 
dollars worth of necessary improvements--and Congress has mandated 
greater security--yet the administration requested no money for port 
security grants to help make the changes. This even as expert upon 
expert has identified the Nation's 360 commercial ports as a leading 
cause for concern on the homeland front--in large part because of the 
valuable goods and energy imports channeled through these ports and 
because the millions of containers that enter this country by sea can 
hide untold dangers.
  Stephen Flynn, a homeland security specialist at the Council on 
Foreign Relations, summed it up this way in the June 21 Boston Globe:

       A government that is wringing its hands over 1 or 2 
     million-dollar grants is still a nation that hasn't come to 
     grips with the fact that the threat has changed. I was more 
     forgiving in the first 18 months, but when you pass an act 
     and you make sure there is no money to execute it, that goes 
     beyond being slow to not taking this seriously.

  Mass transit systems are another grave source of concern. According 
to a December 2002 GAO report, mass transit systems are frequent 
targets for terrorists. We all remember the 1995 attack on the Tokyo 
subway, when members of a Japanese cult released sarin, a lethal 
chemical nerve gas, on five subway trains during rush hour. Twelve 
people were killed and thousands injured. Only mistakes by the 
terrorists kept the death toll from being far higher.
  Here in the United States, our transit systems remain vulnerable to 
such an attack. The GAO report concluded that ``insufficient funding is 
the most significant challenge in making . . . transit systems as safe 
and secure as possible.'' Yet the administration is not seeking any 
significant resources to secure our Nation's transit systems--a project 
that could run into billions of dollars. Nor do we see a commitment to 
improve rail security, although vast quantities of hazardous materials 
are shipped by rail. Even in the area of passenger aviation, where TSA 
has focused virtually all its resources, troubling gaps remain. 
Officials have made strides in screening passengers themselves and 
their baggage, yet they have not developed a reliable system to screen 
commercial cargo loaded onto the very same planes.
  Look in almost any direction, and you will find pressing, unmet 
security needs. The administration's budget will not fulfill existing 
congressional mandates to secure the borders with more personnel and 
better, biometric identification systems. Our Nation's critical 
infrastructure--chemical and nuclear plants, energy grids, water 
systems and more--remain dangerously exposed, yet the administration 
seems content to continue studying these vulnerabilities rather than 
move aggressively towards creating greater protections.
  In March, I wrote to Secretary Ridge seeking firm timetables for 
completing inventories, risk assessments and protective measures for a 
wide array of critical infrastructure segments. The Secretary has yet 
to provide these timetables.
  These shortfalls are disturbing enough when taken in isolation. Seen 
together, they form a shockingly dismal picture of our homeland 
security. That is why former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, who 
were the first to call for a Department of Homeland Security and who 
warned of terrorist attacks within the United States even before the 
September 11 tragedy, last fall issued a new report warning that: 
``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a 
catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S.

[[Page 19351]]

soil.'' They concluded the Federal Government must invest more to equip 
and train first responders, to boost the health community's capacity to 
prepare for and respond to chemical or biological attacks, and to 
improve transportation security beyond commercial aviation. Several 
months later, an expert study by the Brookings Institute came to a 
similar conclusion: The Administration was shortchanging key homeland 
security accounts such as port security and critical infrastructure 
protection.
  Even Republicans here in Congress have called for more. Indeed, this 
bill does go beyond the President's request to provide some additional 
funds for certain homeland security accounts. But the appropriators do 
not go nearly far enough. So, as our firefighters and police officers 
face layoffs due to tight budgets, this bill would offer even less 
assistance to first responders than in fiscal year 2003. And as the 
Coast Guard predicts it will cost $1 billion this year to conduct the 
most basic port security assessments and improvements, this bill 
provides only $150 million for port security grants and would not give 
Coast Guard the personnel it needs to carry out its statutory mandate 
to review port security plans. It makes no sense to me that the Bush 
administration is willing to shortchange homeland security. This is a 
profound failure of leadership that threatens to undermine our promise 
to the American people to do all we can to ensure this country never 
again suffers the tragic loss and disruption experienced on September 
11 and its aftermath.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
disaster mitigation programs as funded in the fiscal year 2004 Homeland 
Security appropriations bill.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, currently has two 
programs for disaster mitigation, a pre- and postdisaster program. 
Since 2001, the administration has sought to combine these two programs 
into one predisaster program. In response to the administration's 
initiatives, I asked the General Accounting Office, GAO, to examine the 
administration's proposed changes. The GAO report, released in 2002, 
concluded that FEMA's mitigation programs, ``differ substantially in 
how they have sought to reduce the risks from hazards but each has 
features that the State emergency management community believes has 
been successful for mitigation.''
  Congress funded both programs in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 
2003. In addition, the Senate and House Homeland Security 
appropriations reports for the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security 
appropriations speak highly of both programs. The Senate report noted 
that the committee thought the post-disaster program had been ``very 
successful and will continue to be a valuable tool in the disaster 
relief process.'' The report goes on to say the committee ``has also 
continued funding for the national pre-disaster mitigation fund, 
believing that a balance in pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds 
allows for greater flexibility in emergency management at the local 
level.''
  The House Appropriations Committee also reviewed the two programs 
favorably. The House committee report said the ``postdisaster hazard 
mitigation grant program is an effective mechanism to ensure mitigation 
activities are undertaken when the need is most apparent, which is 
immediately after a disaster strikes. When used in conjunction with the 
pre-disaster mitigation grant program, a comprehensive mitigation 
strategy can be accomplished.''
  I look forward to Congress's continued support for these two 
important programs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member as 
well as Senator Stevens for working with me on my amendment that was 
approved unanimously last night by this body. This amendment had two 
parts: first, it would allow the Coast Guard Research and Development 
Center to maintain the funding level necessary to keep it functioning 
at current capacity; and second, it would mandate a comprehensive 
review of the Coast Guard's system for developing new technologies to 
meet the fleet's needs.
  This legislation is critically important because without it, the 
Coast Guard R&D Center's exceptional scientists, researchers, and other 
employees, who work under the excellent leadership of CPT Francis 
Dutch, would not receive paychecks for the work they do in 2004. Basic 
operations and maintenance would be left unfunded and might cease in 
the coming fiscal year. The work that is done at this facility is first 
rate. With a minimal $13 million budget for operations and maintenance, 
our Coast Guard tracks down cutting-edge technologies to support its 
various missions for maritime safety, search and rescue operations, 
drug interdiction, and even new homeland security missions.
  I am pleased that Senators Stevens, Cochran, and Byrd have supported 
my amendment which also calls for a study to explore the Coast Guard's 
ability to gain access to the most advanced technology necessary to 
perform its mission effectively. The GAO and several independent policy 
institutes are joining a growing chorus of experts suggesting that more 
needs to be done to protect our Nation's ports. Among some of their 
findings is that the Coast Guard may currently be inadequately prepared 
to keep pace with its expanding missions. This is a significant 
conclusion given that our ports are principal access points for the 
Nation's commercial shipping and import/export traffic.
  My amendment will mandate indepth study of the Coast Guard's 
processes for developing new technologies and will require 
recommendations to address shortfalls in the Coast Guard's current 
science and technology apparatus. It is critical that an independent 
policy institute provide such comprehensive analysis to improve the 
Coast Guard's approach to innovative research and development. With 
this information, we can assure that the Coast Guard remains on the 
cutting edge of crucial technology development and make certain it 
takes a proactive approach to addressing our nation's many port 
security challenges.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed into the Record 
at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2003.
     Dr. Dennis McBride, President,
     Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Arlington, VA.
       Dear Dr. McBride: As the nation seeks to secure its 
     homeland from both traditional and emerging threats, the 
     importance of the U.S. Coast Guard's mission will certainly 
     grow and evolve. As one result of this maturation process, 
     the Coast Guard must examine new ways to increase its 
     research and development (R&D) and enhance its abilities to 
     transition effective technologies to the fleet.
       I am concerned about the Coast Guard's ability to develop 
     new technologies that will keep pace with the service's 
     expanding missions. But perhaps more importantly, I am 
     concerned about the potential requirements of the Coast Guard 
     vis-a-vis the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and 
     its relationship with the Department's Homeland Security 
     Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA).
       As I understand it, up until last year, discretionary 
     spending for Coast Guard R&D averaged a yearly budget of $10 
     million, compared to its counterpart in the Navy, the Office 
     of Naval Research, whose annual discretionary budget totals 
     approximately $1 billion. The scarcity of resources forced 
     the Coast Guard to develop an R&D architecture that 
     emphasized adaptations of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 
     technologies or ad hoc relationships with other government 
     agencies to find Coast Guard applications for already 
     existing equipment. While resourceful, this way of thinking 
     is certainly not indicative of the government's new mindset 
     for providing a comprehensive homeland defense. For example, 
     the challenges posed by vulnerabilities in our nation's ports 
     necessitates that the Coast Guard replace its apparently 
     reactive approach to R&D with a more proactive methodology.
       It is urgent that the Coast Guard R&D system undergo a 
     comprehensive evaluation of its current structure. I am 
     writing to request the assistance of the Potomac Institute 
     for Policy Studies in examining the evolving management of 
     science and technology development for the USCG, and to help 
     develop an architecture for its future. The Institute's track 
     record and its unique, demonstrated ability to address these 
     issues are very clear. I strongly encourage you to bring to 
     bear the

[[Page 19352]]

     necessary skills that are required to pursue such a study in 
     the immediate term, and to work with the appropriate 
     components of the Administration in doing so. I look forward 
     to working with you on this important endeavor, and to 
     securing support for the Institute on this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Christopher Dodd,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                             Potomac Institute for


                                               Policy Studies,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 26, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: The Potomac Institute for Policy 
     Studies, a not-for-profit think-and-do organization, 
     appreciates your request for assistance and gratefully 
     accepts the challenge. Examining the evolving management of 
     science and technology (S&T) development for the U.S. Coast 
     Guard (USCG) is a matter of serious importance, one that the 
     Institute has considered at great length. There has never 
     been a more appropriate time to undertake such a study, and 
     the Institute's track record and unique ability make it a 
     logical home for such a project.
       Potomac understands the need for an appropriate and 
     comprehensive set of technologies to counter emerging threats 
     and new missions. Our work with the New York Police 
     Department (NYPD) and other first responder organizations 
     enables us to understand the role of the Coast Guard as law 
     enforcement entity, while our ongoing, extensive work with 
     the Services gives us insight into the USCG's role as a 
     military organization. It is of fundamental importance, as 
     you clearly recognize Senator, that the Coast Guard is 
     nationally unique as a law enforcement as well as a naval/
     military organization. This unique combination is of vital 
     importance for our future; and the Coast Guard must establish 
     and sustain a clear and decisive technological edge.
       The Institute has examined ways to increase effective 
     research and development yield and technology transition for 
     many of this nation's top S&T organizations including the 
     Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office 
     of Naval Research (ONR), and NASA, and we will bring such 
     knowledge and experience to bear on this project. Our 
     endeavors have ranged from leading extremely important 
     science efforts for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 
     the National Research Council (NRC), and the National Science 
     Foundation (NSF), to conducting highly visible Congressional 
     policy studies, as with our examination of the nation's 
     competitive status in shipbuilding. We are proud to have been 
     awarded for example, the editorship of the Review of Policy 
     Research, a testimony to our fierce objectivity and 
     pragmatic-oriented scholarship.
       The most appropriate time for this comprehensive, 
     organizational thought process is now. The future entails 
     more than technology transition to Service field-use as we 
     have learned it and practiced it so well over the years. 
     Defense of the homeland requires very sensitive consideration 
     of myriad domestic and international variables that are 
     specific to our homeland as well as those that are 
     traditional to the military services. The technologies and 
     their deployment in so many ways will imply ``business that 
     is not at all as usual.''
       Thank you for your support and your interest in this timely 
     topic. We look forward to working with you, the Coast Guard, 
     and your staff on this extremely important endeavor.
           Very respectfully,
                                                Dennis K. McBride,
                                                        President.


                           Amendment No. 1318

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, who is offering an amendment to 
establish $20 million in grants to protect tourist populations. This 
amendment will ensure that homeland security funding allocations 
properly reflect a State's population, including its tourist 
population.
  Currently, Federal first responder funding is based on a State's 
permanent population. States with large tourist populations are left 
with the responsibility for protecting a larger number of individuals 
than is reflected by the funding they receive from the Federal 
Government. As a result, first responders in these States face severe 
funding shortfalls. We need to ensure that methods for allocating 
Federal assistance for homeland security, especially first responder 
funding, considers the resources needed to protect each and every 
individual in a State.
  Tourists represent a significant proportion of the population in many 
States. This is especially true for Hawaii, where, at any given time, 
there are over 160,000 tourists in the State.
  Since the current first responder grant formula does not account for 
tourist populations, Hawaii is responsible for protecting 13 percent of 
its total population without Federal assistance.
  This funding is critical for all States with significant tourist 
populations. For this reason, I am pleased to have worked with Senator 
Collins, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to include 
language in S. 1245, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 
2003, to ensure that tourist populations are fully addressed in first 
responder funding. This bill favorably passed out of committee 
unanimously. The Reid amendment builds on S. 1245 by providing the 
additional funding needed to protect tourist populations in Federal 
first responder funding.
  Federal funding for homeland security should fully account for the 
total population in a State, including tourist populations. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as with every appropriations bill, I come 
to the floor of the Senate to speak about the objectionable provisions 
that are often hidden in the text of the legislation. Just last week, I 
spoke at length about all the wasteful spending in this year's Defense 
Appropriations Act. However, I must commend the Appropriations 
Committee--especially the distinguished Senator from Mississippi--for 
their efforts in reporting out of committee a Homeland Security bill 
with minimal earmarks or unrequested spending. Seeing as this is the 
first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill, I am very encouraged 
that my friends on the Appropriations Committee resisted the urge to 
load this legislation with unrequested spending. I urge my colleagues 
to ensure the bill remains this way as it progresses through 
conference.
  The Department of Homeland Security plays a crucial role in our 
Nation's defense. In no place is the role of our Department of Homeland 
Security more vital than in protecting our Nation's borders.
  Waves of undocumented immigrants still cross the border daily, 
leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake. Those who 
survive the journey place enormous strains on the residents of Arizona 
and other border States. All aspects of life for the residents of 
Arizona are affected by costs of illegal immigration. The situation has 
gotten so desperate along the border, a group of citizens has resorted 
to vigilante actions to defend the borders because they believe the 
Federal Government has failed them. While I believe the actions of 
these groups are dangerous, they illustrate the dire situation faced by 
the residents of Arizona. It is vital that we continue to increase 
resources, particularly manpower and improve the technology along our 
borders. I am particularly encouraged by the development of new 
technologies such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, which may prove 
extremely useful in patrolling the areas between our ports of entry.
  This bill provides much-needed funding for our Nation's borders. 
However, money alone will not solve this problem. The militarization of 
our borders is not the answer. As long as there are better paying jobs 
in the United States, there will be a steady supply of people coming 
into this Nation looking for work. Legal immigration plays an important 
role in contributing to the economic growth and prosperity of our 
Nation. Our Nation's tradition of legal immigration must be respected 
while the Federal Government works to solve the problems along the 
border. One solution to the problem that will address our Nation's 
national security needs and prevent further deaths in the Arizona 
desert is to enact comprehensive immigration reform. This is not just 
an issue that affects those residing in border States, it affects all 
Americans. We must work together to address this situation.
  Despite the overall lack of objectionable provisions in this 
legislation, I would like to express my concern about the committee's 
decision to move funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant, FIRE 
grant program, from the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Directorate to the Office for Domestic 
Preparedness. As the chairman of the

[[Page 19353]]

authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I am familiar with the success 
of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. FIRE grants are made 
directly to local jurisdictions after their applications undergo a 
competitive, merit-based process. FIRE grant recipients use such funds 
to help meet their basic needs for equipment and training to respond to 
``all-hazards,'' including wildfires, tornadoes, floods, and structural 
fires--not just antiterrorism efforts. I am concerned that the Office 
for Domestic Preparedness, ODP, has no experience with the basic needs 
of firefighters or administering a program like the FIRE grant program.
  I wish to acknowledge that the administration's budget submission 
seeks to move this grant program over to ODP, while promising to 
administer the grant program in a manner similar to that which is done 
now, with an interest in ensuring that there is one-stop shopping and 
better coordination for emergency preparedness grants. I understand 
that goal and am more than willing to work with my colleagues to ensure 
better coordination of our emergency preparedness efforts. In fact, 
just last month, the Commerce Committee reported legislation to 
reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration and improve coordination and 
training for first responders. That legislation is the appropriate 
vehicle to consider any programmatic changes, instead of this or any 
other appropriations bill.
  I am also disappointed that the Senate choose to accept a ``Buy 
America'' provision by voice vote. I firmly object to all ``Buy 
America'' restrictions, as represent prime examples of protectionist 
trade policy. I continue to be very concerned about the potential 
impact of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a 
philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist 
policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving 
relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a 
practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously 
impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also 
could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade 
partners. Buy America'' provisions cost our Department of Defense over 
$5.5 billion each year, I do not want to see the same problems arise 
with the Department of Homeland Security. I urge the removal of this 
provision during the House-Senate conference.
  Once again, I thank the appropriators for their diligence in passing 
a relatively clean homeland security appropriations bill. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of the objectionable provisions I have 
found in this legislation be printed in the Record. I hope that this 
continues with future appropriations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill


                  Objectionable Provisions in the Bill

                 Transportation Security Administration

       $210 million for Maritime and Land Security.--
       Explanation: The bill would provide $295 million for 
     Maritime and Land Security which is $210 million above the 
     President's FY2004 request. Within this amount the bill would 
     provide $150 million for port security grants not requested 
     by the Administration. In addition, the bill would provide 
     $30 million for Operation Safe Commerce, an increase of $27.5 
     million over the President's request. The accompanying report 
     further describes the appropriators' intentions for the 
     Operation Safe Commerce funds.
       Explanation: Provides money for port security grants and 
     for Operation Safe Commerce. Operation Safe Commerce is a 
     program intended to serve as a test-bed for new techniques to 
     increase the security of container shipments--from the point 
     of destination through the supply chain to the point of 
     origin. Operation Safe Commerce is not, and has never been, 
     authorized. Report language would expand the program beyond 
     the original pilot program ports--the ports of Seattle and 
     Tacoma, Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the Port Authority of 
     New York/New Jersey. This is objectionable because it is a 
     policy change that has not been reviewed by the authorizing 
     committee.
       $10,000,000 for Intercity Bus Security. Explanation: This 
     money was not requested by the President.
       $25,000,000 for Trucking Industry Grants. Explanation: This 
     money was not requested by the President.
       $13,000,000 for Hazardous materials permit program/truck 
     tracking. Explanation: This money was not requested by the 
     President.
       $4,000,000 for nuclear detection and monitoring. 
     Explanation: This money was not requested by the President.

                            U.S. Coast Guard

       The bill provides $18 million to repair bridges under the 
     Truman-Hobbs Act and the report further earmarks these funds 
     to the following specific bridge projects: $5 million for the 
     Florida Avenue Railway/Highway bridge in New Orleans, LA; 
     $1.5 million for the EJ&E railroad bridge in Morris, IL; $2 
     million for the John F. Limehouse bridge in Charleston, SC; 
     $2.5 million for the Chelsea Street Bridge in Boston, MA; 
     $2,500,000 for the Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge in Brunswick, 
     GA; and $7 million for the Fourteen Mile CSX Railroad Bridge, 
     Mobile, AL. Explanation: The Administration did not request 
     this funding and the bridges earmarked are not necessarily 
     the bridges with the greatest need to be altered under the 
     Truman-Hobbs Act. These earmarks continue a trend where only 
     bridges in select states annually are funded without 
     undergoing a need or risk-management based process.
       The bill states that funds for bridge alteration projects 
     conducted pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act shall be available 
     for such projects only to the extent that the steel, iron, 
     and manufactured products used in such projects are produced 
     in the United States, unless contrary to law or international 
     agreement, or unless the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
     determines such action to be inconsistent with the public 
     interest or the cost unreasonable.
       The report earmarks $4 million to assist the Coast Guard in 
     transitioning its voluntary ballast water management program 
     to mandatory enforcement. Explanation: This money was not 
     requested by the Administration, and the Coast Guard 
     currently is in the process of drafting regulations to 
     transition its ballast water management program from a 
     voluntary program to one that is mandatory.
       The report contains language adding $12 million in funding 
     for the Coast Guard's 17th District in Alaska and contains 
     language directing the Coast Guard to fund a total of seven 
     Marine Safety and Security Teams (MSSTs) while the 
     Administration only requested funding for six. Explanation: 
     The Administration requested six new Marine Safety and 
     Security Teams (MSSTs) in its budget request for Boston, San 
     Francisco, Honolulu, San Juan, San Diego, and New Orleans. It 
     appears this additional funding will create a seventh 
     unrequested MSST for Alaska.
       The report adds $202 million for the Coast Guard's 
     Integrated Deepwater system project. Explanation: The 
     Administration requested $500 million for the Coast Guard's 
     Integrated Deepwater system project which is approximately 
     $50 million less than the national Deepwater plan requires. 
     The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in March 2003 
     that if the Administration's FY04 Deepwater request is 
     enacted, the Deepwater project will have a cumulative $202 
     million shortfall. This additional $202 million increase 
     would erase this shortfall and get the Deepwater project back 
     on schedule.
       The report earmarks $40 million to acquire and install a 
     shore-based universal Automatic Identification System (AIS) 
     coverage system in ports nationwide. Explanation: The 
     Administration did not request this funding. While the 
     Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2003 requires 
     the Automatic Identification System (AIS) carriage by vessels 
     to be phased in beginning in 2003, the Coast Guard is in the 
     process of analyzing its shore-based coverage requirements 
     and has not determined what the system design or calculated 
     its costs. This $40 million is not based on any in-depth 
     analysis and is simply a guess.

           TITLE IV--ASSESSMENTS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RECOVERY

            Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)

       Salaries and Expenses. Explanation: $50,357,000 above the 
     President's request to cover additional student weeks of 
     basic training.
       Acquisition, Construction, Improvements, and Related 
     Expenses. Explanation: $5,029,000 above the President's 
     request to construct an indoor/outdoor firearms range at 
     FLETC's Artesia, New Mexico, location
       Office for Domestic Preparedness. Explanation: $15,000,000 
     above the President's request for emergency management 
     performance grants.
       Cerro Grande Fire Claims. Explanation: $38,062,000 above 
     the President's request for Cerro Grande fire claims 
     settlement.


Directive Language found in the FY 2004 Department of Homeland Security 
                           Appropriations Act

       The Under Secretary of Transportation and Border Security 
     is directed to provide a comprehensive report to the 
     Committee describing the specific measures taken by the 
     Department and its legacy agencies since September 11, 2001, 
     to enhance security at the northern border. The report should 
     include a discussion of (1) increased personnel

[[Page 19354]]

     deployment, technological improvements, and enhancements in 
     interagency coordination; (2) measures for improvement of 
     northern border security authorized by the Congress that the 
     Department has not yet undertaken; and (3) aspects of 
     northern border security requiring additional resources and 
     focus. Because of the sensitive nature of many aspects of 
     this report, the Department should provide both an 
     unclassified and, if necessary, classified version of the 
     report.
       The Department is expected to submit a plan that explains 
     the privacy policies that will be put in place to protect the 
     information that is housed in the U.S. VISIT system. Both the 
     expenditure plan and the privacy plan shall be submitted to 
     the Committee no later than 45 days after the enactment of 
     this Act.
       The Committee directs BCBP to review staffing nationwide, 
     and to submit a comprehensive deployment plan to include 
     existing (direct and fee funded) and newly funded positions. 
     Included in the amount recommended by the Committee is 
     continued funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for part-time 
     and temporary positions in the Honolulu Customs District.
       The Committee directs BCBP to submit a deployment plan to 
     the Committee for the new agents provided, and to ensure that 
     this plan is coordinated with construction projects.
       The Committee directs BCBP to quickly implement deployment 
     of the systems as planned and to submit a report to the 
     Committee no later than October 1, 2003, on the progress made 
     in meeting this goal.
       The Committee directs the Department to work with the 
     General Services Administration to develop a nationwide 
     strategy to prioritize and address the infrastructure needs 
     at the land ports-of-entry and to comply with the 
     requirements of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to seek 
     necessary funding.
       In addition, BCBP should review the priority funding list 
     for construction projects for the Border Patrol, and submit 
     to the Committee an updated plan no later than July 1, 2004.
       The Committee expects BICE to review staffing nationwide, 
     and to submit a comprehensive deployment plan, to include 
     existing and newly funded positions.
       The Department is directed to submit to the Committee an 
     annual review of the program. This review should include a 
     discussion of its effectiveness, compliance by certified 
     schools, status of compliance reviews, the rate of student 
     non-compliance, and the results of investigations. The first 
     report is to be submitted by December 31, 2003.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will speak for a couple of minutes 
about the big State formula in the Department of Homeland Security. I 
am not going to take long. It is very important we address the issue of 
the formula in the bill just passed.
  The formula is not fair to the large States where the greatest risk 
is. The large States generally have the larger population centers which 
generally have the highest risk for homeland security. Yet the formula 
under which we are proceeding is a formula that takes away from our 13 
largest States because of a floor put in for the smaller States. I 
don't think any of the large States want to be totally whole but the 
large States would like to have more of a fair shake than the formula 
underlying in this bill.
  I hope the Senate will agree to hear the bill that has come out of 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs which does authorize new formulas 
and will seek to change the formulas in a way that is more fair. To 
give a couple of examples, the State of California on a strict 
population basis would get $216 million; the State of California has a 
long coastline, they have major cities, they certainly have a high-risk 
designation. Under the bill, they will get $146 million for a deficit 
to California of $64 million. Georgia should get $53 million; it would 
get $46 million for a deficit of $5 million. New York should get $118 
million; it will get $86 million for a deficit of $28 million. My home 
State of Texas should get $134 million; it will get $96 million for a 
deficit of $34 million.
  This does not make sense. It does not pass the fairness test. The 
large States do not ask for complete parity but we do ask for fairness. 
There is a formula we used in the State aid package in the most recent 
tax cut legislation that does not give the big States full parity but 
it does give them a much more fair formula.
  That is what I intended to offer in the bill. It would have been 
subject to a point of order, so I withheld. But I am serving notice 
that I, along with Senators Voinovich, Specter, DeWine, Santorum, 
Warner, Chambliss, Cornyn, and Levin, am going to readdress this issue 
and hope that everyone will come together, small States and large, for 
something that is fair to the States that are at the highest risk.
  That is a very important component of securing our homeland. If we 
are going to leave our biggest States and biggest cities vulnerable, 
that is not protecting the part of our country that is most at risk.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I am serving notice we will try to 
address this issue in the bill. I ask the majority leader and minority 
leader to please assure that we will address this issue in the bill 
that has come out of the Governmental Affairs Committee so that we can 
correct this inequity.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would oppose the amendment of my friend 
from Texas. I understand that she has agreed not to offer the 
amendment, and instead to just debate the issue at this time. As I 
noted yesterday, when a similar amendment was offered by the Senator 
from New York, formula fights are never easy. But they deserve careful 
deliberation and consideration.
  An appropriations bill is where Congress spends money once it has 
settled on a formula in authorizing legislation. An appropriations bill 
is not the right place to have a formula fight.
  My friend from Texas has raised an issue that falls squarely within 
the jurisdiction of the Government Affairs Committee, which has held 
three hearings on this topic this year. We have heard from 
firefighters, police officers, mayors, governors, State emergency 
management directors, county officials, and Secretary Ridge.
  As a result of these hearings, I have developed legislation, on a 
bipartisan basis, with Senator Carper and 15 other cosponsors.
  Just last month, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved this 
legislation by a unanimous vote. My legislation would address the very 
issue that the amendment of the Senator from Texas seeks to address on 
this appropriations bill.
  I cannot support the amendment of the Senator from Texas because it 
would pre-empt a debate that we began in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and that should continue when our legislation reaches the 
Senate floor.
  But I also oppose this amendment because it is bad for Maine--and 
States across the country. And because I believe it could compromise 
the security of this great Nation.
  This amendment would not only reduce the small State minimum from .75 
to .5 percent of the amount appropriated, but it would also make the 
small State minimum a ceiling, rather than a floor, which it is in 
current law, and should remain.
  Moreover, big States already get plenty under the bill that Chairman 
Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd have so ably crafted.
  The bill distributes $1.75 billion to all 50 States, territories, and 
the District of Columbia. Of this amount, $1.05 billion, or 60 percent, 
will be distributed strictly based on population, meaning more populous 
states do well.
  In addition, however, the bill sets aside $750 million just for big 
cities. That means states such as Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, 
and Alaska will not see a dime of this money--$750 million just for the 
country's biggest cities--$250 million more than the House 
appropriated. And yet big States want more.
  The Senate should not be considering these kinds of authorizing 
changes to an appropriations bill.
  I know it is tempting to offer amendments like this to appropriations 
measures--I considered offering my grants bill, or parts of it, as 
amendments--but the practice must be resisted. It does an end-run 
around authorizing committees, which are set up to address matters such 
as these in a deliberate, thorough manner.
  Any modifications to ODP's formula should be considered in a 
comprehensive manner, not as piecemeal amendments. By changing the 
formula on an ad-hoc basis, we may produce unintended consequences, 
where a State

[[Page 19355]]

may end up with insufficient homeland security resources.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose changes to the 
existing funding formula on this bill.
  At the same time, I pledge to work with my friend from Texas to 
accommodate her legitimate concerns. Big States have big homeland 
security needs, and the Federal Government has an obligation to help 
them.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
support the efforts of Senators Levin, Voinovich, Hutchison, myself, 
and others to modify the USA PATRIOT Act formula for homeland security 
grants. This formula, as currently interpreted by the Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, greatly disadvantages larger States.
  Unfortunately, as Senator Levin stated earlier, it looks as though we 
will not be able to use the Homeland Security Appropriations bill to 
make such a modification. Any such amendment would face a point of 
order and fail.
  However, we will be back. I intend to continue to raise this issue in 
the Senate until we finally change existing law to ensure that the DHS 
has the authority to distribute homeland security money fairly to all 
States.
  In my view, the Department should distribute homeland security funds 
according to population or, at a minimum, according to threat and 
vulnerability assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and 
population density.
  On March 7, 2003, DHS released their State-by-State allocations for 
the $566 million State Homeland Security Grant Program.
  Although this program is described as being distributed on the basis 
of population, smaller States received a higher level of funding on a 
per capita basis than larger States.
  For instance, California received $1.33 per capita while Wyoming 
received $9.78 per capita. This means that residents of Wyoming 
received more than five times what residents of California received. 
The national average was $1.98 per capita.
  However, if you look at all the homeland security grants awarded by 
the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, for FY 2003, the numbers 
are even worse. This fiscal year, California received $4.85 per capita 
in ODP homeland security grants and Wyoming received $35.67 per capita. 
In other words, residents of Wyoming received more than seven times 
what residents of California received.
  I do not want to pick on Wyoming or focus inordinately on California. 
The issue is not about any State in particular. It is about the fact 
that States with large populations and large amounts of critical 
infrastructure are more vulnerable to terrorism and also generally 
subject to more credible terrorist threats.
  However, since I represent California in this distinguished body, I 
do want to explain why I believe that California--as other populous 
States has been shortchanged on homeland security grants.
  California is what people in the counterterrorism field called a 
``target-rich'' environment. We have two of the biggest seaports in the 
country, Disneyland, the Golden Gate Bridge, two of the biggest ports 
in the country, some of the busiest airports in the country, and much 
else as well.
  Moreover, with the release of a congressional report today on 
intelligence failures by the FBI and CIA, the American people now know 
that at least several of the September 11 hijackers had numerous links 
with California. And, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
I can assure you that terrorists and their sympathizers continue to 
operate in California.
  Finally, we have all heard about credible threats to important 
tourism and commercial sites in California--and those are just the ones 
that have become public.
  However, in spite of all this, my State received this fiscal year 
less than one-seventh per capita of ODP homeland security grants than 
the least populous State--a State that is not a target-rich 
environment, has little if any connection with any terrorists, and has 
been subject to few if any terrorist threats.
  In my view, that is absurd.
  Americans in every State should be more afraid knowing that a 
disproportionate amount of homeland security money is flowing into 
States that may not need that money.
  The reason that homeland security grant allocations favor small 
States is because of the way that ODP applies Sec. 1014 of the PATRIOT 
Act.
  Under the USA PATRIOT Act, ODP gives each State .75 percent and each 
territory .25 percent of the appropriation for homeland security 
grants.
  For the 50 States and five territories, these amounts total 
approximately 40 percent of the total appropriation.
  However, the USA PATRIOT Act is silent on how ODP should distribute 
the remaining 60 percent. ODP has opted to distribute the remaining 60 
percent based on population.
  It is worth pointing out that the USA PATRIOT Act does not require 
that the .75 minimums be allocated first and then the remainder 
distributed according to population. ODP could, under the USA PATRIOT 
Act, distribute all the money according to population and then bump up 
any State that has not received .75 percent.
  If ODP followed this method, it would mean millions of additional 
dollars for more populous States. I would urge ODP to look into using 
such a method.
  In any event, because of the USA PATRIOT Act formula, California only 
received $149 million of the $1.87 billion appropriated in FY 2003 for 
the ODP State homeland security grant program about 8 percent of the 
total.
  However, California has over 12 percent of the population and a 
disproportionate amount of the country's critical infrastructure--all 
terrorist targets of opportunity.
  If this money had been allocated according to population, California 
would have received $76 million more for homeland security just this 
fiscal year.
  There is no question that the USA PATRIOT Act formula greatly 
disadvantages California and other States with high threat potential. 
These are States that possess densely populated areas and critical 
infrastructure such as landmark buildings, large gathering places, 
stadiums, amusement parks, tall buildings, underground transit, 
bridges, and ports.
  Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has made this very point 
over and over. For example, in a hearing before the Senate Commerce 
Committee, he expressed frustration with the USA PATRIOT Act formula 
and urged that Congress enact legislation that would require such money 
to be distributed based on the likely terrorist theat and vulnerability 
of a given area.
  Most reasonable observers agree. It is ludicrous to pour homeland 
security money into small, rural States that are at little risk of 
terrorist attack and shortchange States that have densely populated 
centers and/or have critical infrastructure.
  It is also worth noting that the .75 small State minimums are not 
applied to other grant programs. In an exhaustive survey of Federal 
grant programs, we could find only two grant programs that used such a 
high percentage for State minimums: State homeland security grants and 
sport fish restoration grants.
  While an argument could be made that perhaps less populous States 
deserve more sport fish restoration money, that argument fails with 
regard to homeland security. The fact remains that the areas most 
vulnerable to terrorist attack are large cities and those with critical 
infrastructure, which tend to be in more populous States.
  Grant programs other than for homeland security or sport fishing 
restoration have either no small State minimums, percentages ranging 
from .25 percent to .50 percent, or minimum dollar figures.
  The current formula for allocating homeland security grants is unfair 
and illogical. And, to be brutally honest, it wastes taxpayers' money 
by sending to it to areas where it may not be needed. I urge my 
colleagues to support efforts to modify this formula.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart listing 
Homeland Security grants per capita.

[[Page 19356]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        FISCAL YEAR 2003 ODP HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS PER CAPITA
                      [Grant dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Per capita
        Rank and state           ODP grants    2000 Census    spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wyoming....................        17,611       493,782        $35.67
2. District of Columbia.......        17,917       572,059         31.32
3. Vermont....................        18,110       608,827         29.75
4. Alaska.....................        18,225       626,932         29.07
5. North Dakota...............        18,183       642,200         28.31
6. South Dakota...............        18,723       754,844         24.80
7. Delaware...................        18,917       783,600         24.14
8. Montana....................        19,352       902,195         21.45
9. Rhode Island...............        20,029     1,048,319         19.11
10. Hawaii....................        20,772     1,211,537         17.15
11. New Hampshire.............        20,897     1,235,786         16.91
12. Maine.....................        20,981     1,274,923         16.46
13. Idaho.....................        21,177     1,293,953         16.37
14. Nebraska..................        22,823     1,711,263         13.34
15. New Mexico................        23,356     1,819,046         12.84
16. West Virginia.............        23,133     1,808,344         12.79
17. Nevada....................        24,708     1,998,257         12.36
18. Utah......................        25,311     2,233,169         11.33
19. Arkansas..................        26,980     2,673,400         10.09
20. Kansas....................        27,006     2,688,418         10.05
21. Mississippi...............        27,666     2,844,658          9.73
22. Iowa......................        27,989     2,926,324          9.55
23. Oregon....................        30,417     3,421,399          8.89
24. Connecticut...............        30,157     3,405,565          8.86
25. Oklahoma..................        30,298     3,450,654          8.78
26. Puerto Rico...............        31,846     3,858,806          8.25
27. South Carolina............        32,898     4,012,012          8.20
28. Kentucky..................        32,841     4,041,769          8.13
29. Colorado..................        34,592     4,301,261          8.04
30. Alabama...................        34,505     4,447,100          7.76
31. Louisiana.................        34,487     4,468,976          7.72
32. Arizona...................        38,617     5,130,632          7.53
33. Minnesota.................        36,766     4,919.479          7.47
34. Maryland..................        38,622     5,296,486          7.29
35. Wisconsin.................        38,549     5,363,675          7.19
36. Missouri..................        39,532     5,595,211          7.07
37. Tennessee.................        40,057     5,689,283          7.04
38. Washington................        41,211     5,894,121          6.99
39. Indiana...................        41,592     6,080,485          6.84
40. Massachusetts.............        42,730     6,349,097          6.73
41. Virginia..................        46,400     7,078,515          6.56
42. Georgia...................        51,767     8,186,453          6.32
43. North Carolina............        50,747     8,049,313          6.30
44. New Jersey................        51,892     8,414,350          6.17
45. Michigan..................        58,080     9,938,444          5.84
46. Ohio......................        63,888    11,353,140          5.63
47. Illinois..................        68,884    12,410,293          5.55
48. Pennsylvania..............        67,760    12,281,054          5.52
49. Florida...................        86,307    15,982,378          5.40
50. Texas.....................       107,777    20,851,820          5.17
51. New York..................        96,664    18,976,457          5.09
52. California................       164,279    33,871,648          4.85
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................     2,043,979   285,280,712          7.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 FFIS Federal Funds Information for States.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the subcommittee chair and ranking 
member for their work on this bill. A difficult task was set before 
them in marking up this first appropriations measure for the new 
Department of Homeland Security. September 11 changed much about how 
Americans view the role of the Federal Government and its most basic 
function--providing physical security for American citizens.
  We cannot protect the nation completely from every conceivable 
threat. We have to devote available resources to those threats we judge 
to be the likeliest and most serious. This poses difficult choices for 
Congress and the administration, as well as for local communities who 
face similar decisions. Deciding which threats to public safety it is 
most important to prepare for is perhaps most difficult for first 
responders, those men and women most directly tasked with the job--men 
and women whose bodies and even lives are regularly on the line.
  One of my first goals upon being appointed to the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee has been to attempt to address directly the 
needs of these people in Iowa who are on the front lines, the people 
who are most responsible for public safety throughout the State. My 
staff and I have had a number of conversations with the Governor of 
Iowa, his staff and with others in State government. I also asked 
members of my Iowa staff to visit each of the State's 99 officials. I 
asked my staff to check in with people in each of these local 
communities to find out what they think is most important when it comes 
to homeland security, what they think is working and what is not.
  I think the meetings have been a big success. Not surprisingly, 
Iowans were pleased to be asked what they think are the top priorities 
in this area of policy. Security is on people's minds, and the 
communities that my staff visited have provided me with great insight 
about how to approach homeland security issues here in Washington. Mr. 
President, I ask consent that two items be printed in the Record at the 
end of my statement: first is a letter I have sent today to Homeland 
Security Secretary Ridge regarding the findings of my staff from their 
meetings around Iowa; second is the list of the locations in Iowa for 
those meetings, along with the dates they occurred.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. When Senator Lieberman first proposed creation of a new 
Department of Homeland Security, in his role at that time of chairman 
of the Government Affairs Committee, I supported his effort. We knew 
then that balancing, and probably shifting, among competing priorities 
would be a challenge. We must do all we can to safeguard the vital 
interests of the Nation form the threat of terrorism. But it remains 
essential that we don't disregard the need to protect people from 
other, more likely hazards, especially in areas away from large towns 
and critical assets.
  We must not merely redirect funds badly needed current programs, 
creating new holes in our security infrastructure. In fact, we should 
seek wherever it is possible to expand and strengthen existing 
emergency response mechanisms. We should increase their capacity in 
ways that allow local authorities to prevent or respond to terrorist 
threats while also helping them to deal better with the much more 
common threats and emergencies they face. I believe this is possible.
  Iowans told my staff that the biggest challenges Iowans face today 
include many of the same problems they faced in June of 2000: crime, 
the methamphetamine scourge, natural disasters.
  Over the past several years, FEMA, now part of Homeland Security, has 
become a truly remarkable and world-class organization for dealing with 
fires, floods, tornadoes and earthquakes. These occur every year, 
regardless of other threats, and they continue to take away lives and 
livelihoods. Earlier this week, a tornado hit Cedar Rapids, IA, and 
caused damage to 25 homes. We cannot back away from our commitment to 
help people in need due to these natural disasters. One example of 
making sure we continue that commitment is the successful fight that I 
and others have undertaken to ensure that the fire grant program is 
retained.
  There is also no question that many Iowans feel that their world 
changed on 9/11. People want their families to be safe from terrorist 
threats. Larry Hurst is County Emergency Management Director in 
Glenwood, IA, which is in Southwest Iowa. He is afraid that Iowa could 
be comparatively neglected in this regard, that we might ``find it easy 
to cut public safety, defense and health funding, betting that nothing 
will happen here.'' Of course, we hope that no terrorist incidents do 
occur in Iowa. But, we are only as strong as the network of first 
responders throughout the Nation.
  First responders in my State tell me that they are frustrated. When 
the alert level changes, they learn about it from CNN, not from the 
Department of Homeland Security. They don't know why the alert level is 
raised, or which kinds of threats they ought to look for. Mahala Cox, 
the Emergency Manager in my home county. Warren County, says that ``we 
cannot afford to be behind the curve and reacting to a media message.'' 
People like Ms. Cox must respond to vague mandates they don't fully 
understand, taking time away from other pursuits. Mandates are unclear, 
and can be costly. While some money is flowing, communities are unsure 
how exactly they should be spending it, and they fear spending it in a 
way that might not meet a later mandate.
  At the same time, some current reporting requirements are onerous and 
illogical. One county emergency manager in Iowa relayed to my staff 
that they are required to report on contingency plans in case there is 
a tidal wave, and they understand they are not allowed to answer ``not 
applicable.'' I suspect if a tidal wave big enough to cause damage in 
Iowa were to hit the U.S. our least concern would be what a given 
county emergency manager plans to do about it. These increased burdens 
are coming at a time when State and local governments are hurting. Many 
already are laying off police, fire, and emergency management 
personnel. The vast majority of firefighters in the United States are 
volunteer, increased training requirements for these personnel, while 
useful, might be very burdensome at a time when we are already

[[Page 19357]]

losing firefighters in Iowa. If we at the Federal level are to create 
mandates, funds must follow those mandates.
  Walter ``Ned'' Wright is the Emergency Management Director in Linn 
County, IA, which is home to Cedar Rapids, one of the State's larger 
cities. He spoke to my staff about reporting requirements. He talked 
about ``analysis paralysis,'' which he described as ``assessment after 
assessment, and blue ribbon panel assessments, but no real results.
  Law enforcement and first responders are being watchful of Government 
waste. They are worried that we are reinventing the wheel. I share 
their concern. I was concerned to hear of the great costs incurred by 
certain communities in my State to protect critical asset bridges. I 
want to make sure that communities are made whole for necessary 
expenses, but I also want to make sure that The Department spends its 
money in a way that isn't wasteful. The security of our homeland is so 
critical that we can't afford to waste a single penny. I would be happy 
to work with my colleagues and the Department to help to identify ways 
to be more efficient.
  I am pleased with language in the report requiring the Department to 
establish clearly defined standards for all levels of government 
emergency preparedness, and detailing the costs of meeting these 
standards, and to take into account heir opinions.
  I think the committee has done a commendable job at trying to 
maintain funding for the kinds of programs I was most concerned with, 
particularly three emergency programs that are close to my heart--
Emergency Management Performance Grants, Firefighter Assistance Grants, 
and Hazard Mitigation Grants, though I was disappointed with the cuts 
to the Hazard Mitigation Grants last year from 15 percent of public and 
individual assistance to only 7.5 percent for post-disaster mitigation 
and $150 million for pre-disaster mitigation. I would like to see this 
returned to the 15 percentage level. In Iowa, this program has been 
successfully used to reduce the damage from future disasters. In many 
cases, it saves the Government money in the long run by avoiding the 
costs of repairing dangerously placed structures that are repeatedly 
damaged.
  Finally, I would like to mention the subject of agri-terrorism. As my 
colleagues know, a major agri-terrorism event could easily cause 
billions of dollars in losses. Anyone who has spent time in rural 
America knows the difficulty in trying to guard against every avenue 
through which agriculture could be attacked. It is impossible. The key 
for protecting U.S. agriculture is making sure our intelligence and 
response capacities are in place to both prevent acts of terrorism in 
the first place, and respond quickly, should an attack occur, to limit 
the damage. I think we are still falling short on response. I am very 
disappointed not to see more resources directed to building the 
capacity of our agricultural first response system. I think we really 
need to take a hard look, and make sure we are doing all we can to 
protect U.S. agriculture and rural communities.
  I have been working closely with the State of Iowa, particularly with 
the state Homeland Security director, Ellen Gordon, on appropriate 
State and Federal responses to agi-terror. The State has been working 
overtime trying to map out a comprehensive plan to deal with this very 
difficult issue. I applaud their work, and look forward to working with 
them and with my colleagues as we move forward to improving our 
capability to respond to this very serious and very real threat.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2003.
     Secretary Tom Ridge,
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Ridge: This June and July, members of my 
     staff traveled to every county in Iowa to better understand 
     the needs of local first responders and emergency management 
     officials. Please find enclosed a more thorough summary of 
     the comments provided to me by those public officials. I hope 
     that you find it as helpful as I have.
       I would appreciate it if the Department could comment on 
     some of the broader recurring themes of their reports, 
     including, but not limited to, those items I will discuss in 
     this letter. As a member of the Homeland Security 
     Appropriations Subcommittee in the Senate, I understand some 
     of the difficulties inherent in pulling together a broad 
     agency with a unified mission.
       I fully supported legislation creating this agency. We knew 
     then that balancing, and probably shifting, among competing 
     priorities would be a challenge. We must do all we can to 
     safeguard the vital interests of the nation from the threat 
     of terrorism. But it remains essential that we don't 
     disregard the need to protect people from other, more likely 
     hazards, especially in areas away from large towns and assets 
     that have been identified by the Department as critical. As 
     evidenced by the Oklahoma City bombing, anyone could be 
     targeted. Also, it is critical to maintain the ability local 
     departments currently have to respond to the things they 
     always have; fires, floods, tornadoes, and crime. In order to 
     do so, I think it is critical to make sure that we keep the 
     lines of communication open between the rule makers and 
     public safety officials.
       To that end, allow me to summarize the administrative 
     issues that seemed to arise most often. Topping almost 
     everyone's list was the desire for more information about 
     terror alert level elevation. Public officials have 
     complained that they learn of the increased alert level from 
     CNN before they hear from DHS. Upon receipt of this 
     information, they are not sure how they should alter their 
     current behavior, if at all. It was suggested in these 
     meetings between my staff and local officials that better 
     intelligence from DHS as to specific threats could eliminate 
     unnecessary cost to departments and limit complacency among 
     citizens.
       Another near-universal concern is the relationship of 
     mandates to funding. The time and manpower needed to complete 
     various emergency management plans come out of local budgets 
     that are already stretched. One county emergency manager in 
     Iowa relayed to my staff that they are required to report on 
     contingency plans in case there is a tidal wave, and they 
     understand that they are not allowed to answer ``not 
     applicable.'' At the same time, these communities are laying 
     off firefighters and police officers due to budget 
     constraints.
       Training requirements are also difficult to cover for many 
     small departments. While they may be reimbursed for the 
     training itself, they may also have to pay overtime to cover 
     for the missing staff. The vast majority of fire departments 
     in Iowa are volunteer, so leaving a duty station for training 
     means using vacation time from a paying job. This costs many 
     departments valuable personnel.
       On the other hand, there are funds flowing for equipment, 
     but localities claim that guidance on how those funds could 
     be best spent is not available from the federal level. If 
     that is the case, is guidance planned in the near future, and 
     if so, would that guidance require further equipment 
     expenditures? I understand that many communities still have 
     cold war era siren alert systems. What is the feasibility of 
     more advanced equipment, like radios, or more advanced siren 
     technology?
       There is broad support for many of the grant formulae, such 
     as Fire Grants, that go straight to local departments from 
     the federal level. I have been a long time supporter of the 
     program, first in the authorization, then as a member of VA/
     HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and 
     now as a member of Homeland Security. It is my hope that DHS 
     will list programs like Assistance to Firefighters, Hazard 
     Mitigation Grants, and Emergency Management Performance 
     Grants individually in its budget request to Congress, and 
     will request increased funding for these accounts in future 
     years as needs grow.
       Law enforcement and first responders are being watchful of 
     government waste. They are worried that we are ``reinventing 
     the wheel.'' It is my hope to work with you to make sure that 
     we do our best to weed out duplicative and overly burdensome 
     requirements so that we may find best practices to more 
     effectively strengthen the nationwide network of first 
     responders.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Harkin,
                                                     U.S. Senator.


                   Summary of Comments From Counties

       Homeland Security Alerts are received via CNN instead of 
     through formal Homeland Security Channels.
       Homeland Security staff at the federal and state level is 
     increasing, but stagnant at the local level. All 
     coordination, reporting, and emergency response is being done 
     at the lowest level, which receives the least funding.
       In order to qualify for grant funds, a great deal of 
     planning efforts and reports are required, but local 
     emergency management cannot spare resources to do this work. 
     Each country needs a full time emergency management staff 
     person.
       All counties have the same requirements regardless of 
     county size or the number of paid employees.
       Many rural communities do not have the means for protecting 
     the community well or sanitary lift station.
       Funds should be used to fix security problems rather than 
     study them.
       More decision making should be local, to respond to the 
     unique needs of the community.

[[Page 19358]]

       More funds are needed for training and to cover overtime 
     for replacement workers when others are away at training.
       Grants are increasingly important with dwindling state and 
     local budget capacity.
       The feasibility of developing regional capabilities for 
     training, planning, exercising and equipment should be 
     explored.
       State, county, and city fiscal restraints, combined with 
     certain other unfunded mandates to local jurisdictions, limit 
     growth of public safety and emergency management budgets.
       Administrative burden of regionalization will be huge and 
     cannot be borne by local jurisdictions without funds or 
     staff.
       Local jurisdictions are just now beginning work on 
     bioterrorism, and have not started work on agriterrorism.
       Due to the specific work that the public health agencies 
     have to accomplish in this federal fiscal year, they are 
     finding it difficult to become leaders in pulling the 
     community resources together for multi-agency planning and 
     are depending upon emergency management to assist in this 
     endeavor.
       Instead of a nationwide security upgrade to level orange, a 
     state by state, or region by region analysis of the situation 
     would be better.
       There is a need to update the sirens or early alert system. 
     Most are 30-40 years old and there is no longer funding 
     available to replace them.
       Food processing sites want to be notified of threats 
     directly when relevant intelligence is received by the 
     Department. The rapid production in many food processing 
     plants require this because of the length of time between 
     processing and distribution.
       Farm Service Agencies and veterinarians expressed concern 
     about the easily spread hoof and mouth disease. The plan for 
     quarantining a contaminated herd is critical. There is no 
     known action plan in the event of this or any other 
     infection. There is talk that the State's Department of 
     Emergency Management is working to compile a plan, but many 
     fear not fast enough.
       Regional storage facilities for equipment would be useful 
     for communities to share equipment they otherwise could not 
     afford.
       Forms are confusing with requirements that don't apply to 
     the state. Some forms require an explanation of country plans 
     in case of tidal wave. The applicant may not answer ``not 
     applicable.''
       Hazmat teams need more funding.
       Interoperability should apply to training as well as 
     equipment.
       Information technology funding is needed.
       Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 hazard mitigation plans 
     require a rework of every community's plan with new standards 
     that are very difficult to meet.
       Training requirements are difficult. There is no 
     compensation to cover overtime to fill in for those away at 
     training. Most fire departments are volunteer, and training 
     requires that firefighters take vacation from paying jobs.
       More training should be available over the internet or the 
     fiber-optics Iowa Communications Network.
       Communities need more education on the nature of possible 
     agriterrorism threats, and how to respond.
       Grants that require a local match can be difficult for 
     small communities to obtain, due to budget constraints.

 Schedule of Staff Meetings with Local Emergency Management and First 
              Responders--Senator Tom Harkin--Summer, 2003

       June 9--Muscatine, Wapello, Mount Pleasant, Burlington, 
     Fort Madison, Keosauqua.
       June 12--Bloomfield, Centerville, Corydon, Chariton, Albia, 
     Ottumwa.
       June 13--Fairfield, Washington, Sigourney, Oskaloosa, 
     Montezuma, Marengo.
       June 16--Iowa City, Tipton, Anamosa.
       June 17--Waverly, Allison, Charles City, Cresco, New 
     Hampton.
       June 18--Osage, Northwood, Mason City, Hampton, Eldora.
       June 19--Waterloo, Independence, Cedar Rapids.
       June 24--Webster City, Fort Dodge, Dakota City, Algona.
       June 25--Forest City, Garner, Clarion.
       June 26--Vinton, Toledo, Grundy Center.
       July 1--Elkader, Waukon, Decorah, West Union.
       July 2--Manchester, Dubuque, Maquoketa.
       July 7--Boone, Jefferson, Guthrie Center, Adel.
       July 8--Nevada, Marshalltown, Newton, Knoxville, Indianola.
       July 10--Bedford, Corning, Atlantic, Greenfield.
       July 11--Clarina, Sidney, Glenwood, Red Oak.
       July 15--Ida Grove, Sac City, Rockwell City, Pocahontas.
       July 16--Logan, Council Bluffs, Audubon, Harlan.
       July 18--Cherokee, Primghar, Sibley, Rock Rapids, Orange 
     City.
       July 21--Spencer, Spirit Lake, Estherville, Emmetsburg.
       July 23--Sioux City, LeMars.
       July 24--Onawa, Denison, Carroll, Winterset, Creston, Mount 
     Ayr, Leon, Osceola.
       July 30--Storm Lake.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the committee 
report to H.R. 2555, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act of 2004, to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security 
fulfills it non-homeland security missions.
  I am pleased that the committee report includes many of the same 
reporting requirements of non-homeland security missions at S. 910, the 
Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003, which I 
introduced on April 11, 2003. My bill, which is cosponsored by Senators 
Carper, Lautenberg, and Durbin, will guarantee the fulfillment of non-
homeland security functions that Americans rely on daily. S. 910 was 
reported out of the Government Affairs Committee unanimously on June 
13, 2003.
  In my view, the reporting requirements in the committee report to 
H.R. 2555 and those in S. 910 achieve similar goals. However, I believe 
the reporting requirements in H.R. 2555 could be improved by including 
the reporting requirements in S. 910.
  The Department of Homeland Security should indicate the management 
flexibilities and personnel used to carry out non-homeland security 
functions; clarify whether any changes are required to the department's 
roles, responsibilities, and organizational structure to enable it to 
fully accomplish its non homeland security functions; and describe the 
management strategy the department will use to fulfill its non-homeland 
security missions.
  Moreover, the report should complement, not duplicate, existing 
reporting requirements the U.S. Coast Guard already provides the 
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General. The department 
should fully describe and evaluate how homeland security and non-
homeland security functions will be fulfilled in government-wide 
performance reports to Congress, and the General Accounting Office 
should evaluate the extent to which the department is implementing the 
provisions in this bill and its non-homeland security missions 
generally.
  This report should be provided annually over a five year period, and 
submitted to the appropriations Committees, Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and the Government Reform Committee.
  The cost of creating a Department of Homeland Security should not 
come at the expense of essential non-homeland security missions.
  I urge that these provisions be included to complement those in the 
Committee Report to H.R. 2555.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since September 11, 2000, Congress has 
provided the President, our military, our intelligence agencies, and 
our Federal law enforcement officials with the resources and tools 
needed to hunt down members of al-Qaida and to break up their 
activities and the activities of other terrorist organizations. In 
addition to the regular appropriations bills that provide funding to 
our troops and our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we have 
passed several supplemental appropriations bills totaling close to $100 
billion to cover the unanticipated costs of these operations.
  Regrettably, the record is not as good when it comes to making our 
homeland and home towns more secure. Within weeks of the 9/11 tragedy, 
Senate Democrats, led by Senator Byrd, launched an effort to begin 
addressing the major gaps in our Nation's efforts to defend itself from 
future attacks. Senator Byrd proposed that we provide $15 billion for 
first responders and to address the vulnerabilities of our Nation's 
transportation system, chemical and nuclear facilities, public health 
system, and borders.
  Sadly, the administration adopted a view that we did not need 
additional resources for homeland defense. Hundreds of billions of 
additional resources for the Pentagon? The administration stated, and I 
agreed, that we must give our troops what they need to wage the war on 
terrorism. Billions in additional resources for intelligence? The 
administration stated, and I agreed, that we needed to strengthen our 
intelligence capabilities. Billions more for Federal law enforcement? 
The administration stated, and I agreed, that Federal law enforcement 
officials needed more resources to tackle the terrorist threat. But for 
some reason, in the immediate

[[Page 19359]]

aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the administration decided to draw the 
line on providing additional resources to protect America and 
Americans. In a November 28, 2001, letter to Senator Byrd, Tom Ridge, 
then the President's Homeland Security Director, said, ``No additional 
resources to protect the homeland beyond what the President has already 
requested are needed at this time.'' No additional resources were 
needed beyond what the President requested before the 9/11 tragedy had 
exposed to America and the world how vulnerable we were to terrorist 
attack.
  And what has happened since then? Study after study has affirmed this 
country's vulnerability to terrorist attack and the need for additional 
resources. According to America--Still Unprepared, Still In Danger, a 
bipartisan study by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart 
published in October, 2002, ``America remains dangerously unprepared to 
prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack.''
  Our newspapers are filled almost daily with reports about the 
vulnerability of various aspects of our economy, our infrastructure, 
and our communities to terrorist attacks. In a follow-up report 
entitled ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' the 
authors concluded, ``Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is 
drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains 
dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American 
soil.'' In the words of Warren Rudman, former Republican Senator and 
one of the principal authors, ``There isn't a place in America today, 
that if we had a nuclear, biological, or a chemical attack, that the 
fire and police departments could respond to it and survive the 
response.''
  Only a small percentage of the 21,000 containers that arrive in our 
ports every day are inspected. Little has been done to enhance the 
security of our Nation's 103 nuclear plants and scores of chemical 
facilities, despite the fact that many of them are located near 
populated areas. According to the EPA, there are 123 chemical 
facilities in 24 States where an attack could expose more than 1 
million people to highly toxic chemicals. Our rail lines carry more 
than 23 million passengers and 40 percent of the Nation's freight. Yet 
the administration has done very little to improve rail security.
  This is only a sample of the many challenges we must confront before 
we can look the American people in the eye and say we have done 
everything we can to make them and their families more secure. Time and 
again, Senate Democrats led by Senator Byrd have led the charge to 
begin addressing these vulnerabilities only to be rebuffed by the 
administration and Senate Republicans.
  By their words and their votes on this bill, Republicans have 
confirmed that the position espoused by Secretary Ridge in the days 
after 9/11 is a position they remain largely committed to today. On the 
bill before us, they defeated Democratic efforts to add resources for 
States and local communities to hire, equip, and train thousands of 
additional police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. 
They have opposed Democratic efforts to provide resources to hire, 
equip, and train more than 1,000 Border and Customs personnel to police 
our porous borders. They voted against Democratic attempts to hire 
1,500 port security personnel to enhance port security. Republicans 
defeated a Democratic effort to provide funds to mass transit agencies 
and our railways. And they opposed a Democratic proposal to provide an 
assessment of the vulnerability of our nuclear and chemical plants to 
terrorist attack.
  Democrats will not give up in our attempts to protect the American 
people. We will return again and again in the days and months ahead to 
see that we provide the resources needed to make our homeland and our 
home towns more secure.
  Finally, before leaving the floor, I would like to say a few words 
about Senator Byrd's latest homeland security effort his amendment to 
help ensure that the homeland security funds we do appropriate are 
spent on the proper priorities and for the proper reasons.
  Hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars will be dedicated to 
homeland security in the coming years. The ethical standing of the 
Federal employees making these life-and-death decisions that affect the 
security of all Americans must be above reproach. Even the appearance 
of impropriety could be damaging.
  Yet news reports indicate at least four of Secretary Ridge's senior 
aides have left government service and are working as homeland security 
lobbyists trying to influence the decisions of their former colleagues. 
Trying to deliver millions of dollars in contracts to their new 
employers.
  Senator Byrd's important amendment merely says we should employ the 
same post-employment ethical standards to homeland security employees 
as we do to Senators and their senior staff. Based on the critical 
nature of their work, we should ask no less of these employees and I 
hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting Senator Byrd's 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other amendments that will 
be offered. I think we are ready for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, the Senate approved a bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense. That bill totaled some 
$368.6 billion. It is an important bill, both in size and in 
importance. That $368.6 billion bill pays our men and women in uniform. 
It pays for all the advanced weapons and technology that make the Armed 
Forces of the United States second to none on the planet. The 
Department of Defense appropriations bill funds the forces and 
activities that keep the United States at the forefront of military 
activities around the globe, protecting American interests and lives as 
well as responding to humanitarian and security crises in distant 
lands.
  That $368.6 billion does not include, mind you, the actual costs of 
the war on terrorism. Our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, aside 
from salaries paid to military personnel, are funded through 
supplemental appropriations--over $60 billion thus far. But that $368.6 
billion does provide the weapons, the forces, the training, and the 
infrastructure that allow the Armed Forces to provide a very high level 
of preparedness, a very high level of readiness, and a very high level 
of security. It provides the means to keep U.S. troops stationed in 
Korea, Japan, and Europe as a uniformed tripwire and global 911 
emergency service. In its unanimous vote in favor of the bill, the 
Senate has indicated its support for that level of funding and for 
fully supporting the men and women serving in our military.
  This week, the Senate has debated an equally important appropriations 
bill. The bill under consideration this week funds the Department of 
Homeland Security. It pays the salaries of the men and women whose job 
it is to keep safe the people of the United States here at home. It 
pays for the advanced technology needed to prepare American communities 
to defend against and respond to attacks against Americans on U.S. soil 
and in U.S. airspace. It pays for the forces, border patrol and 
inspectors strung out along America's vast land and sea borders, 
striving to keep dangerous people and materials out of our vulnerable 
heartland. It pays for America's infrastructure security, America's 
traveling public. In every way and by every measure, the activities 
funded in the homeland security appropriations bill are as important as 
those funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  So how much money will we spend on protecting Americans here at home 
in fiscal year 2004? Well, it is not $368.6 billion. Mr. President, it 
is nowhere close to $368.6 billion. It is not half that amount, or even 
a quarter of that amount. It is just $28.5 billion. In fiscal year 
2004, this bill funds the Department of Homeland Security at $28.5 
billion, almost 13 times less than the amount approved for the 
Department of Defense.

[[Page 19360]]

  Do we care about the world outside our borders 13 times more than we 
care about Americans at home? I do not think so. Do we care about 
guarding Baghdad 13 times more than we care about guarding our own 
borders? I do not think so. Do we care about patrolling the skies over 
Afghanistan and Iraq 13 times more than patrolling the thousands of 
commercial airliners streaking over our heads right now? I do not think 
so.
  I do not believe that this amount is adequate. Over the last year, we 
have all read the press reports about security lapses at our airports, 
border checkpoints, and elsewhere. Things are improving, but not nearly 
fast enough. This bill does not do enough or go far enough to provide 
the Federal resources necessary to assist a community that falls victim 
to a terrorist attack, and it is woefully inadequate to provide 
individual States and communities the resources to prepare themselves 
to respond to such an attack. Indeed, given the number of reservists 
and National Guard troops who have been called into active service, our 
Federal Government is robbing States and communities of critical core 
defenders. If an attack does come, state governors may not have the 
resources on hand to respond effectively, and Federal support may or 
may not materialize in a timely manner, especially if attacks occur at 
a number of places simultaneously. The so-called war on terrorism has 
put troops bristling with arms across the globe, but it is leaving 
America with a hollow core, its towns and communities undefended.
  I know, as does everyone who reads the paper or watches the news, 
what a difficult state the economy is in. I, too, have shaken my head 
at the latest forecast on the size of the deficit. At an estimated $455 
billion, this year's deficit surpasses even the Department of Defense 
budget. We have had a very difficult year in the Appropriations 
Committee, trying to craft bills under these circumstances. But just as 
we should not and will not shortchange the men and women in uniform who 
put their lives on the line every day in Baghdad, Kabul, Seoul, and 
elsewhere, we should not shortchange the families they leave behind and 
the men and women in uniform who patrol our coast, our borders, our 
airports, and our streets, and who prepare every day to face the 
unthinkable of a deadly biological, chemical, or nuclear attack here at 
home.
  These defenders of American security here at home need all the help 
that we can give them. They, too, need new tools to help them face and 
defeat their enemies. They need sensors that can detect toxins and 
pathogens in near real time, so that contaminated areas can be cordoned 
off and proper decontamination procedures initiated. They need 
communications systems that let doctors and epidemiologists track and 
contain disease outbreaks, be they from infected prairie dogs, 
mosquitos, or more nefarious vectors. They need scanners to rapidly and 
effectively check the million of tons of cargo that enter the United 
States every day. They need better ways to protect the free and open 
commerce that will return the United States to a vibrant and growing 
economy. These tools and technologies may not be as sexy and high tech 
as antiballistic missile technology, or as imposing as an Aegis 
cruiser, but they are just as necessary for creating and maintaining 
the security and well-being of our Nation.
  We must not forget that it is the individual communities and their 
State governments that will bear the brunt of any response to a 
terrorist event, just as they bear the brunt of responding to other 
natural and manmade disasters.
  On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked on two fronts, 
in New York and in Washington, DC. Both locations were well served by 
their large emergency response teams of police, firefighters, and 
rescue crews.
  The fact is, every State and every community must be prepared to 
respond, or to assist neighboring communities should multiple attacks 
occur--whether it be Fairmount, WV, or Fairbanks, AK, Chicago, IL, or 
St. Paul, MN. Many communities are not ready. The first line of 
prevention--and defense--is the local and state leadership, not the 
Federal Department of Homeland Security. While the Department of 
Homeland Security fiddles with selecting a common computer operating 
system, the towns around Rome may burn. These communities need 
guidance, and funding, and they need it now. The Department of Homeland 
Security needs to get its game face on and get moving, both to do its 
many jobs better, and to fulfill its role in helping States and local 
governments to prepare for the unthinkable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and 
third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) 
are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is 
absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

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

                                NAYS--1

     Hollings
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bennett
     Dayton
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The bill (H.R. 2555), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments and request a conference with the House and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Craig,

[[Page 19361]]

Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Murray conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

                          ____________________