[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22776-22781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2555.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have 
been in touch with Senator Byrd, who is comanager of this bill, and he 
has no objection to proceeding to this conference report. He simply 
wants to be able to be heard prior to our scheduling a vote on adoption 
of the conference report.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The report will be stated by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2555), making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and 
     for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
     and agree to the same, with an amendment, and the Senate 
     agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on 
     the part of both Houses.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 23, 2003.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is my honor and pleasure to present 
for the Senate's approval today the conference report on H.R. 2555, the 
fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. As all Senators 
know, this is an historic occasion. Not only is this the first 
appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security, but it 
is also the first of the 13 fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill 
conference reports to be presented to the Senate.
  The conference agreement provides total new budget authority for the 
new Department of $34.9 billion, including $4.7 billion in advance 
appropriations for future fiscal years. Of the amount provided for 
fiscal year 2004, $29.4 billion is for discretionary programs. This is 
approximately $1 billion more than the level requested by the 
President. It is also $890 million more than the Senate-passed bill 
level, due to inclusion in the conference report of $890 million in 
fiscal year 2004 funding for biodefense countermeasures, so-called 
BioShield, as recommended in the House bill and the President's 
recently submitted revised budget request.
  To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders 
to prepare for and respond to possible terrorist threats and other 
emergencies, this conference report provides a total of $4.037 billion 
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness. This includes $1.7 billion for 
the State and local formula-based grant programs; $500 million for law 
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; $725 million for high-threat, 
high-density urban area grants; and $750 million for the firefighter 
assistance grant program which will remain a stand-alone program.
  The conference report also includes $180 million for emergency 
management performance grants which will be managed by the Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Directorate.
  The conference report includes a total of $4.5 billion for the 
Transportation Security Administration. Air cargo security was a 
priority of the conference committee, as evidenced by the fact that the 
conference report provides $85 million for air cargo security, which is 
$55 million higher than the President's request. This funding will 
allow the Department to enhance its efforts to identify and prohibit 
the transportation of high-risk cargo on passenger aircraft as well as 
to advance efforts to research, develop, and procure the most effective 
and efficient air cargo inspection and screening systems.
  Additionally, $8.6 billion is provided for the defense of our 
borders; $9.1 billion for emergency preparedness and response; $6.8 
billion for the Coast Guard; and $1.5 billion for research, analysis, 
and infrastructure protection.
  The conference committee met and completed action on Wednesday of 
last week, and the conference report was filed yesterday, September 23. 
It was adopted by the House of Representatives earlier this afternoon 
by a vote of 417 yeas to 8 nays. Senate passage of this conference 
report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 2004 
appropriations bill to the President for his signature into law before 
October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.
  I must acknowledge the assistance and important work by the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Byrd; also the chairman of the House committee, Mr. 
Rogers, and the ranking member of the House subcommittee, Mr. Sabo, for 
their substantial contributions to the development and writing of this 
bill throughout the year.
  We began the year with extensive hearings, reviewing the proposals 
for the budget of all of the directorates and the individual agencies 
that are funded in this bill, which includes the Secret Service, the 
Coast Guard and others. A lot of time has been devoted to understanding 
the missions and responsibilities of the 22 Federal agencies that were 
brought under the jurisdiction of the new Department of Homeland 
Security.
  We have also worked closely and consulted with the distinguished 
Secretary of the Department, Tom Ridge. In my judgment, Secretary Ridge 
is doing an excellent job of starting up this new Department, 
understanding the importance of the mission, and helping our country 
prepare for and prevent terrorist attacks, and prepare for and respond 
to natural disasters.
  The chairmen and ranking members of the full committees have also 
been very helpful in the development of this legislation. We want to 
express our appreciation for their good work and their important 
assistance.
  It is with pleasure and honor that I recommend to the Senate the 
adoption of this conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I understand other Senators, including 
Senator Byrd, may be speaking on this and will be here in a few 
minutes. I thought I would take the opportunity to make some comments 
on a specific provision in this conference report.
  First, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this very 
important appropriations conference report for the new Department of 
Homeland Security, and I am pleased that the chairman of this 
subcommittee is my colleague from Mississippi. He has shown real 
leadership and stamina in getting this done, bringing it to the floor 
of the Senate,

[[Page 22777]]

and holding the line on making sure that what we spend is what we need, 
a reasonable amount, and not allowing it to spiral out of control, 
which it could have very easily.
  He deserves a lot of credit. It went right into conference and 
secured an agreement. This is going to be one of the appropriations 
bills that gets to the President for his signature early. That is the 
way this process should be done, because it is going to be finished 
before the beginning of the next fiscal year. There are not many 
appropriations bills that are going to do that this year or in most 
years.
  I do have a concern and am disappointed with a particular provision 
in this conference report that affects the FAA reauthorization 
conference report. As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, we had 
extensive hearings, as I know this appropriations subcommittee did as 
well, in developing the legislation that led to the FAA reauthorization 
bill. It became very clear early on that one of the major issues that 
we had to confront was how to pay for security capital costs at 
airports. We have additional needs. There are additional costs. Many of 
the airports' lobbies are crowded because they have the new equipment 
that has been installed there to scan our luggage. A lot of additional 
costs have been heaped on the airports, local authorities, and, as a 
matter of fact, the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration.
  The majority of the costs they are dealing with in the airports 
themselves are associated with modifying the airports to install 
explosive detection systems so that the baggage can be fully screened. 
Eventually, we will have to move them out of the lobbies because we 
have lines in airports now outside the buildings. That equipment is 
going to have to be moved.
  The estimated cost associated with these modifications ran up to as 
much as $5 billion. I must say I gulped when I heard that. I have asked 
a lot of questions about just how much is needed and how are we going 
to fund it. That was the natural question to come up.
  In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, as we worked aggressively to deal 
with tighter security at airports, the TSA was allowed to take $500 
million out of the Airport Improvement Program. Those funds are 
supposed to go for improving the airports, for aprons, runways, 
security fences. But that money was diverted, $500 million of it, out 
of the normal AIP program into the security area.
  The Transportation Security Administration came before the committee 
and said: We are going to need another $500 million, and we are going 
to need more and more and more. We made it clear that they could not 
take another $500 million bite out of the airport improvement program, 
which is what they intend to do. But we do see that we need probably at 
least $250 million a year to help airports fund these important 
security projects. So we had to also come up with a way to provide that 
money.
  The way that has been done is a $2.50 security fee that has been 
assessed on all airline passengers. The airlines will tell you that the 
passengers are not paying that fee. They are just having to absorb it. 
Because if they raised ticket prices even a little bit, that would 
affect decisions that passengers make to go a different way or go on 
some other airline. So they maintain they are having to eat that fee. 
Regardless, the actual fee is supposed to be on the passengers.
  I have some problems with that, particularly when you look at how 
that money is really being paid. It is a tremendous cost that is one of 
the issues affecting our airline industry and the ability of airlines 
to make a profit and to stay in business.
  So I actually considered the idea of eliminating this fee. The other 
side of the coin is that we have to come up with some way, if we are 
going to provide for these security changes, to pay for them. While I 
think everybody has a responsibility to assume some of the cost--the 
Federal Government and local governments, perhaps, and airport 
authorities--the people themselves are getting additional security. So 
we decided to leave the fee in place.
  Now, in my view, that is kind of like the highway trust fund. It is a 
fee charged for a specific purpose: aviation security. It should be 
used for that purpose, and that purpose should include airport 
security. For years, the highway trust fund money was held in the trust 
to make the deficit look lower than it really was. It was also quite 
often used in ways other than highways and bridges, and it has 
continued to change. On the last highway bill, we had a big discussion 
about that. The budget people wanted to keep some of that money in the 
trust fund to help with the budget numbers; the appropriators didn't 
want to mandate that that money be spent, even though we needed 
highways and bridges. We came up with a compromise that the Budget 
Committee and appropriators could live with, and we spent more money 
and built more roads and bridges.
  This is how I view a fee being paid for security at the airports. We 
said it would go into a fund where it would be earmarked for that 
purpose. The Appropriations Committee indicated that that was a problem 
for them because they don't like, understandably, that this money is 
earmarked in a particular area. They say the Appropriations Committee 
will look at that and make those decisions. Therefore, in the Homeland 
Security conference report, even though I thought we had worked our 
disagreement out, we originally had a fund of $500 million and we went 
to $250 million, leaving money that could be used for discretionary 
purposes, the appropriators chose to override the authorizing 
committee. That is the way it went through the Senate, with Senator 
Cochran raising concerns at the time the FAA Reauthorization was on the 
floor, but I thought it was with an understanding to allow the process 
to move forward.
  Now the conference report knocks that provision out--it is kind of 
novel because the appropriations conference report knocks out a section 
in a bill that has not yet been passed. That was a little unusual, I 
thought. But I do think money that is paid by the passengers as a 
security fee for purposes such as airport security should be spent for 
that purpose, at a level designated by the authorizing committee. It 
should not be left to the discretion of the appropriators or anybody 
else to spend it at a level they see fit, although they may be spending 
the money on justified programs in other aviation areas of the 
Transportation Security Administration.
  So I am concerned about this. This bill is too important for our 
country, it affects too many people, and there are too many things to 
be delayed. I would not do that. I wanted to go on record expressing my 
disappointment particularly in this section--how it was done--and say 
that if we are not going to mandate spending this money for airport 
security, it would be my desire to eliminate the fees. That may be 
where we will have to go next year. For now, this is a small part of a 
very large bill, although I think it is an important one. I had to 
raise my concerns and my objections, while not being prepared, of 
course, to delay this important legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments made by my 
good friend and State colleague, who is chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee.
  When the FAA bill was on the floor, I offered an amendment to strike 
that language, which would have reduced resources available to meet the 
Department of Homeland Security requirements for aviation security. 
That amendment was adopted without an objection.
  Madam President, I would like to briefly explain the order in which 
these events occurred and the reason for providing the funding 
prohibition that was included in this conference report.
  On June 12 the Senate considered H.R. 2115, the Vision 100-Century of 
Aviation Reauthorization Act reauthorizing Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) activities. The FAA reauthorization bill contained 
language that established a new entitlement for

[[Page 22778]]

the Transportation Security Administration, an Aviation Security 
Capital Fund, by earmarking the first $500 million derived from the 
aviation security service fees which are currently available and relied 
on as an offset to funding appropriated by Congress for aviation 
security.
  This provision would have directed $500 million used by the 
Transportation Security Administration to offset the funds appropriated 
by Congress for aviation security. During consideration of the bill, I 
offered an amendment with Senator Byrd that would instead ``authorize 
to be appropriated to the Fund up to $500 million for each of the 
fiscal years 2004 through 2007'' for security improvements at our 
Nation's airports.
  This amendment was adopted by the Senate without objection. However, 
when the FAA reauthorization bill was reported from conference, the 
language of that amendment was reversed. The conference agreement 
included $250 million in direct spending, not subject to appropriation, 
to be taken from the offsetting fee collections. The concerns raised 
that the Department of Homeland Security would have to take a cut in 
its budget for aviation security to offset this new entitlement were 
not taken into consideration.
  There is no argument that our nation's airports need the resources to 
make structural changes for the safety and security of the traveling 
public. We have provided funding to address these needs in this 
conference report. We would not have been able to do this without the 
inclusion of the provision prohibiting the reduction of offsetting 
collections.
  I ask unanimous consent at this point that a letter to me from the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on this subject, dated 
June 11, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the 
           Secretary,
                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 2003.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration appreciates the 
     continued support of Congress for improvements in the 
     security of the Nation's civil aviation system and supports 
     Senate passage of S. 824, the Aviation Investment and 
     Revitalization Vision Act (Air-V). However, the 
     Administration opposes a provision in S. 824 that would 
     divert fees collected for security activities for purposes 
     other than the provision of direct security services.
       With the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress identified 
     the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the focal point 
     of the federal government's homeland security efforts, with 
     the mission of preventing terrorist attacks and reducing the 
     nation's vulnerability to terrorism. While the Department 
     welcomes and appreciates the assistance of other agencies in 
     improving security, any diversion of security fees, such as 
     that proposed in S. 824, would directly undermine the 
     Department's ability to fulfill its mission. Air-V would 
     establish an Aviation Security Capital Fund that is both 
     outside the control of the Department and funded by diverting 
     $500 million per year of passenger and air carrier security 
     fees collected by the Transportation Security Administration 
     (TSA). This would diminish the Department's funding capacity. 
     As you know, the direct annual costs of operating the 
     aviation security system are not fully offset by these fees, 
     and diverting fee revenue for other purposes clearly weakens 
     the intended financing structure of TSA set forth in the 
     Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Diversion of the 
     fees into a fund outside of DHS undermines the ability of the 
     Administration to apply these resources to the most pressing 
     security needs.
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to ensure that the version of the bill presented to the 
     President eliminates this objectionable provision.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program, to the submission of these views for the 
     consideration of the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Ridge.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I think it is important for us to continue to discuss 
and consider the appropriate way to deal with these fees and funds that 
are used for airport security. I assure my friend from Mississippi that 
I want to consider his suggestions and thoughts, and those of his 
committee, as we proceed in the administration of these programs. I 
want to see that the fees are fair for the airlines, fair for 
passengers, that they achieve the results we all want, which are 
improved airport security and the security and safety of the traveling 
public. I hope we can do that and work out an appropriate way of 
handling this issue in the future.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it seems to be the ill fortune--the ill 
fortune--of the present occupant of the chair to have to find himself 
in the chair when I make speeches. It seems that every time I make a 
speech, the Senator from Texas is in the chair.
  Well, I am glad to see him there. He is a good Presiding Officer. He 
is alert to what is going on on the floor. He listens, and he is always 
very pleasant, congenial, and I congratulate him, because sitting in 
the chair while I speak makes it very difficult for any Senator to 
carry on his other necessary activities--the work in his office and 
meeting with constituents and so on. So I not only congratulate him, I 
also thank him.
  Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate finds itself with the first 
Homeland Security appropriations conference report before it. I thank 
Senate Chairman Thad Cochran, House Chairman Harold Rogers, and the 
ranking member on the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, 
Representative Martin Sabo, and all of the House and Senate conferees 
for their hard work on this important legislation. We all share the 
goal of ensuring that the new Homeland Security Department has the 
resources it needs to secure the homeland.
  The conference report that is before the Senate provides $29.4 
billion for discretionary programs for fiscal year 2004 for the new 
Department. With the limited resources that were made available under 
the budget resolution, the conference agreement is fair and balanced. 
And so much of that is due to the fair and balanced approach that the 
distinguished chairman here, Senator Thad Cochran, always displays. It 
comes as a habit to him. It is just second nature.
  This bill provides a $1 billion increase over the President's 
request, and it makes a number of significant improvements in the 
organization of the Department.
  In particular, I am pleased that the conference agreement includes 
language that will ensure that the new airline passenger screening 
system, known as CAPS II, will not be deployed before February 15, 
2004, until the General Accounting Office has had the ability to review 
and report on the personal privacy protections, including an appeal 
process for individuals who are prevented from flying because the 
system has identified them as a security risk.
  Funds are included, consistent with the Senate bill, to enhance 
border security--none of which were requested by the President--
including funds for an additional 570 Border Patrol agents and funds to 
establish a northern border air wing.
  Mr. President, $60 million is included to begin the development of an 
antimissile device for commercial aircraft.
  The conference agreement restates both House and Senate language 
regarding full funding of antidumping enforcement provisions as well as 
calling on the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to rigorously 
enforce trade laws pertaining to steel imports.
  The conference agreement is good for disaster-prone States. The bill 
contains $200 million for flood map modernization, which is the largest 
amount ever appropriated for this account. Further, the bill strikes a 
balance between premitigation and postmitigation grants. The bill 
contains $150 million for predisaster mitigation grants, so

[[Page 22779]]

that States have access to funds that help them to plan for and prevent 
damage from disasters.
  The bill also continues to fund postdisaster mitigation, which is 
made available to States as a percentage of disaster relief money 
received from FEMA. The President had proposed to eliminate funding for 
postdisaster mitigation.
  The conference agreement provides $180 million for emergency 
management performance grants. These grants allow States and localities 
to develop basic emergency preparedness and response capabilities. This 
program is the only Department of Homeland Security grant program that 
is focused on all hazards, such as terrorist attacks, floods, and 
building collapses. The administration had recommended rolling this 
program into the ODP State grants program.
  As Hurricane Isabel confirmed, we must make sure that this new 
Department of Homeland Security maintains its ability to respond to 
natural disasters, while preventing and responding to terrorist 
attacks. These are all significant improvements over the program 
proposed by the President.
  Regrettably, even with these improvements, the conference agreement 
leaves significant gaps in the security of our homeland. After 9/11, 
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the Enhanced 
Border Security Act. The President signed these measures with great 
fanfare, but the President has done little to fulfill the promise of 
those laws.
  The inadequate allocation given to the subcommittee has forced the 
conferees to underfund a number of these critical new authorities.
  Last Wednesday, I offered an amendment in conference to add $1.25 
billion of emergency funding to the bill to secure the homeland by 
funding some of the authorities that the President had signed into law 
after 9/11 but failed to fund. The amendment included funding for port 
security, aviation security, chemical security, first responder grants, 
and for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program. The White House opposed and 
the Republicans rejected the amendment.
  On the same day, last Wednesday, the President sent to Congress a 
supplemental request for his war in Iraq that totals $87 billion. No 
funding was requested to help secure our homeland. Yet included in his 
request was $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, of which $5.1 
billion is for homeland security in Iraq.
  If my amendment had been approved, the conference report that is 
before the Senate would have included $125 million more to hire 1,300 
more Customs inspectors on our U.S. borders, $200 million more for 
first responder grants to equip and train police and firefighters here 
at home, and $100 million for the U.S. Coast Guard to secure our ports.
  Instead, next week, the Senate will be considering the President's 
request for reconstructing Iraq, including $290 million for Iraqi fire 
departments; $150 million for Iraqi border enforcement, including 2,500 
customs inspectors; $150 million for an Iraqi ``911'' emergency system; 
$499 million for Iraqi prisons; and $82 million for an Iraqi coast 
guard.
  I continue to maintain that the Senate should take some time to 
review the President's supplemental request for the cost of the war in 
Iraq. We should hold further hearings in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. We should hear from outside witnesses, not just 
administration witnesses. The Senate should not act as a rubberstamp 
for any President. I find it more than ironic that the Bush 
administration would oppose homeland security protections for American 
citizens but ask Congress to express dollars to Iraq for security 
efforts there.
  With regard to the Homeland Security conference report that is before 
us, I again thank Chairman Cochran and his staff for their hard work in 
producing the first Homeland Security appropriations conference report. 
I also thank my own staff in this regard, and I thank all of the 
subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs as 
well. While this conference report does not include sufficient 
resources to fund many of the new homeland security programs that this 
Congress authorized in response to the attacks of 9/11, it is a 
significant improvement over the President's request. I support its 
adoption.
  The chairman would have done more if he had had more funds with which 
to do it. I again thank him for his many courtesies. I thank the floor 
staff and the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia for his kind words, his compliments to me and the members 
of our staff. He also devoted a great deal of personal attention and 
effort to the development of this legislation, and his experience and 
good judgment have been invaluable in the presentation of this 
conference report to the Senate today.
  I know of no other Senators who are seeking to speak on the 
conference report at this time. Not wanting to leave anyone out of the 
debate who wants to join in, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support the Homeland Security 
appropriations conference report today because this funding is vital to 
our first responders and all of those responsible for protecting us. I 
am disappointed that the conference committee rejected additional 
funding for first responders, port security grants, aviation security, 
additional Customs inspectors at our borders and other protective 
measures. At a time when homeland security should be a top priority, we 
should not be underfunding these programs.
  In addition to inadequate funding, the grant formula that is used to 
distribute funding under the Office of Domestic Preparedness State 
Homeland Security Grant Program is inequitable and needs to be changed. 
This program distributes funds using a minimum State funding formula 
that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of the funds to be divided 
equally among the States, regardless of need. Many Federal grant 
programs provide a minimum State funding level to ensure funds reach 
all areas of the country. But the State minimum formula in this 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which is taken 
from the USA Patriot Act and sets aside 0.75 percent of the total funds 
as a base for each State, is unusually high and therefore inequitable. 
I will continue to work to change this formula so that funding is 
allocated in an equitable and reasonable manner.
  I am also disappointed that this bill does not sufficiently address a 
problem known as ``corporate inversions.'' As young men and women are 
putting their lives on the line for us and our country, some 
corporations have put profits before patriotism by pretending to 
reincorporate in Bermuda or some other offshore tax haven to avoid 
paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. This process is called corporate 
inversion. It is unfair, it is founded on a deception, it mistreats the 
average American taxpayer, and it undercuts U.S. corporations that do 
pay their taxes. A company simply set up a shell headquarters 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.
  I am disappointed that the conferees chose to allow a special benefit 
to these unpatriotic companies to continue to exist. Back in July, when 
this

[[Page 22780]]

body debated the bill before us, the Senate adopted the amendment I 
offered with Senator Reid that disqualified these unpatriotic companies 
from competing for homeland security contracts. Unfortunately, the 
conference committee dropped this amendment from the bill, so those who 
have engaged in these so-called inversion transactions in past years 
can still enter into homeland security contracts.
  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.
  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. Those that engaged in these specious 
inversion transaction 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. The competitive 
advantage these inverters enjoy vis-a-vis every other U.S. company, 
therefore remains undisturbed.
  Senator Reid and I, along with other of our colleagues, have 
introduced a bill that would deny tax benefits to U.S. companies that 
invert by continuing to treat them as U.S. companies for tax purposes. 
This bill would not only level the playing field between these 
companies and their U.S. competitors, it would also save other U.S. 
taxpayers from having to make up an estimated $4.9 billion in lost tax 
revenues over the next 10 years.
  I hope that we will soon have an opportunity to act on this 
legislation in order to address this problem.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2004.
  I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member. They and 
their staffs need to be congratulated on successfully reporting and 
conferencing the very first Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  The pending bill provides $30.2 billion in total budget authority and 
$31.0 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. The Senate bill is 
$1.4 billion in BA and outlays above the President's budget request.
  The pending bill funds the program of the Department of Homeland 
Security, including the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, 
the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Secret Service, 
the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and several other offices and 
activities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  H.R. 2555, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS, 2004: SPENDING
                     COMPARISONS: CONFERENCE REPORT
               [Fiscal year 2004, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        General
                                        purpose    Mandatory     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget authority..................     29,411         831      30,242
  Outlays...........................     30,110         847      30,957
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..................     28,521         831      29,352
  Outlays...........................     29,737         847      30,584
2003 level:
  Budget authority..................     28,269         889      29,158
  Outlays...........................     27,558         818      28,376
President's request:
  Budget authority..................     28,004         831      28,835
  Outlays...........................     28,581         847      29,428
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..................     29,411         831      30,242
  Outlays...........................     30,500         847      31,347
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority..................     28,521         831      29,352
  Outlays...........................     29,737         847      30,584
 
                     CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO--
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority..................        890   ..........        890
  Outlays...........................        373   ..........        373
2003 level:
  Budget authority..................      1,142         (58)      1,084
  Outlays...........................      2,552          29       2,581
President's request:
  Budget authority..................      1,407   ..........      1,407
  Outlays...........................      1,529   ..........      1,529
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority..................  ..........  ..........  ..........
  Outlays...........................       (390)  ..........       (390)
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority..................        890   ..........        890
  Outlays...........................        373   ..........        373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 9/24/2003.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference agreement on the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security 
includes funding for the Project Bioshield proposal, a $5.6-billion 
initiative proposed in the President's 2004 budget to develop and 
purchase countermeasures to combat public health threats.
  The appropriation itself is very unusual, providing 10 years' worth 
of discretionary program funding all at once, with $890 million for 
2004 and essentially a gigantic $4.7 billion ``advance'' appropriation 
to cover the next 9 years. Further, this funding is being provided 
without authorization, since that bill, S. 15, has been blocked from 
consideration in the Senate by a small minority of Senators.
  I am very concerned about appropriating this much money for any 
purpose without a proper authorization. I am equally concerned about 
protecting the integrity of the budget due to the proposal's 
unconventional use of advance appropriations authority. It is rare to 
provide 10 years' worth of appropriations to a program in one fell 
swoop, and it opens the door to future ``piggy-banking'' or redirection 
of those funds.
  My colleagues may remember that Congress decided in the 2001 budget 
resolution to begin limiting the use of advance appropriations since 
they had become a way to avoid annual spending limits. The potential to 
abuse advance appropriations for scoring purposes was never more 
clearly illustrated that with the recent consideration of the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill in the Senate, as amendment after amendment altered 
the timing of advance appropriations and claimed it as an ``offset.''
  Since the potential for redirecting, rescinding, delaying, or 
accelerating the $4.7 billion Bioshield advance appropriation presents 
too great a temptation, the HELP Committee Chairman Judd Gregg is 
working with me to prevent these abuses by creating a new scorekeeping 
rule to protect the unique purpose of this funding. The rule would 
ensure that any funding for Bioshield will be spent on that program, or 
not spent at all, by providing that any legislation changing the 
availability of the funds will not be scored for purposes of budget 
enforcement. However, until the authorization bill including our 
protections is enacted, the budget remains at risk.
  Since the President originally requested that Bioshield be a 
mandatory spending program, the 2004 budget resolution did not provide 
for its consideration as a discretionary spending program. Thus, my 
colleagues should be aware that its inclusion in this bill subjects the 
entire bill to a 60-vote point of order.
  I plan to take whatever steps are necessary this year, and in next 
year's budget resolution, to ensure that this program is properly 
authorized and that the integrity of the budget is protected. I look 
forward to working with our leader and my fellow committee chairmen in 
this regard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the primary purposes of the Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, are to prevent terrorist attacks within the 
United States; to reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism; and, to 
minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur. The 
fledgling agency has begun to address many of the challenges presented 
it, including the monumental restructuring of 22 domestic Federal 
agencies. The Appropriation Committee's role is to provide the DHS the 
funds necessary to continue to carry out its important missions. I am 
pleased that, in this first homeland security appropriations bill, the 
agency's priorities were, for the most part, placed above the special 
interests'.
  The conference report and the accompanying Statement of Managers is 
relatively free of objectionable provisions. There are, however, a 
couple of provisions that merit the attention of my colleagues.

[[Page 22781]]

  One such provision would prohibit any funds from being used to 
implement section 44922(h) of title 49. Interestingly, there is no such 
section under existing law.
  So why have the appropriators taken action to prohibit the 
implementation of a provision of law that doesn't exist? Well, the FAA 
reauthorization conference report, which has yet to be voted on by the 
full Senate, includes such a section that we expect will become law as 
soon as we can take final action on the bill and send it to the 
President for his signature.
  The FAA reauthorization conference report provision would provide 
$250 million per year to airports for capital costs associated with 
security at our Nation's airports. We received testimony during our 
many oversight hearings on aviation security that such costs could 
total almost $5 billion. Therefore, the FAA conference report 
appropriately provides funding for such costs.
  Do the appropriators disagree that such funding is needed? Apparently 
not, since the DHS conference report actually contains on appropriation 
of $250 million--exactly the same amount as the FAA bill--for such 
costs. So what is behind the appropriators' actions?
  Given that the DHS conference report doesn't provide an explanation, 
one can only conclude they want to ensure complete and total control, 
as usual, even if it means taking action to nullify a provision not in 
their jurisdiction and that has not even been enacted.
  The funding under the FAA conference report is taken from the revenue 
collected by the $2.50 security fee imposed on all airline passengers. 
That fee was first established by legislation originating in the 
Commerce Committee after the September 11 attacks. The legislation also 
specified that the revenue could be used by the appropriators to help 
pay for the costs of aviation security.
  The FAA conference report simply expands the uses of the fee revenue 
to include capital security costs at airports. The report also makes 
the money available directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
without further appropriation.
  Our Nation's security, including the very important issue of aviation 
security, which the Congress has spent considerable time and attention 
addressing, should not be jeopardized due to needless jurisdictional 
fights. It is unfortunate that such a provision was included in such an 
important funding bill without any consultation with the authorizing 
committee of jurisdiction. I would hope we could do better for the sake 
of our Nation's security interests.
  In addition, I am concerned about a provision in the conference 
report that would transfer funding for the Assistance to Firefighters 
Grant program from the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency 
Preparedness and Response Directorate to the Office for Domestic 
Preparedness.
  The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program is a highly successful 
Federal program created to meet the basic day-to-day needs of our 
Nation's firefighters. The program uses a competitive, merit-based 
review process to distribute funds directly to fire departments 
demonstrating the greatest need. Grants under this program are used for 
improving local response to ``all-hazards,'' including wildfires, 
hazardous materials accidents, tornadoes, floods, and structural fires, 
and are not solely for antiterrorism efforts.
  I am greatly concerned about the effects of this transfer on the 
program. ODP has little experience at running merit-based programs, 
such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. ODP is focused on 
counter-
terrorism, and may not have the experience necessary to understand the 
basic requirements of today's firefighter to deal with non-terrorism 
related disasters.
  I understand that the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget 
submission seeks to transfer this grant program to ODP. However, 
changes to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program should be made 
after a thorough review and subsequent legislative changes by the 
appropriate authorizing committees, not as a provision in an 
appropriations bill.
  Compared to other appropriations measures, the conference report and 
Statement of Managers contain fewer objectionable provisions and 
earmarks. I would hope future appropriations measures follow suit.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no other Senators who wish to 
speak on the adoption of the conference report on the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. We are prepared to proceed to a vote on the 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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 Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has acted 
favorably on this conference report. Before we leave the subject, I 
have to express my appreciation to the members of the staff of our 
subcommittee in the Senate on our side of the aisle who worked so hard 
to make this conference report a reality. This was breaking new ground; 
there is no precedent for this bill. This is a historic event and a lot 
of hard work went into writing the bill and guiding it to passage on 
the floor of the Senate and then working out our differences with the 
other body.
  I am pleased that the Senate has unanimously adopted the conference 
report. I especially want to express my appreciation to Rebecca Davies, 
chief clerk of the subcommittee, and to the other staff members who 
assisted her in the hard work that was done in furtherance of our 
efforts to get a bill, including Les Spivey, Rachelle Schroeder, Carol 
Cribbs, James Hayes, and Josh Manley. They all deserve our thanks and 
congratulations for a job well done.

                          ____________________