[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17594-17616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, under a 
previous order, following the adjournment of the Senate yesterday, H.R. 
5005, making supplemental appropriations, was received from the House 
and considered passed by the Senate.
  Also for the information of the Senate, all after the enacting clause 
of H.R. 4567, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, has been 
stricken. The text of S. 2537 has been inserted in lieu thereof and 
considered original text for the purpose of further amendments, and no 
points of order have been waived.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to present this 
appropriations bill to the Senate. It is the culmination of a lot of 
hard work by all of the members of our subcommittee, as we conducted 
hearings to review the proposed budget from the Department of Homeland 
Security, and as we listened to those who have responsibilities for 
managing the various directorates and other agencies and activities 
that come within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Homeland 
Security Department.
  We learned a lot in the hearings. We learned about new procedures 
that were being developed and deployed. We learned about new 
technologies that were being explored. In the bioterrorism area, we 
were learning about the research that is being done to make our 
capacity more sophisticated and capable of protecting the health and 
safety of all Americans from attacks in that area.
  We have been challenged as we have never been challenged before to 
look again carefully at how we go about protecting the citizens of our 
great country. The experience of September 11, of course, stays in our 
mind as something that is unthinkable. The fact that it did happen is 
still unbelievable, and we realize that we have the responsibility--
representatives of the people of this country serving in Congress 
today--to try to get it right so that kind of thing can't happen again.
  We are blessed to be served in the administration by people such as 
Tom Ridge, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 
The President recommended this new Department be created. The Congress 
responded. The Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I served at 
that time, dealt with the challenge of the legal framework of defining 
the responsibilities of a new department and what activities would come 
under the Department. We brought together under this one Department 22 
different Federal agencies, or at least parts of 22 different agencies. 
Some, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, were transferred underneath the 
jurisdictional responsibility of the Department to help make our effort 
more coherent, more effectively and efficiently managed, and to achieve 
the goal of making our country safer and more secure for the citizens 
who live in the United States. I think we have made great progress.
  This bill specifically provides funding of $33.1 billion for the 
Department of Homeland Security for this next fiscal year, 2005. This 
is the second appropriations bill to fund the Department which began 
its operations short of a year and a half ago. The new Department has 
made substantial progress to merge the agency functions and the 
employees who were transferred under its responsibilities and to 
undertake its new duties to better secure and more effectively protect 
our great Nation.
  We also have seen a new system put in place called the US VISIT 
Program to screen visaholders and to stop potential terrorists and 
those who may be dangerous, because they have committed crimes in the 
past, from entering our country to start with. US VISIT, through 
biometrics and other new innovations, has already identified, 
apprehended, or arrested more than 400 individuals. Through the science 
and technology directorate, the Department has aggressively moved 
forward on the successful testing of the first commercial portal 
monitors and handheld radiological identifiers to detect the smuggling 
of materials which could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. 
Federal air marshals have been deployed. State-of-the-art technologies 
have been introduced, and cockpit doors have been modified to increase 
the safety of air travel.

[[Page 17595]]

  I know there can be criticism leveled at the efforts of the 
Transportation Security Administration which has been the agency 
identified with the responsibility for overseeing aviation security and 
many other areas of responsibility. But let me remind Senators--and 
this is contained in our committee report--I invite the attention of 
the Senate to the report, on page 31, where we talk about aviation 
security. My good friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
mentioned people who might bring in bombs or material that can be used 
as explosives to blow up planes and otherwise harm us.

       The Transportation Security Administration aviation 
     security account [in this legislation] provides for Federal 
     aviation security by employing the most efficient screening 
     of all passengers and baggage, deployment of onsite law 
     enforcement, continuation of a uniform set of background 
     requirements for airport and airline personnel, deployment of 
     the most current explosive detection technology, and creation 
     of a model workplace.
       The aviation security activities include funding for 
     Federal and private contract passenger and baggage screeners, 
     including personnel compensation and benefits, training, and 
     human resource services; passenger checkpoint support; air 
     cargo security; procurement and maintenance of explosive 
     detection systems; and checkpoint support.

  I suggest that the $4,386,083,000 for aviation security contained in 
this bill is designed to meet the needs we have for improved and safer 
air travel, working with the airlines who are spending their own money 
in many of these and other areas. I suggest we have the safest air 
transportation system in the world. And we are going to continue to 
monitor the activities. We are going to continue to engage in oversight 
and interaction with the Federal agencies involved, as well as 
Department of Homeland Security officials, to see that we stay on 
course and that we continue to upgrade, improve, and take advantage of 
the latest technologies to guarantee the safety and security of 
American citizens.
  Looking at another area, efforts have been undertaken to increase our 
stockpile of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medications to protect 
Americans in the event of a terrorist attack and to identify and 
develop new countermeasures to protect Americans against new biological 
threats. Today our first responders, those who work at the fire 
departments, the police departments, the emergency medical centers, 
have been provided with resources from the Federal Government to buy 
necessary equipment, to increase training to better protect our 
communities throughout the country.
  Including the resources in this bill we are presenting today to the 
Senate, over $12 billion will have been appropriated to our State and 
local partners across the country, over $2.5 billion to firefighters 
alone.
  The Department of Homeland Security has made important strides in 
this last year. The bill we present to you today will allow the 
Department to continue to build on its success and make our Nation even 
more secure.
  If Senators look at the provisions in the bill, they will see that it 
reflects suggestions made by Senators on both sides of the aisle. This 
is a bipartisan bill. It is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill, 
it is an American bill. It is a bill to protect the safety and security 
of all Americans. Our committee held hearings and listened to every 
suggestion made by all Senators for the levels of appropriations for 
all of these activities.
  This is the second year of this bill, as I said, but I think we have 
made important strides forward. I particularly thank again the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his cooperation, his 
support, and his assistance during the development of this bill and the 
conduct of our hearings and the presentation of the final work product 
to the Senate today.
  I am going to close my remarks--and I will be prepared to receive any 
suggestions for changes in the bill or amendments or other statements 
from Senators--by quoting from something Tom Ridge said with which I 
was particularly impressed. Our Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security said:

       Homeland security is about the integration of a nation, 
     everyone pledged to freedom's cause, everyone its protector, 
     and everyone its beneficiary. It's about the integration of 
     people and technology to make us smarter, safer, more 
     sophisticated, and better protected. It's about the 
     integration of our national efforts, not one department or 
     one organization, but everyone tasked with our Nation's 
     protection. Every day, we work to make America more secure. 
     Every day, the memories of September 11th inspire us to live 
     our vision of preserving our freedoms, protecting America, 
     enjoying our liberties, and securing the homeland.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senate now has before it the fiscal year 2005 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. I commend subcommittee Chairman 
Cochran and I commend him highly. I commend his staff for their work on 
this important legislation. We had an excellent series of hearings this 
year that I believe helped the subcommittee to produce a bill that 
contains significant improvements to the President's request.
  I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front 
lines of homeland security. We need to give these men and women the 
tools they need to do their jobs in order to support their strong 
commitment to serve the Nation every hour of every day of every week of 
every month.
  On August 1, 2004, Secretary Tom Ridge increased the threat level for 
New York, New Jersey, and our Nation's Capital, to Code Orange, a high 
risk of terrorist attacks. This is the sixth time since September 11, 
2001, that the threat level has been increased to Code Orange.
  On July 14, Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said, ``In the Summer 
of 2001, we had ample warning of attack, but we didn't know anything 
about specificity: timing, targets, and so forth. But we did have 
conviction that something big was coming at us. We have that same 
conviction now.''
  On July 8, Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller 
announced that al-Qaida cells are operating in the United States and 
that multiple simultaneous attacks are possible before the November 
elections.
  In late May, the Attorney General announced that he had credible 
intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaida plans to hit the 
United States hard in the next few months.
  In the weeks following the Madrid railway bombings, the Washington 
Post reported that the President informed the Republican congressional 
leadership that he was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a 
major attack on the United States before the November elections.
  It is past time that we begin debating this legislation as we 
approach the 3 year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and as 
Congress reviews the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 
Commission concluded that the terrorists who are intent on doing us 
harm are so cunning and agile, and sufficiently knowledgeable about 
this country that they would schedule their attacks when Congress was 
in session. These reports also indicate that on September 11, 2001, our 
Government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such 
attacks. I believe that we are still not prepared.
  The bill before the Senate provides $33.1 billion, a level that is 
$896 million above the President's request. Regrettably, the allocation 
that is available for homeland security programs is inadequate. This is 
not a criticism of Chairman Cochran, nor is it a criticism of full 
committee Chairman Ted Stevens.
  The fact is that limits placed on homeland security funding by the 
Bush White House constrain our ability to address known threats to the 
safety of the American people.
  In response to the danger of terror attacks so often invoked by the 
President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
and the FBI Director, it is hard to believe that the President would 
not request supplemental appropriations for securing our mass transit 
systems, for screening airline passengers for explosives, for 
inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing 
inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal air 
marshals. When

[[Page 17596]]

the threat level was elevated to Code Orange, why did the President not 
seek a supplemental? Why does he not amend his fiscal year 2005 budget 
request to increase his anemic 2-percent proposed increase for the 
Department of Homeland Security? Why in Heaven's name?
  Why, indeed, does the Department seem satisfied with a go-slow, 
business-as-usual approach to homeland security? The Department issued 
advice to mass transit systems for improving security, but provided no 
funding to increase law enforcement presence, or to deploy canine 
teams. Despite a 6-percent increase in airline flights this year, the 
Department has allowed the number of Federal air marshals to shrink 
precipitously--by 9 percent--and the President's budget would result in 
even deeper reductions next year. Despite concerns about the safety of 
our borders, the Department, in March, imposed a hiring freeze on 
Customs officers and immigration inspectors. What could possibly drive 
such decisions?
  Millions of dollars that Congress approved for port security, bus 
security, and hazardous materials grants 11 months ago have not been 
awarded. Why? Millions of dollars that Congress approved in February of 
2003, 18 months ago, for the purchase of additional emergency equipment 
for the 28 Urban Search and Rescue teams have not been spent. Why? 
Having this money sit in Washington, DC, does not make American 
citizens any safer.
  As a result of the President's decision not to seek supplemental 
appropriations, the Transportation Security Administration was forced 
to cut funding for training passenger and baggage screeners and for 
purchasing equipment for airport checkpoints by $38 million. I am one 
Senator who believes that this administration is playing with fire.
  It has been 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe 
bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with 
explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Just 2 weeks ago, two 
Russian planes were simultaneously blown out of the sky. Preliminary 
investigations indicate that the planes were destroyed by explosives 
carried onto the planes by passengers. The 9/11 Commission concluded 
that we must give priority attention to screening passengers for 
explosives. Are we any closer to deploying a national system that could 
check passengers for explosives? The answer is no.
  It has been over 2\1/2\ years since the Congress passed the USA 
PATRIOT Act and set a goal of tripling the border patrol and customs 
officers on the northern border. Have we met the goal? Again, no. We 
are 1,428 officers short of the goal.
  It has been nearly 3 years since 9/11, when police and firemen in the 
World Trade Center could not talk to each other on their radios. As the 
9/11 Commission concluded, many first responders failed to get the 
order to evacuate the towers, causing hundreds of them to perish. Are 
we any closer to providing police and firemen across the nation with 
interoperable communications equipment? Sadly, the answer is no.
  The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this 
country, each of which, if attacked, could harm over 1 million people. 
In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, 
which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a 
threat warning that al-Qaida may attempt to launch conventional attacks 
on nuclear or chemical plants. A year and a half later, has the 
Department actually hardened the security of the chemical plants? You 
guessed it, no.
  I simply do not understand why this administration thinks that 
homeland security is not important enough to fund. The President 
campaigns on being the best candidate to protect this Nation, yet each 
and every budget that he sends to Capitol Hill shortchanges the safety 
and security of whom? You guessed it, the American people.
  Similarly, I am very concerned that we are about to make the same 
mistakes with our Nation's intelligence services.
  The 9/11 Commission offered a large number of proposals to change our 
intelligence system, each of which needs to be carefully evaluated. 
Some may work and some may not, but adopting them all lock, stock, and 
barrel without carefully scrutinizing each proposal simply to beat the 
political clock is a surefire recipe for disaster. We should not create 
sheer chaos and bureaucratic turf battles within the very structure 
that is trying to ferret out another attack before it happens.
  For instance, last month, the President signed three Executive Orders 
to begin implementing the 9/11 Commission reforms. But the Bush 
administration has not sent a single budget amendment to the Capitol to 
pay for those changes. Where is the money to operate the new National 
Counterter-
rorism Center that the President created by Executive Order? And if 
there is no new money, isn't the President just reshuffling the deck 
chairs? Is this the same old story being played out?
  This is what we have seen with homeland security. There is great 
fanfare when the President signs a homeland security authorization 
bill. But then the appropriations bills and amendments are rejected by 
the Bush White House as ``extraneous spending''--the very amendments 
that would keep the promise of the administration's fanfare. When are 
we going to break this cycle of false promises to the people of this 
Nation?
  Our intelligence services have problems that must be addressed. We 
have far too few people on the ground in key places on the globe. We 
have terribly inadequate intelligence technologies. We do not have 
sufficient backup facilities for our one-of-a-kind intelligence assets. 
The FBI Director has told every person who would listen about the 
critical vulnerabilities that he must address to meet today's threats. 
Yet, instead of taking on these tasks which we know must be done, this 
government seems all too eager to satisfy itself with shifting boxes 
and creating bureaucracies.
  In the legislation before the Senate today, we try to break that 
cycle. The $896 million increase that is in the Senate bill will help 
to address some of the gaps in the President's homeland security 
budget. The bill includes $150 million for mass transit security, none 
of which was requested by the President. Instead of cutting port 
security by 62 percent, as proposed by the President, we are providing 
at least a modest increase over last year for port security. We are 
providing $98 million more than the President requested for replacing 
the Coast Guard ships and planes that are deteriorating at a dangerous 
pace. Funds are included to stop the loss of Federal air marshals. 
Additional funding is also provided for air cargo security and 
explosives-detection equipment and for additional radiation detectors 
that can be deployed at our ports.
  We continue to fund effective programs that the President wanted to 
cut or reorganize, such as the fire grants program and the All Hazards 
Emergency Management Performance Grants program.
  In addition, the bill contains an important protection for the 
privacy rights of Americans. I thank Chairman Cochran for his support 
of my amendment in subcommittee concerning CAPPS II, the Department's 
proposed new airline passenger profiling system. By restating the 
language that was in the 2004 act, this bill allows testing of the 
project to move forward, but ensures that the system will not be 
deployed until GAO confirms that privacy rights will be protected, that 
an appeals process is in place, that the data in the system is 
accurate, and that the data is protected from unauthorized use. On July 
15, Secretary Ridge announced that CAPPS II, in its current form, would 
not be deployed. I am encouraged that he finally got the message that 
the Congress has been sending him for over a year about balancing our 
need for protection with our rights to privacy. On August 26, the 
Department announced a replacement program called Secure Flight, but 
details are not yet available. I look forward to hearing the details of 
the plan so that we can determine whether the privacy rights of our 
citizens are protected.

[[Page 17597]]

  With the limited funds that were made available to the subcommittee 
under our allocation, Chairman Cochran has produced a good bill. And I 
commend him for it.
  However, this Nation faces a turning point, as we are challenged, 
once again, by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that 
terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, we 
do not know when they will strike. We do not know. What we have are 
warnings from the Attorney General, from the FBI Director, and even 
from the President that al-Qaida is planning an attack here within our 
shores. Are we prepared to prevent such an attack? Are we prepared to 
respond to such an attack? Look at the funding levels and decide.
  The bill that is before the Senate contains an increase of about 5 
percent above the fiscal year 2004 level. The President is certain that 
America is going to be attacked again soon, yet the Senate is debating 
a bill that provides for a 5-percent increase. If an attack occurs, it 
will be on the head of this White House to explain why they pinched 
pennies with homeland security.
  Congress has a responsibility to protect the Nation. So does the 
President. The country's serious vulnerabilities demand that we invest 
dollars where they are most needed.
  That is why I intend to offer an amendment to this bill to target 
increased funding to those programs that have the most impact on well-
documented vulnerabilities, such as rail security, port security, 
chemical security, fire and other first-responder programs, and border 
protection.
  Mr. President, more than 95 percent of the Nation's overseas cargo 
moves through our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a one-
month closure of a major U.S. port would cost our national economy $60 
billion. We inspect only 9 percent of the cargo containers that come 
into our seaports. The 9/11 Commission concluded that we must do 
better, and I agree. In order to help secure those ports, the Coast 
Guard estimates that $1.1 billion is required to implement the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act in the first year, and $5.4 billion over 10 
years. Yet the President requested only $46 million for port security 
grants, and this bill only provides $150 million. We need to do more.
  On March 11 of this year, terrorists attacked commuter trains in 
Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 innocent passengers. The President 
has not requested a dime for mass transit security. We should be 
investing in additional guards, better training, additional canine 
teams and better surveillance. Chairman Cochran has initiated a $150 
million program for mass transit security, but the Senate Banking 
Committee has reported a bill authorizing over $3.5 billion for fiscal 
year 2005 for mass transit security and the Senate Commerce Committee 
has reported a bill authorizing $1.2 billion for rail and Amtrak 
security. Americans use public transportation over 32 million times per 
workday. We need to do more.
  The Hart-Rudman report on the terrorist threat in this country 
recommended a $98 billion investment in equipping and training for our 
first responders over the next 5 years. Yet, this bill cuts first-
responder funding below the levels enacted last year. The committee 
report calls on the Department to finally issue Federal guidelines to 
assist State and local governments in making wise purchases with first 
responder funding, but guidelines are not a substitute for money. The 
bill would reduce first-responder funding by $778 million from the 
fiscal year 2004 level, including cuts in the fire grant program. That 
is not acceptable.
  This is a good bill but it simply does not do enough. My amendment, 
which I shall offer, will not simply throw money at homeland security. 
It will address specific, known vulnerabilities. It will fund a number 
of the security weaknesses identified by the 9/11 Commission.
  Last week, the President said:

       This election will also determine how America responds to 
     the continuing danger of terrorism--and you know where I 
     stand. Three days after September 11, I stood where Americans 
     died in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats 
     were shouting to me, ``Whatever it takes.'' A fellow grabbed 
     me by the arm and he said, ``Do not let me down.'' Since that 
     day I wake up every morning thinking about how to better 
     protect our country. I will never relent in defending 
     America, whatever it takes.

  Whatever it takes? Well, Mr. President, it takes more than empty 
promises to protect this country from attack. If President Bush meant 
what he said last week, he would not accept a bill that cuts funds for 
first responders, that leaves first responders unable to communicate, 
that leaves airline passengers worrying about whether a fellow 
passenger has the means whereby to destroy the plane, whether a 
passenger has brought explosives on board, or that fails to adequately 
invest in securing our ports, our chemical facilities, and our trains.
  Again, I commend Chairman Cochran for his work on this important 
legislation. He conducted hearings. He conducted fair hearings. I 
encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor so that they 
can be considered and so that we can bring this bill to final passage 
and go to conference. We need to get a good freestanding bill to the 
President's desk. We have waited far, far too long.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senate to support this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are considering a must-pass 
piece of legislation, the Homeland Security bill. Because of that, it 
is an appropriate vehicle to amend to pass other must-pass 
appropriations. The appropriation I am speaking of is hurricane relief 
for the battered State of Florida and, in some cases, parts of Georgia, 
as well, but particularly the State of Florida because of not only one 
hurricane but two hurricanes. Hopefully, the good Lord is not going to 
make it three hurricanes.
  Hurricane Ivan is on a track, as of the latest advisory from 11 this 
morning from the National Hurricane Center, to come across Jamaica, up 
over the western side of Cuba and into the Gulf of Mexico, which is 
almost the identical track Hurricane Charley took 4 weeks ago.
  Let us hope if it continues on that track that it continues on into 
the Gulf and does not take a right turn, which is what Hurricane 
Charley did, hitting the coast of Florida at Ground Zero, which was 
Punta Gorda, FL, with winds of 145 miles an hour coming straight off of 
the Gulf of Mexico and right up Charlotte Harbor.
  We cannot do anything about that because that is the forces of Mother 
Nature, but what we can do is respond as a Federal Government in times 
of natural disaster emergency.
  We started that process last night when we passed a $2 billion 
supplemental appropriation. That is not nearly enough for the first 
hurricane, let alone the second hurricane. The $2 billion appropriation 
was a figure the President requested, which is the ordinary procedure. 
Senator Graham of Florida and I had first ballparked only the FEMA 
portion at $2.5 billion and requested that of the President. The 
President chose a $2 billion figure and it is our normal custom, in 
times of national emergency, to go with the President's request. So 
with bipartisan unanimous support, we passed a $2 billion appropriation 
last night. That was quite timely because FEMA's coffers were running 
dry today.
  Four weeks ago, FEMA had only $837 million in its emergency disaster 
relief fund. As of Monday, when I met with the FEMA director and his 
regional director who is now in place in a headquarters in Florida, 
they were down to less than $100 million and they were not able to pay 
bills and order supplies because they were fast running out of money. 
Thanks to the majority leader and minority leader and the leadership of 
the various committees of this body, the Senate passed what had been 
sent

[[Page 17598]]

over from the House and $2 billion has now replenished the emergency 
disaster relief fund.
  That is going to be used pretty quickly. That was only for FEMA. That 
does not say anything about the $500 million we are estimating through 
the Department of Agriculture in crop losses and all of the assistance 
from the Department of Agriculture not only for crop losses but for 
damage to equipment and buildings. Of course, that does not say 
anything about assistance to the Department of Transportation, where 
there was significant damage to airports in Florida, including the 
Orlando International Airport that got hit not once but twice.
  That does not even say anything about a lot of that assistance that 
comes through the Small Business Administration, which is not only 
assistance for businesses but assistance to individuals, as well as 
low-interest loans to help people get back on their feet. That does not 
say anything about assisting the American Red Cross, which has been 
down there not once but twice now in helping people who are walking 
around in a daze with no power, with a home that has been completely 
destroyed.
  So in times of natural disaster, the costs begin to mount up. I will 
give a means of comparison. Twelve years ago in the monster hurricane, 
Hurricane Andrew, that savaged south Florida, it was a hurricane that 
went over a relatively unpopulated part of the State, south Miami, 
south Dade County, the city of Homestead, but then it exited over the 
Everglades, an unpopulated part of Florida. Yet, 12 years ago, the cost 
of that hurricane to the Federal Government, just for FEMA, was $2.9 
billion. The total cost to the Federal Government, including all of 
these other agencies, some of which I have mentioned, was over $6 
billion, some $6.3 billion.
  We are now dealing with not one hurricane, which was not as 
destructive as Hurricane Andrew for comparison, but now we are dealing 
with the second hurricane.
  Now I will speak about this second hurricane, Hurricane Frances. By 
the time it hit the shore at Fort Pierce, its winds were down to 105 
miles an hour. There were gusts of up to 120 miles an hour and those 
gusts were recorded at the Cape, what we refer to as the Cape, Cape 
Canaveral, the Cape Canaveral Air Force station at the Kennedy Space 
Center. That center sustained considerable damage. The big vehicle 
assembly building, which used to be the largest building in volume in 
the world when it was constructed in the 1960s, used today to stack the 
space shuttle vertically to all of its component parts, was ravaged to 
the point of losing 1,000 panels, each panel being 10 feet by 4 feet, a 
total of over 50,000 square feet that is now open into the building.
  I do not need to paint the picture of the disaster that could occur 
if this third hurricane were to come and hit the Kennedy Space Center, 
with the thousand huge, open windows allowing the forces of Mother 
Nature to go inside the vehicle assembly building. That could set back 
the American space program considerably if there were significant 
damage.
  I had a little prayer session in the Commerce Committee with the 
administrator of NASA today about what we are going to do about this 
and how NASA itself has got to be a part of this emergency 
appropriation, as the Department of Defense was 12 years ago when 
Hurricane Andrew did so much damage to Homestead Air Force Base. So, 
too, we have this problem at the Space Center. By the way, it is not 
only the vehicle assembly building.
  There is no excuse for why the building that manufactures the 
delicate silicon tiles that go on the underbelly of the Space Shuttle 
Orbiter was ripped apart when these winds came across the Cape. My 
colleagues should see pictures of it. Our ability to produce the 
thermal protection system for the space shuttle was savaged by these 
winds. There is no excuse for not having a building that is constructed 
to withstand hurricane force winds, and I have asked NASA to answer to 
that. The fact is, it has happened and it is going to have to be 
repaired, as is the roof of the building that handles the central 
computers that has now been ripped off. What I am saying is there are 
going to be a lot of costs because Mother Nature has dealt us a very 
savage blow.
  The gentleman handling this legislation is the distinguished Senator 
from Mississippi, who is also an expert in agricultural appropriations.
  I am sure the Senator has already gotten the reports that the first 
hurricane savaged the citrus crop 100 percent. Even more, because the 
young trees that snapped, that were loaded down with fruit, by the way, 
now have to be pruned back. So the loss of the orange crop is not just 
this year, 100 percent of the crop, but that loss will be sustained 
over several years as those pruned-back orange trees will take years to 
grow back. So that is the agricultural loss.
  If that were not enough--let me call this to the attention of the 
chairman of the Agricultural Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee. If that were not enough, here comes the second hurricane, 
and it ravages another part of the citrus growing region in Florida 
called the Indian River citrus region, where the delicacy fresh 
grapefruit is grown. There is no telling, I have not gotten the 
estimates of what happened, but if it is like the first one, even those 
grapefruits still on the tree, with the root rot going on with the 
floods, it is likely it is a 100 percent loss as well.
  We can see the extraordinary destructive force of nature that has hit 
us. Lord forbid a third one, Ivan, comes to our State. We don't wish it 
to go to anybody's State.
  Floridians are tired; they are stressed; they are hot; their patience 
is wearing thin. Yet they have been very appreciative of the response. 
One of the lessons that we learned from Hurricane Andrew was that it 
was total chaos afterward. One level of government was not talking to 
another level. That has been changed. There is communication and 
cooperation efficiently going on between all levels of government. 
However, when you get hit not once but twice, with the possibility of a 
third time, then the human endurance and the ability to respond to 
natural disaster begins to have a finite limit.
  If there is one reason for the Federal Government to exist, it is to 
help its people in times of disaster. I will later on be offering some 
amendments to this bill. Most of what I have proposed here I would 
prefer that we strip off this bill and we handle it as a freestanding 
bill so it doesn't get mired in all of this. But I am only going on the 
instructions that the majority leader has given me, which is that we 
passed the $2 billion last night and he wanted to--and it was his 
words, many times over--attach it to the Homeland Security bill. So we 
can discuss what is the appropriate venue.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to compliment the distinguished Senator for 
his description of the damages in Florida. We are all keenly aware, 
because the of the images on television, and the description in the 
newspapers, conversations with friends and family members in that 
State, how terrible those storms have been and the devastation that has 
been caused.
  One thing that reminds me of the history of my own State is the 
terrible force of the wave action. I can remember when Hurricane 
Camille struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast in, I think, 1969, that storm 
did more damage than any other hurricane that had ever hit that part of 
the gulf of Mexico. I recall going down to the gulf of Mexico and 
visiting that area, seeing how devastating the damage was and how long 
it took to recover from it. As a matter of fact there are still scars. 
There is one shrimp boat about 2 blocks inland now that is sitting 
there as a reminder of the force of that hurricane.
  The fact of the matter is, and the Senator is correct, the $2 billion 
the Congress has approved for a supplemental appropriation for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency is targeted just to the Disaster 
Relief Fund. This is, as the Senator knows, to provide emergency 
assistance of food,

[[Page 17599]]

shelter, debris cleanup--taking care of the emergency situation that 
exists. That fund was going to be exhausted this morning when the 
President signed the bill appropriating this additional money. So, with 
this funding, that account is taken care of.
  As the Senator indicates, there is a lot of other damage that is 
outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
The Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies may have 
responsibilities and they may not have sufficient funds to meet all the 
needs for which some people are entitled to reimbursement or some kind 
of disaster relief under Federal law. For that reason the President 
indicated in his request to Congress which he submitted on September 
6--and I'll read this. He said:

       The enclosed request requires immediate action by the 
     Congress to ensure that the immediate response efforts to 
     these recent disasters continue uninterrupted. I anticipate 
     making a further request in the coming days that will provide 
     for a comprehensive response and recovery effort addressing 
     the impact of both of these hurricanes. In addition, federal 
     government agencies will continue their response and recovery 
     efforts using existing resources and programs.

  What we get from that is the President is submitting and, we have 
been advised by the President's staff, that in the coming days there 
will be another supplemental appropriations bill requested by the 
President. It will not be the bill that we are considering today, 
though. This is the annual appropriations bill that funds the entire 
Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard, the Secret Service--the 
22 various agencies that are combined within the ambit of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  I suggest to the Senator we would welcome any suggestions he has for 
inclusions in the additional supplemental that will be before the 
Congress soon, at the request of the President.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his comments. It would 
be this Senator's preference that we have an emergency supplemental 
just for the hurricane damage, including all of these agencies as well 
as--I didn't even mention the Army Corps of Engineers. We had severe 
beach erosion; in some cases, beaches disappearing. I just mentioned, 
for example, citrus, but we are talking about huge losses in nurseries, 
in vegetables, in cattle, hogs, the oyster/clam industry, timber--just 
to mention a few. It would be this Senator's preference clearly to have 
a stand alone supplemental. However it was Senator Frist, the majority 
leader, who called me saying he wanted to use this vehicle, the 
Department of Homeland Security, to which to attach those additional 
emergency supplemental requests.
  If there is a change in that, and I get assurance that in fact this 
other legislation will move because of the necessity of it--I remind 
you the $2 billion last night was just FEMA for the first hurricane, 
Charlie. That doesn't address all these other agencies and it doesn't 
address FEMA for the second hurricane, Hurricane Frances.
  I will certainly work with the Senator. But I am one way or another 
going to make sure we have this appropriations request before the 
Senate under the emergency conditions that we find ourselves facing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Schumer is here. He has a very 
important amendment to offer. I think we could probably agree on a time 
for debate. We of course will ask the majority what time we want to 
vote. But I gather the Senator from New York would be in agreement to a 
time limit on his amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Nevada. I would be happy to 
set a time limit and then have a vote on the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Could the Senator give us an idea about how much time it 
might take? Senator Cochran usually likes to work under time 
agreements. Could we have a general idea?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is fine with me. Maybe we could have a few minutes 
for the majority and a few minutes for the minority.
  Mr. REID. We have a general idea about how much time it would take. 
If we could have a vote sometime before 5 o'clock?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, before we start agreeing on times for 
votes, that is above my pay grade. We have a distinguished majority 
leader, and we will have to consult with him and other Senators.
  Mr. REID. I did mention that, but to give Members an idea of when 
there might be a vote, Senator Schumer is ready to offer his amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It depends on what his amendment is. We may all rejoice 
and vote for it. Who knows? Again, we may not.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield, I can assure him it is a 
good one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be offering an 
amendment on nuclear security in a few minutes. But first I would in 
general address this bill.
  Let me first say at the outset I am glad we are doing this bill now. 
As you know, many of us on this side of the aisle asked that this bill 
come up much sooner. But to do it right here as our first order of 
business when we return from the summer break after the two conventions 
I think is very good. I am glad we are on this bill.
  The second point I would make is this: I don't think anyone on this 
side--certainly not the senior Senator from New York--wants to obstruct 
or not have this bill pass. We want it to move forward. So there is no 
intention to delay. As my good friend from Mississippi has seen by my 
asking for a short period to debate this amendment, having spent 18 
years in the House of Representatives, 45 minutes is a lifetime there, 
but here in the Senate it is a relatively short amount of time. There 
is no intention for dilatory tactics or anything of that sort.
  I believe, being head of our Democratic Task Force on Homeland 
Security, and having talked to many of my colleagues about further 
amendments, my friend, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security Appropriations, will find similarly short time limits are 
being called for. That is all the good news. The bad news is many of us 
think this amendment being brought before us is woefully inadequate. I 
would like to discuss that in general.
  I have been quite hawkish on the war on terrorism, having supported 
the President's request to go into Iraq. I supported the $87 billion 
and I believe we need a strong and muscular foreign policy overseas. 
Mistakes are often made. We should do a lot better in terms of those 
mistakes. But inaction is perhaps the greatest mistake of all.
  I am for fighting a vigorous war on terror overseas. I believe what 
our President said--former President Bill Clinton--is exactly right. To 
have strength and intelligence--that is exactly what he said, something 
to that effect--are not mutually exclusive categories when fighting a 
war on terror. If we are fighting a strong war on terror overseas, we 
are certainly not doing it here at home.
  If I had to choose perhaps the greatest weakness of this 
administration in its war on terror, it would be the inadequacy of what 
we are doing here at home. The bottom line is this: We get a lot of 
rhetoric. We don't get the focus, the thoughtfulness, or the resources, 
the dollars to do what we need to do. Sure, if you think this is a 20-
year plan, maybe we are doing enough. But we sure don't think it is a 
20-year plan when we go overseas, nor should we. It is not a 20-year 
plan here.
  Let me say this. This is my own view. We have a window in this global 
war on terror. In other words, my view is that this war on terrorism we 
face can be described in a single sentence; that is, the very 
technology which has blessed our lives and accounted for so much of the 
prosperity we have seen over the last two decades here at home has an 
evil underside, and that is that small groups of bad people can get 
hold of that technology and use it for terrible purposes. You can be in 
a cave in Afghanistan, and as long as you have a wireless connection to 
the Internet you can learn as much about America as

[[Page 17600]]

any of us knows. If you took 500 random people anywhere on the globe 
from the most highly intelligent and well-read and studied to maybe the 
guy who sweeps the floors at night and injected them all with an evil 
virus so that they all decide to spend the next 5 years figuring out 
how to do terrible damage to the United States and then implement it, 
the odds are too high they can succeed.
  This is not simply a war against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is the first 
group who learned how to use this technology to cause the terrible 
events in the city from which I hail and which I so love. Al-Qaida is 
on the run. We have not done enough maybe in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
but clearly al-Qaida is weaker today than it was then. But it is only a 
matter of time before new groups--maybe the Chechens, maybe the East 
Timorese, maybe even the skinheads in western Montana--figure out they 
can use this technology and do terrible damage. So we have a window. It 
may be 2 years, it may be 4 years, it may be 6 years, but it sure as 
heck ain't 10 or 20 where we can tighten up our defenses, because even 
though we have to fight the war on terror overseas we also have to 
prepare a defense at home.
  If 500 people can do such terrible things, the odds we will be able 
to catch all of them before any of them implement the first strike 
against us is rather small.
  Like anyone who follows sports knows, to win a game you need a good 
defense and a good offense. Whether you agree with this administration 
or disagree, you can't take away that they are focused on that offense. 
When it comes to defense, they are not home. They would be ranked as 
one of the worst defenses around. I have tried to figure out why this 
is, why we are doing so little on homeland security at home; why when 
it comes to our ports or our trucks or our rails or our borders, we are 
making such slow and halting progress, almost grudging progress, if you 
will.
  I am not a person inside the brain of the President or his chief 
advisers, but having talked to people who have worked there and left--
some of them in disgust--I can tell you that part of it is a lack of 
desire to spend the dollars necessary. Spend whatever it takes 
overseas, fine; spend whatever it takes here to make us secure, the 
money is not there.
  There is also the mistrust of Government, a sort of antigovernment 
view that Government is not a good thing, that Government is not going 
to do it right, that Government should be the place of last resort. 
Unfortunately, when it comes to the war on terror, it is only the 
Government that can do it, whether it be overseas or here at home.
  But as a result, this administration, in my judgment, whatever grade 
you give them in fighting the war overseas, would get a D or an F in 
most areas in terms of fighting the war here at home.
  Let me give some general places where we are not close to doing 
enough. Regarding the air, we have done a good job making sure another 
September 11 does not happen specifically in the way it did; in other 
words, simply bolting the cockpits of all our planes greatly cuts down 
the average of a plane being hijacked. Putting air marshals on the 
planes makes a great deal of sense. We have made progress inspecting 
baggage and luggage. In fact, I think the TSA has done a good job and 
is an example that Government can do a good job. They are doing better 
than the private sector did when they were hiring people at minimum 
wage who hardly spoke English. However, even in the air we are 
vulnerable to terrorists using shoulder-held missiles and taking down 
our planes. We can stop that.
  There will be an amendment offered here either by me or by somebody 
else that will push us to do more, much more quickly. Are we doing 
nothing in these areas? Absolutely not. We are doing a little bit. 
Again, if you believe that we can take 20 years to tighten our defenses 
before, God forbid, terrorists strike again, that is fine. If you 
believe we have a window that may be 3 or 4 or 5 years, it is a 
dereliction of duty. It is a dereliction of responsibility, the same as 
not protecting our troops overseas.
  Take the rails. We learned in Madrid that terrorists may want to hurt 
people by blowing up trains and railway stations. The best way they do 
that, the most efficacious way, is by using regular explosives. We have 
the technology to develop devices that can be like smoke detectors. 
They can be put on every railroad car, in every railway or subway 
station. If someone walks in with nitrates, they will be detected. We 
do this, of course, on airplanes. We have sniffing devices which are 
now used in a few airplanes. I went through one of the devices in 
Rochester. It works well. That does not work for crowded trains and 
commuter rails and subways. We can increase the technology and it can 
be like a smoke detector. Place it on the ceiling, and it goes off if 
somebody carries explosives, thereby thwarting a blowing up of a train 
or a railroad station. We are not doing that.
  Nor are we protecting the egress and ingress at most of our train 
stations in case, God forbid, something blows up. Penn Station, the 
busiest rail station in the country, still has tunnels a mile and a 
half long without ventilation and without escape routes. Two or three 
years ago we allocated $500 million to improve that. Only $100 million 
has been spent.
  My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will have an amendment 
on rail security that will address some of these concerns. She and I 
will be talking about that.
  What about the ports? We are still only inspecting, at best, 5 
percent of all incoming containers. I was speaking to a few people who 
run the container operations in parts of New York. They say it is more 
like 1 percent that we are inspecting. Who knows what is in the 
containers? Shoulder-held missiles, nuclear weapons, terrorists 
themselves. They caught someone actually in a container trying to 
smuggle himself into Toronto. We do not inspect these containers. 
Almost anything can be in them. Again, the technology is there to do 
more, quicker, and better inspections, to detect explosives or 
biological or radiological compounds and to put a lock on the container 
so it cannot be opened again and something be placed in it. My 
colleague from Washington will be offering an amendment on port 
security.
  How about trucks? We have learned al-Qaida is now using truck bombs 
as a weapon of choice. This is what our intelligence picked up when we 
had the last scare that said something might occur during the political 
season, either at the conventions--which, thank God, it didn't--or 
maybe closer to the political season. There were indications that truck 
bombs might be used. There are things that can be done, things that are 
technologically available and feasible to deal with truck bombs. We 
can, for instance, require any truck that carries hazardous material 
have a GPS system so we know exactly where they are going. If they go 
off course, we will know. If they are stolen, we will know. A truck was 
stolen in Pennshauken, NJ, my neighboring state, that contained 
hazardous material. It is missing. It has been missing for 3 months. 
Who knows who has it. The odds are it was robbery, but it is always 
possible someone for far more evil purpose was stealing that truck.
  In Brazil, a country hardly as technologically advanced as we, every 
truck has a GPS system. When they go off course, it cuts off so the 
truck cannot run any further if they are worried. Brazilian truck 
companies did this to prevent theft. Why aren't we requiring it here? 
The cost is minimal. Put a GPS system in your new Cadillac, it costs a 
couple hundred bucks more. We can do the same thing for trucks.
  We can have some controls on how ammonium nitrate is sold, which is 
used in truck bombs. We cannot stop it or limit it; our farmers need 
it. But certainly when someone buys a lot we could require they 
identify themselves and call an 800 number to make sure they are not on 
a terrorist watch list or a previously convicted felon.
  We can put taggants in the explosions. With nanotechnology, the 
marking devices are very tiny and do not

[[Page 17601]]

interfere with either the cost or the effectiveness of the explosive. 
That way, we can find out who tried to buy certain materials. It serves 
as a deterrent, as well. We are doing virtually none of that.
  By the way, there will be an amendment on truck security.
  Are our chemical plants secure? Absolutely not. My colleague from New 
Jersey, Senator Corzine, has been the leader on this issue. His State 
is one of the leading chemical producing States in the country. A 
terrorist can easily scout out a chemical plant and make plans to blow 
it up, creating huge damage. All these areas are not areas where we do 
not know what to do. We know what to do. They are not areas where the 
technology is not yet able to be developed. It is able to be developed.
  I have talked to experts in all of these areas until I am blue in the 
face. We do not have the urgency coming from this administration when, 
time and time and time again the Senator from West Virginia, who has 
been such a leader on this issue, Senator Byrd, or any who have been 
focused on this area, have brought amendments to the Senate to provide 
the dollars to make these things feasible, we have been told we do not 
have enough money.
  I ask, would most Americans rather see these things being done and 
have maybe half a percent less cut on the top tax rate? In other words, 
say we go, instead of from 39 to 35.5 percent, that would give us 
enough money to do all of these things. This is not a political choice. 
This is hardly pork. This is protecting our homeland every bit as much 
as providing our soldiers overseas with the weaponry, the backup, that 
they need. Yet no one is home. There is some rhetoric, but every time 
the dollars aren't there, there is not the focus, there is not the 
alarm, the sense of urgency some Members feel.
  As we debate this bill, many Members will offer a series of 
amendments on each of the areas I have talked about and then some 
others.
  These amendments are not intended for any political purpose. They are 
intended out of a sense of urgency, out of a sense of anxiety, out of a 
sense of even anguish that we are just not doing enough. I will be here 
making sure we vote on every one of these amendments. It will probably 
take us a day to debate them all, a full day, and if others say we do 
not have that kind of time, I would argue we do. If the majority leader 
thinks we have to work late to consider these amendments, so be it. But 
we are just not doing the job.
  One final issue which I will be bringing up is our first responders. 
Our hospitals, our police departments, our fire departments--Senator 
Mikulski will have an amendment on the fire grants--are stretched. They 
have done a great job in their respective areas. Our police do a great 
job on the war on crime. Our fire departments keep us safe. Our 
hospitals are more and more advanced. But each of them has been asked 
to do special things since 9/11. Each of them has new burdens placed 
upon them and we are not giving them the dollars they need to do it.
  Now, you may say, well, let the localities pay for it. But the 
hospitals in the localities are not paying. With Medicare and Medicaid 
reimbursements what they are, with the HMOs being more and more 
efficient, they do not have the money on their own. So if we do not do 
it, no one will.
  With police and fire, it is not much different. We all know how our 
localities' budgets are strapped. We all know that the property taxes 
are a huge burden on people. To ask them to raise the property tax 
burden to do this means it either will not be done or will not be done 
in the full way that it should. Yet we are not helping our first 
responders: our police, our firefighters, our hospitals.
  So there will be another amendment, I neglected to mention, which I 
will offer to increase funding overall for first responders. Senator 
Mikulski will have an amendment on the fire grants. But the bottom line 
is this: There is, as I said, a dereliction of duty, a dereliction of 
responsibility on homeland security. This administration almost has a 
disconnect. Dollars do not matter when it comes to fighting the war 
overseas, when it comes to defending our soldiers. Dollars cannot 
because their lives are precious. But dollars almost are the end-all 
and be-all when it comes to homeland security, and we do not do close 
to what we should be doing.
  So in terms of my general remarks, I look forward to debating this 
bill. I hope some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
join us in supporting these amendments.
  The bottom line is very simple: No one knows how the war on terror is 
going to twist and turn over the next generation. That is why I tend to 
like proactive policies both abroad and at home. But no one is a 
genius. There are a few geniuses, but not enough of them. No one can 
foresee the future, so we do not know what is in store for us. We 
certainly want to cut down the odds of a terrible, terrible incident 
occurring again the way one did on 9/11 in my city.
  I wear this flag in memory of those who we lost. I put it on 
September 12, and I wear this very flag every day. I knew some of the 
people. I was friends with a firefighter who died, a guy who I played 
basketball with in school who died, a businessman who helped me as I 
was on my way up politically. So it is sort of personal. But the 
anguish I feel is maybe one-tenth the anguish, one-one-hundredth the 
anguish, one-one-thousandth the anguish of the families who live with 
this every day. But they would want us to do everything we can, and we 
are not.
  It is my hope this debate will, at the very least, elucidate places 
where we are not doing what we should, and maybe even provide the kind 
of dollars, resources, and focus that have been so sorely lacking thus 
far.


                           Amendment No. 3580

  With that, Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk to 
address the critical issue of nuclear security in our ports in terms of 
research and development.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3580.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a point of order. I have no objection to 
the dispensing of the reading of the amendment, but a point of order. 
Is there already an amendment pending from the Senator at the desk? Is 
this the second amendment or is this a different amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are no other amendments pending.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
reading will be dispensed with and the amendment will be considered as 
read.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $150,000,000 for port security 
                    research and development grants)

       On page 19, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``grants;'' on page 20, line 11, and insert the 
     following: ``$2,995,081,000, which shall be allocated as 
     follows:
       ``(1) $970,000,000 for formula-based grants and 
     $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 
     3714): Provided, That the application for grants shall be 
     made available to states within 45 days after enactment of 
     this Act; that States shall submit applications within 45 
     days after the grant announcement; and that the Office of 
     State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness 
     shall act within 15 days after receipt of an application: 
     Provided further, That each State shall obligate not less 
     than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to local 
     governments within 60 days after the grant award; and
       ``(2) $1,550,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in 
     high-threat, high-density urban areas, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That $300,000,000 
     shall be for port security grants;''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment deals with, to me at 
least, the greatest nightmare that--how much time does our side have, 
Mr. President?

[[Page 17602]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending order for time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Oh, we did not have a time agreement? Thank you, Mr. 
President. I only intend to take another 10 to 15 minutes on my own, 
and then maybe if my colleague from Mississippi speaks in favor of the 
amendment I will not even speak further. But if he speaks against it, I 
will try to answer what he has to say.
  Mr. President, if you think of all the terrible things that 
terrorists could do to us--and there are so many you almost run out of 
mental space thinking about them--perhaps the worst that I can imagine 
is that a nuclear weapon, and I am not talking about a dirty bomb, 
which would be bad enough, but a real nuclear weapon would be smuggled 
into this country and exploded anywhere in the country, but 
particularly in one of our large cities.
  The damage would be unimaginable. It is guessed if it were even a 10-
kiloton device--smaller than the devices that were exploded in 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki--that over 100,000 people would die immediately, 
hundreds of thousands more in the next month, and then perhaps even 
millions over the years from the radiation. The economic loss would be 
incredible, not just in the city where it was exploded but wherever the 
wind currents blew in terms of where the radiation blew. It would 
probably, in many ways, change the way of life that we cherish for 
every American, no matter in what part of the country you lived.
  So it seems to me we should be doing everything we can to prevent a 
nuclear weapon from being exploded here. Part of that, of course, is to 
try to buy up the nuclear weapons we know parts of the former Soviet 
Union have had and a few other countries have had. We should be funding 
Nunn-Lugar. But the amendment does not go to that. The other is to 
prevent them from being smuggled in.
  There is good news and bad news about nuclear material. The good news 
is, in terms of detection, every one of them emits something called 
gamma rays which can be seen and detected through metal, through 
anything but lead. Lead is very heavy, so it is hard to detect a device 
totally surrounded by lead. And then you can detect lead anyway.
  The bad news is, right now the detection devices we have are not very 
proficient. They still have to detect the nuclear material at 
relatively close range. A Geiger counter needs 3 feet. Some of the 
other ones that have been developed need a little bit more space.
  They are not foolproof, to say the least. I have talked to scientists 
in my State at Brookhaven National Laboratory and to scientists in many 
other States, and devices could be developed that, No. 1, detect any 
kind of nuclear materials from 70 or 80 feet away and detect them in a 
far more foolproof way than the present devices.
  Now, the only way a nuclear device can be smuggled into this country 
very easily--the only remaining way--is in large containers that come 
into our ports by the tens of thousands every day or in a truck that 
goes over the Mexican or Canadian border.
  It is very easy to imagine that we could place these detection 
devices on every crane that loads a container coming to our country. 
You may say: Well, there are thousands of cranes all over the world. 
That is true, but already we only allow containers to come into this 
country that are loaded from 15 ports. I do not have the list of them, 
but it is Antwerp, Singapore, places such as that. You do not want to 
detect them here because then they could be exploded while the ship 
approaches our shores and is not yet here. It could be placed on every 
toll booth. We would basically prevent any nuclear weapon from being 
smuggled into the country. But the devices that really work well and 
can detect radiation far enough away and do it well and sensitively are 
not yet developed.
  Scientists say that with a couple of years of research they can do 
it. They right now detect small amounts of nuclear material in 
cyclotrons and atom smashers at a great distance, but those devices are 
too large and delicate. They can't be bounced around very much to work.
  All it takes is spending some dollars, maybe $150 million, maybe $250 
million--it sounds like a lot, but it is not in terms of the $1.7 
trillion budget--and then installing them in the ways that I have 
stated.
  I have tried for 3 years to get this body to do it. A few years ago 
we accepted an amendment that would have at least put in $150 million 
for these devices. But when it came back from conference, only $35 
million was left. Guess what. That was in the 2003 budget. They still 
haven't spent it. Is that amazing? It is $35 million to start on this 
research, and Homeland Security still has not let the contracts.
  What is going on here? This is a huge catastrophe that could, God 
forbid, happen, and we are just asleep at the switch.
  This amendment seeks to rectify that. This amendment will provide all 
of the necessary funding to develop the devices and then install them 
in places we need them. My guess is the whole process would take 2 to 3 
years, if we really put the energy and the muscle into it. It is true 
that there are a few places where we are doing this with rudimentary, 
more primitive types of detection devices. Yes, one of them is in my 
harbor, Howland Hook on Staten Island. I have visited. I see how it 
works. It is better than nothing. But it isn't close to good enough. 
That is one container port, and there are 40 or 50 in New York alone.
  We all know the terrorists have access to the Internet, and they know 
exactly where nuclear devices are being detected, the few ports that 
they are, and the huge number where they are not. They also know that 
the detection devices could be a lot bigger.
  What we really want to do is develop a super Geiger counter, one that 
can detect nuclear materials from a distance and one that is more 
accurate. Again, you put it on every crane that loads a container bound 
for the U.S., on every toll booth that has a truck that will go into 
the U.S., you have dramatically reduced the odds of this type of 
catastrophe occurring.
  Is there anyone who doesn't believe we should do that? Is there 
anyone who thinks the funding we are asking here, which is an 
additional $150 million, isn't worth the cost? Yet my guess is that 
when we have this rollcall vote in a short while, people will just 
march up to the podium and vote no, and there is no good answer.
  I hope my colleagues will not do that. One hundred fifty million 
dollars is not going to break this bank. It is quite broken already. It 
is not going to break it much further, and it will do a world of good.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, if we are 
going to support the amendment, that we will see it through in 
conference and not do what happened a couple of years ago where it was 
knocked out in conference and a much smaller amount of money was 
provided for and then that money was not spent.
  I am ready to sit down. I know my colleague from Mississippi wants to 
move the bill forward. I do not disagree with that. I think the 
argument is pretty clear and pretty succinct. I hope we will be off to 
a good start on this bill by supporting this amendment and by not 
ignoring homeland security, particularly a catastrophe that could occur 
if a nuclear weapon were smuggled into this country.


                    Amendment No. 3580, As Modified

  Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment at the desk, and 
I ask unanimous consent that it be so modified. It is just changing one 
number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator has that right. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 19, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``grants;'' on page 20, line 11, and insert the 
     following: ``$2,995,081,000, which shall be allocated as 
     follows:
       ``(1) $970,000,000 for formula-based grants and 
     $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants 
     pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 
     3714): Provided, That the application for grants shall be 
     made available to states within 45 days after enactment of 
     this Act; that States shall submit applications within

[[Page 17603]]

     45 days after the grant announcement; and that the Office of 
     State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness 
     shall act within 15 days after receipt of an application: 
     Provided further, That each State shall obligate not less 
     than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to local 
     governments within 60 days after the grant award; and
       ``(2) $1,350,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in 
     high-threat, high-density urban areas, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That $300,000,000 
     shall be for port security grants;''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. It is actually a reduction in the amount of money by $50 
million.
  I urge my colleagues to support this deeply significant but, in terms 
of dollars, modest amendment so we can cut down the odds of a nuclear 
weapon being smuggled into this country and, God forbid, creating a 
catastrophe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is always instructive to listen to the 
distinguished Senator from New York talk about programs and activities 
that are of major concern to his constituents, particularly in the New 
York City area, but New York State generally. We appreciate his 
observations and his expression of concern about technologies and 
advancements and new ways of protecting the citizens of his State and 
our country against nuclear threats or other threats to our security. 
We think the Department has made important progress in these areas, 
analyzing and understanding the technologies that are available.
  We have included, for example, encouragement for additional 
investigations in this area. I am reading from page 84 of the committee 
report now. It says:

       The Committee expects a significant expansion of the 
     Countermeasures Test Bed being conducted with the Port 
     Authority of New York and New Jersey in testing technologies 
     to detect radiation/nuclear threats to include railway, 
     general aviation facility monitoring, expanded roadways 
     coverage, and an additional seaport.
       The Committee is aware of technology proposals developed 
     with national laboratories to facilitate the inspection of 
     containerized cargo for fissile materials as a part of the 
     normal off-loading process at the Nation's seaports.

  The Department is focused on the importance that we all believe 
should be paid to this area of interest and concern. We know that 
existing technologies are being deployed by agencies at ports of entry, 
including the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection. They provide an effective nuclear countermeasure system, 
but continued focused development can considerably extend these 
capabilities in order to develop technologies for application to 
specific locations, including those in the intermodal transportation 
system, in the maritime domain, at border ports of entry, and in the 
aviation industry.
  Specifically, the committee included in this section of the bill to 
which this amendment is directed great latitude in approving grants 
that can be the subject of applications from not only States but local 
jurisdictions such as port security areas.
  Of the total provided by the committee for urban area security 
initiative grants, $150 million is for port security grants; $150 
million is included for rail and transit security grants; $10 million 
is available for inner city bus security grants for the improvement of 
ticket identification, the installation of driver shields, the 
enhancement of emergency communications, and further implementation of 
passenger screening; $15 million is also included for trucking industry 
security grants to continue the Highway Watch Grant Program.
  This committee had the responsibility of trying to help ensure that 
across the broad range of urban area security concerns funds were 
available for grants to local areas and to States to deal with these 
new challenges.
  The committee believes the Department's practice over the past 2 
years to allocate appropriated funds could be improved. We suggested, 
for example, that they all not be made available early in the fiscal 
year but to leave some opportunities for later grantmaking authority so 
that if any new discoveries or intelligence of recent terrorist threat 
information became available, these funds could be targeted to higher 
risk areas and where we would get more for our money.
  It is easy to offer an amendment to double an appropriation, and that 
is what this amendment does. We have $150 million in the bill for this 
one particular grant program within the broad urban area security 
initiative grants. What the Senator from New York is doing is asking 
that be doubled.
  You can just about go through this bill, I suggest, and find every 
incremental amount that is in this bill and pick out one and offer an 
amendment to double it and make a good persuasive case why it would be 
better off if we could spend twice as much money as we have allocated 
for that one activity. That is a pretty easy argument to make. But it 
is also a cheap shot, and the reason I am calling it a cheap shot is 
that we have within this Urban Area Security Grant Program $1.2 billion 
for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas. The Secretary has 
to make these decisions on the basis of the applications and the 
proposals that are submitted to the Department.
  If we in the Congress are going to go back through the bill and try 
to second-guess every one of these accounts and double it and ask for a 
vote, you could easily double the whole cost of the bill. We have a 
$33.1 billion bill. It probably would be harder to get a vote to double 
that to $66 billion, but you could make some arguments why we could 
spend that amount of money. But could we spend it in a thoughtful way 
that would efficiently and responsibly use the taxpayers' dollars in 
this area of concern, homeland security?
  We have had 2 years of experience in writing this bill. Last year, we 
ended up having to make points of order on the basis of the fact that 
some of the amendments were in excess of the allocation that was given 
to this subcommittee.
  I understand the full committee has been meeting this afternoon 
during the last hour to review the amount of funding that would be 
available to each subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
And I understand soon, if it has not already been done, there will be 
filed with the Senate this allocation, and this subcommittee will have 
a limited amount of money to use in writing this bill.
  I am not suggesting we have gotten the cart before the horse, but I 
am suggesting that before we vote on this amendment, I want to be sure 
I know what the allocation amount is for this subcommittee. It is not 
just targeted to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New 
York that I do this, but any amendment that would come in and double an 
amount without any more justification than it would be good if we could 
spend twice as much as we are spending. And that is really the 
argument.
  Sure, it would be good if we could spend twice as much as we are 
spending in a lot of areas, but we have to make the choices within a 
framework of funds available to the committee for a wide range of 
activities, all of which are very important. We have to choose among 
programs of the U.S. Coast Guard, programs of the Transportation 
Security Administration, of the Secret Service, of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, and many others whose accounts are funded 
in this annual appropriations bill.
  I am hopeful we can withhold action on this particular amendment and 
let us have an opportunity to review the committee's work.
  So awaiting the further advice of the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee or his staff, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum be dispensed with so I might answer my friend from 
Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I make this point. We were here 2 years 
ago, and a year ago, and my good friend from Mississippi, with the same

[[Page 17604]]

eloquence, made the same argument: The amount of money is the amount of 
money we have; yes, we could double it, but let's leave it up to the 
wisdom of the Department and the committee.
  We did that, and in the last year, we have had no money spent on 
developing better nuclear detection devices. That is a cheap shot? In 
all due respect to my colleague from Mississippi, and I would say in 
all due respect this could happen in New York and it could happen in 
Houston, TX, and blow over to Mississippi--this could happen anywhere 
in the country, and I am sure just as I would want to protect the 
citizens of every other State, so would my colleague from Mississippi.
  This is hardly an urban issue. Chernobyl did not occur in an urban--
it may have been in an urban setting, but it ruined millions of acres 
of farmland, which I know my colleague cares a great deal about, as do 
I.
  We are asking not for $33 billion, although maybe that would be 
spent. If I were the President, I would spend a lot of time figuring 
out what we needed and then spend it. I would not just ask for extra 
money. This is a small amount of money, $150 million, specifically 
directed to nuclear security, when in the past we have not done it. And 
my colleague argues we have enough money and leave it to the wisdom of 
the Department to do.
  By my good friend's logic, we should not have a Congress. Let's have 
one broad allocation for homeland security and let them do what they 
want. And let's not even look, if they do not do something we all think 
is necessary, and come back and say let them do it again.
  This is not a typical request. This is not something that just 
benefits one specific area or one specific company. This is dealing 
with one of the greatest dangers America faces, and spending a small 
amount of money after we have learned that Homeland Security will not 
do it themselves seems to me to be a reasonable request.
  I greatly understand my colleague's nose-in-the-tent argument: If I 
am for this, well, I have to be for it for so many other things. But I 
ask him to look at the substance of this amendment and its cost, and I 
cannot think of an argument against it.
  Yes, there is $1.2 billion for all kinds of threats. This is the 
greatest threat we face, perhaps, and there is no specific money that 
says we have to do this. In the past, when we have had these broad 
categories, again Homeland Security has done virtually nothing. Why, I 
don't know. I have asked them. They say: Yes, we are working on it, 
just as my good friend from Mississippi has said, but nothing happens.
  So we wait another year and another year. I hope we do not have to 
wait until something terrible happens. That is not what anybody wants. 
To say that Congress should not be modifying what the administration 
has done says we should not have a Congress, and to say that this 
amendment is either frivolous or regional or unnecessary does not make 
any sense to me.
  If my colleague could assure me that the Homeland Security Department 
would do this out of the existing allocation, I would say, sure, but we 
had that kind of assurance 2 years ago. My friend, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, said to me: You are right. 
Let us make sure we get this done.
  Well, it has not been done. So I would simply say, I know the 
committee has labored under what the administration has sent them on 
the issue, for instance, of rail security. Where the Rail Association 
says we need $6 billion to thoroughly protect our rails, the 
administration asked for zero, and the committee comes up with $150 
million. That is a lot better than zero but is not close to what we 
need.
  I say to my friend from Mississippi, the bottom line is, my premise 
is we are not doing enough, we are not spending enough dollars, and we 
should have a significant increase.
  When we came and found we needed $25 billion more for the war in 
Iraq, nobody said, well, we could double the number, let's not. Nor 
should they have. Well, it is the same thing when it comes to homeland 
security. The difference is, it is not a day-to-day issue. Nothing 
happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, thank God, 
and then something terrible happens and we say, why did we not do it?
  I am trying to prevent that scenario. I am trying to prevent it for 
my city and my State and the Senators' cities and the Senators' States, 
and everybody.
  So I ask that my colleagues look at this amendment. Do not be swayed 
by the logic, well, if we double this one we will have to double every 
one. Let us look at every one and see what we need. Certainly this one, 
which is $150 million more, aimed at a specific program that no one 
could object to, makes a great deal of sense. I hope it will pass. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator talks about we have sort of 
rubberstamped what the President has asked for in some of these areas. 
We have agreed with the President on some of his initiatives because we 
thought he was right, but when we thought the administration was wrong 
or where they have requested funds, as he pointed out, in the railroad 
area, for security programs there, this committee has recommended and 
the Congress has agreed to add funds over and above what has been 
requested by the President.
  In this particular area, where the Senator is coming in now and 
doubling the amount of money we have in this one particular grant 
program--we have appropriated for this program almost $500 million, 
specifically for port security grants, since fiscal year 2002. We are 
addressing this issue. This is the point, and I am not apologizing for 
the decisions this committee has made and that have been ratified by 
both Houses of Congress and approved in the appropriations conference 
report. We have appropriated almost $500 million specifically for this 
program. We have asked for another $150 million this year. That is not 
enough, he says; double it.
  We can talk about it on and on and on and go into all the other 
accounts that involve security in urban areas, high threat areas, but 
we have to realize there is a limit. Some Senators think we can come in 
and double the amounts in individual accounts and it will not matter, 
but if we keep on doing that before this bill is passed, we will have 
added no telling how much to the deficit. We would have put the 
administration in a position where they are going to have to either ask 
for deferrals or recisions of funds. If they cannot possibly get grants 
out to people who are qualified to use the money or can justify the use 
of the funds, we cannot pour the money on the ground, and I am not 
going to stand here and go along with suggestions that amount to 
spending more because it sounds as if we are going to be doing more. It 
does not necessarily follow.
  I am hopeful we will have in place within the next few minutes some 
information about the total allocation of funding to this committee, 
because without that we can continue to add money for individual 
accounts in this bill for the rest of today and tonight and on into the 
weekend and then we will have to go back through and start striking 
funds that have been added so we will be consistent with the allocation 
to the subcommittee.
  What I am asking the Senate to do, and the reason I put in the 
suggestion for a quorum when I first made the point of order, is to 
await the advice of the Committee on Appropriations. I am told they 
sent the information over electronic device, but we need it written on 
paper so Senators can read it and can understand what the limitations 
are. So I am hopeful we can await the advice of the full committee on 
the action that has been taken today. I would appreciate it very much.
  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 dispensed with.

[[Page 17605]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I indicated earlier that the Senate 
Appropriations Committee met earlier this afternoon to approve the 
subcommittee funding allocations. The allocations approved are the same 
as those provided earlier by the full committee, for this 
subcommittee's information. For Homeland Security appropriations, the 
approved fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending allocation is $32 
billion in budget authority and $29.873 billion in outlays. The bill 
reported by the committee is at the $32 billion discretionary budget 
authority allocation and $144 million below the outlay allocation. The 
allocations for this bill are $897 million in budget authority and $730 
million in outlay above the President's request, showing the priority 
the committee has placed on Homeland Security accounts and its 
appropriations.
  This is a fiscally responsible allocation and Members will be 
required to provide offsets for any additional spending proposed by 
amendments to be added to this bill, or the amendment will be subject 
to a 60-vote Budget Act point of order, I am advised. Therefore, I make 
a point of order against the Schumer amendment under section 302(f) of 
the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in 
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My friend from 
Mississippi said the outlays were still $144 million below what had 
been allocated by the committee. If I were to ask unanimous consent to 
make this amendment instead of $150 million, $144 million, within the 
outlays, would a point of order still lie?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator asked for a 
parliamentary inquiry. I don't have standing to rule on parliamentary 
inquiries. That is the responsibility of the Chair.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the Chair. Given the Budget Act, if this amendment 
were to be modified instead of $150 million of new money, given what we 
just heard, if the outlays were below $144 million, below the full 
committee allocation to the subcommittee, would a point of order still 
lie?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that depends on whether 
it would affect the change in outlays as well as budget authority. It 
is the understanding of the Chair that there is no room with regard to 
budget authority.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Continuing my parliamentary inquiry, that would mean a 
point of order would lie even if we were within the outlays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just one further parliamentary inquiry: If we said zero 
budget authority but $144 million in outlays, would that be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would have to check with the Budget 
Committee on the specific numbers.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I imagine it is not. So pursuant to 
section 904 of the Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
section of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote on the motion to waive in relation to the pending Schumer 
amendment at 4:45 p.m. today, with the debate until that time equally 
divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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. COCHRAN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have. 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. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 50, the nays are 
46. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 3581

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

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 3581.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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 prohibit funds from being used to process or approve a 
  competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 for 
   services provided as of June 1, 2004, by certain employees of the 
  Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of 
                           Homeland Security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as 
     of June 1, 2004, by employees (including employees serving on 
     a temporary or term basis) of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as Immigration Information 
     Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative 
     Assistants.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have offered this amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Lieberman, and Senator Feinstein.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that would end an ill-advised 
attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to privatize jobs that 
are vital to

[[Page 17606]]

keeping Americans safe. This amendment would prohibit DHS from spending 
money to contract out immigration information officer, contact 
representative, or investigative assistant positions. I am pleased to 
have Senators Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and Jeffords as cosponsors. The 
House voted for this exact amendment earlier this year by a vote of 242 
to 163, with 49 Republicans supporting it. I trust that we will have a 
similar bipartisan majority in the Senate.
  Immigration information officers, IIOs, are responsible for screening 
applications for immigration benefits for fraud and for performing 
criminal background checks on applicants. There are more than 1,200 
IIOs and contact representatives around the Nation working for the 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, branch of DHS. The work they 
do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration fraud--and prevent 
dangerous people from abusing the immigration system--is clearly 
``inherently governmental,'' making them an inappropriate target of a 
privatization effort.
  As our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism, CIS carriers 
a heavy burden in its attempt to process immigration and naturalization 
applications while ensuring that terrorists--along with other 
fraudulent actors--do not abuse our immigration system. Information 
officers have played a vital role in meeting this burden. Indeed, the 
agency's own job description requires that IIOs have the ``[s]kill to 
identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from 
appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible,'' a skill that 
is obviously all the more important in this era. They are also required 
by DHS to have ``[k]nowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and 
observation of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is 
misrepresenting the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.'' 
I am offering this amendment because I believe that weeding out 
potential fraud in our immigration system must remain a responsibility 
of Government employees, especially when the perpetrator of the fraud 
may be a dangerous criminal or terrorist.
  In addition to their security-related work, these IIOs perform duties 
that are directly related to achieving President Bush's goal, stated 
during his 2000 campaign and since, of providing more efficient 
services to lawful immigrants. IIOs increase efficiency by, as their 
job description states, exploring ``all avenues of assistance available 
to the customer; determin[ing] the benefit most advantageous if more 
than one exists, and try[ing] to motivate the customer to file the 
appropriate application(s).'' IIOs also have extensive knowledge and 
use discretion in their positions--they are required to have 
``knowledge of the exclusion and deportation regulations'' and 
``knowledge and familiarity with the immigration and nationality 
laws.'' As CIS continues its efforts to reduce the backlog faced by 
immigration applicants to 6 months, the last thing we should be doing 
is replacing knowledgeable immigration professionals with inexperienced 
contract workers.
  Should a private contractor win the work currently performed by IIOs, 
that contractor will be responsible for adjudicating immigration 
benefits and detecting fraud and criminal activity, requiring the 
contractor to make decisions that are both sensitive to national 
security and have a huge impact on the lives of millions of immigrants. 
This would be a bad idea in any era, but it is particularly 
inappropriate now.
  I have a personal interest in this issue because about 100 fine 
Vermonters currently work as IIOs. I know the fine work they do, and I 
know that my staff and, indeed, all of our staffs rely on them and 
their counterparts throughout the country when we are seeking to help 
our constituents. I know that our Nation will be better off if these 
fine men and women remain in their current positions.
  Thirty-five members of this body are already on record in opposition 
to contracting out the IIO positions. We wrote to Secretary Ridge a 
year ago, seeking the cancellation of the A-76 process. I have since 
joined with Senators Lieberman, Byrd, and Kennedy in obtaining 
documentation from DHS about its decision to launch the A-76 process to 
hire private contractors to perform the work currently done by IIOs. 
The documents the Department has provided have proven illuminating. 
They have shown that officials within CIS did not think there should be 
private sector competition for these jobs, and believed that the IIOs 
were performing inherently governmental work. These officials took 
their concerns to the leadership at DHS, but their views were 
overruled, and the competition proceeded.
  Grant Thornton and PEC Solutions, outside consultants hired by DHS, 
drafted memoranda and presentations to demonstrate that going forward 
with the job competition was unwise. These views, too, were ignored.
  The decision to contract out these positions is all the more 
disturbing because it has the hallmarks of a decision made simply to 
meet a quota. The Bush administration set a goal of privatizing 15 
percent of Government jobs shortly after it took office. When the 
original decision to submit the IIO positions to competition was made, 
they were still INS and Department of Justice employees. According to a 
senior official at CIS, that original decision was made when the Office 
of Management and Budget informed DOJ that it had only hours to submit 
1,200 positions that could be privatized. Only James Ziglar, then the 
INS Commissioner, even knew that the IIO positions would be submitted 
to OMB.
  After the INS was transferred to DHS, the new Department had to 
decide whether to continue with the competition. DHS announced its 
decision to subject the jobs to competition in August 2003, and DHS 
documents suggest that the 15-percent goal remained a major factor in 
the decision, with the leader of the DHS privatization office referring 
to the need to meet OMB's 15-percent goal as recently as October 2003. 
This was true even though Congress prohibited agencies in February 
2003--10 months earlier--from applying or enforcing any numerical goals 
or targets for subjecting employees to public-private competition, and 
even though the administration grudgingly announced it would abide by 
the law forbidding this quota in July 2003.
  This amendment would also protect the jobs of investigative 
assistants. These CIS employees work in the Fraud Detection Unit, 
searching a variety of private, governmental, and criminal databases to 
find information about applicants for immigration benefits. These 
positions were created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, 
attacks, to ensure that only qualified personnel would have access to 
highly sensitive databases. Despite the nature of the position and the 
circumstances under which it was created, DHS has demonstrated interest 
in privatizing these positions as well. This amendment would put a stop 
to that misguided effort as well.
  In conclusion, this amendment would protect Federal employees who are 
trying to weed out fraud in the immigration system and assist lawful 
immigrants seeking benefits to which they are entitled. It had 
overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, passing with nearly 50 
Republican votes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I will summarize what this is about for my 
colleagues. There is an attempt to privatize a number of jobs in the 
Department of Homeland Security. These jobs are vital to our American 
security. I do not believe they should be privatized. A majority of the 
other body feels the same way.
  My amendment would prohibit DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, 
spending money to contract out immigration information officer, contact 
representative, or investigative assistant positions. That is why I am 
glad Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Lieberman, Jeffords, and Feinstein 
have cosponsored this amendment.
  This is not a partisan issue. The House voted for this exact 
amendment. They just copied the wording of it. They voted overwhelming 
for it, 242 to 163, with 49 Republicans supporting it.

[[Page 17607]]

I hope we will have similar bipartisan support in the Senate.
  Let me explain immigration information officers. We call them IIOs. 
They are the people who screen applications for immigration benefits 
for fraud. They perform criminal background checks on applicants. There 
are more than 1,200 of these IIOs and contact representatives around 
the Nation. They work for the Citizenship and Immigration Service, a 
branch of DHS.
  The work they do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration 
fraud and prevent very dangerous people from abusing the immigration 
system is clearly inherently governmental.
  This is not a custodial service. This is not a landscape service. 
These are things preventing immigration fraud. It is clearly inherently 
governmental. So it should not be part of a privatization effort.
  As we all know, our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism. 
CIS carries a heavy burden to attempt to process immigration and 
naturalization applications, but they have to ensure that terrorists, 
along with a lot of fraudulent actors, do not abuse our immigration 
system. They play a vital role in meeting this burden. In fact, the 
agency's own job description requires that ``they have the skill to 
identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from 
appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible.'' That is a 
skill obviously all the more important in this era.
  They are also required by DHS to have knowledge and skilled 
interviewing techniques in observation of applications. What they have 
to do comes from years of experience. They have to be able to find 
those people who are seeking a benefit who are not eligible.
  I have spent a lot of time on immigration matters and I believe that 
weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system is a major 
responsibility of our Government. It is a major responsibility of our 
Government employees. We do not turn it over to somebody else, 
especially when the perpetrator of that fraud could be a very dangerous 
criminal or a terrorist. I do not want to have it turned over to Fraud 
Catchers USA. I want it within our Government so we know what standards 
are being followed.
  They also perform duties that are directly related to achieving 
President Bush's goal of providing more efficient services to lawful 
immigrants. They increase efficiency, explore all avenues of assistance 
available to the customer to determine the benefit most advantageous 
when more than one exists, again based on vast experience.
  The administration wants to reduce the backlog faced by immigration 
applicants to 6 months. Well, suddenly putting in a whole new service 
to do it makes little sense. If a private contractor does it, that 
contractor is going to be responsible for adjudicating immigration 
benefits and detecting fraud and criminal activity that will require 
the contractor to make decisions that are sensitive to our national 
security. It is also going to have a huge impact on the lives of 
millions of immigrants. I think this would be a bad idea in any era, 
but with the terror threat we face now, I think it is a very bad one.
  The amendment would also protect the jobs of investigative assistants 
who work in the fraud detection unit. These positions were created in 
the aftermath of September 11 attacks. Despite the nature of the 
position, despite the circumstances under which it was created, DHS has 
demonstrated interest in privatizing these positions as well. I think 
that is a mistake.
  As I said, this passed overwhelmingly in the other body, Republicans 
and Democrats alike supporting it. I hope we would do the same.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Nebraska on his feet, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I have cosponsored, as my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont has indicated, an amendment to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, and I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I believe this is a matter of great 
importance to the security of our country. The amendment would 
eliminate funding for an A-76 competitive outsourcing study of 
immigration information officer, contact representative, and 
investigative assistant positions within the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, or the BCIS, at the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  As a general principle, I do not oppose privatization of Government 
jobs where doing so clearly is in the best interest of the most 
efficient use of taxpayers' dollars and is in the best interest of not 
only our Government but of the taxpayers. I do believe, though, that 
there are some types of jobs that can and should be performed by 
Government, as well as some jobs and services that can be performed by 
private contractors. I believe that deciding which jobs are appropriate 
for privatization should be a very careful and deliberative process. It 
should not be done to meet arbitrary quotas. In the case of these 
particular BCIS jobs, I believe DHS has made a mistake in subjecting 
them to an A-76 study.
  In this instance in particular, I do not believe privatizing these 
particular jobs is appropriate or will best serve the interests of our 
country. I believe these jobs are intricately tied to the national 
security of our country and therefore are inherently governmental. 
These jobs require a high level of discretion and of very specific 
knowledge of immigration laws to determine who is eligible for 
immigration benefits. These workers are charged with weeding out fraud 
in the immigration system and identifying those with criminal histories 
or those who could be potential terrorists. These are the types of jobs 
that are inherently governmental in that they are vital to protecting 
our country from security threats.
  The DHS's own job descriptions for these positions illustrate why 
these positions are inherently governmental. For example, immigration 
information officers are required to have the ``skill to identify 
fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from appealing for 
benefits for which they are not eligible.'' They are also required to 
have ``knowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and observation 
of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is misrepresenting 
the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.''
  In addition, according to the DHS's own job descriptions, workers in 
these positions are exposed to highly confidential information and may 
at times be exposed to national security information. They must 
exercise their discretion by observing and questioning individuals for 
the purpose of determining if those individuals are attempting to 
submit applications under fraudulent situations and reasons. This can 
lead to the arrest or detention and subsequent deportation of those 
aliens and may lead to the prosecution of cases.
  In Nebraska alone, there are 100 workers within the BCIS performing 
these functions, and I have heard from them directly about why they 
believe their duties are inherently governmental. Quite frankly, I 
agree with them. I believe it would be unwise, especially in our 
country's current heightened state of alert to terrorist threats, to 
outsource jobs that are so closely linked to the security and safety of 
our country. Weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system must 
indeed remain a responsibility of Government employees, especially when 
the perpetrator of the fraud may be a dangerous criminal or a 
terrorist.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Leahy's and my 
amendment and prevent these jobs from being privatized.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 3582 to Amendment No. 3581

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


[[Page 17608]]

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3582 to amendment No. 3581.

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam 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 to 
 Congress, at least 60 days prior to award, a report on the results of 
   an Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 competition, to 
include estimated savings, performance improvements, and the impact on 
                 jobs and Federal Government employees)

       Strike all after the word ``Sec.'' and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to make an award, pursuant to a competition under Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular A-76, to a source for the 
     performance of services that were provided as of June 1, 
     2004, by employees (including employees serving on a 
     temporary or term basis) of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     known as of that date as Immigration Information Officers, 
     Contact Representatives, or Investigative Assistants unless--
       (1) the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to Congress, 
     not later than 60 days before making such award, a report 
     that describes--
       (A) the performance requirements for the services;
       (B) the estimated savings to be derived from the 
     performance of such services by that source;
       (C) the actions that are to be taken to effectuate the 
     transition to performance either by Federal Government 
     employees under the applicable most efficient organization 
     plan or by a contractor, as the case may be; and
       (D) the strategy for mitigating the adverse effects of such 
     award, if any, on Federal Government employees; and
       (2) the making of the award to that source will not result 
     in the closure of an immigration information service center 
     that was in operation on June 1, 2004.

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I offer this as a second degree to the 
pending amendment of the Senator from Vermont. The amendment 
specifically restricts the Department's ability to conduct competitions 
under President Bush's competitive sourcing initiative, which is an 
integral part of his management agenda. As a strong supporter of the 
competitive sourcing process and consistent advocate for a smaller and 
more efficient government, I offer this second degree to ensure that 
any attempts to restrict the Department of Homeland Security in 
implementing its competitive sourcing efforts are limited.
  The positions in question, immigration information officers, have 
been identified by the Department as noninherently governmental 
functions. They have been identified by the Department in that 
category. They are commercial activities and can be performed in the 
private sector without endangering our homeland security efforts.
  The Department of Homeland Security is simply complying with the FAIR 
Act by subjecting these positions to public/private competition in 
order to determine if they could best be performed by the private 
sector or remain in house. This competition was initiated by the 
Department of Justice prior to the transfer to DHS. It is critical to 
significantly improving first line services associated with processing 
immigration applications and benefits. DHS is in the process of 
completing its competition in these very positions, and the amendment 
of the Senator would prohibit DHS from completing this competition. 
Numerous studies have confirmed that competitions create opportunities 
for innovative, improved data management, economic, and performance 
improvements. They are confident that competition has already provided 
a powerful incentive for both the public and the private sector sources 
to identify new and better ways of meeting the requirements.
  This information has to do with these positions. The IIOs are GS-5s, 
7s, and 8s, with supervisors at the GS-9 level, who perform only first 
line procedural processing for a range of immigrant applications/
benefits. They are not performing inherently governmental work, are not 
policymakers or regulators, do not bind the Government to a course of 
action. Adjudicators, who have authority to investigate, correct, 
overrule and make final decisions regarding immigration status, are a 
separate function within the Citizenship and Immigration Service, but 
are not covered by this proposed, or any other, DHS competition.
  The DHS has opened its commercial activity currently performed by 
Government employees to competition from the private sector in order to 
improve services, improve the opportunity for innovation, improve 
levels of security, and create the possibility of cost savings. The 
Government and private sector will compete for the work based on 
quality and cost.
  The agency has written that on a governmentwide basis, competitions 
completed in fiscal year 2003 are estimated to generate savings and 
cost avoidances of over $1 billion over the next 3 to 5 years. The 
House version of the bill contains a provision that would block DHS 
from using competition to choose the best public or private sector 
sources to handle tasks associated with the processing of immigration 
applications. We understand an amendment may be offered on the Senate 
floor that would preclude public-private competition and turn back DHS 
efforts to significantly improve customer service for immigrants. If 
the final version of the bill were to contain such a prohibition, the 
President's senior advisor would recommend he veto the bill.
  We have been through this a number of times. It always is presented 
as if these are replacing Government jobs with private sector jobs 
which, first of all, I don't think is a bad idea but nevertheless that 
is not the case. This is competition. This is an opportunity for both 
those in the Government service and in the private sector to have an 
opportunity to deal with these administrative first level jobs--these 
are people who do not make the decisions, they simply go through the 
details of this--and to allow this agency to continue to seek to make 
their work more effective and more efficient. Somehow, every time this 
comes up we have this opposition to this program that has been in 
place, is in place, and the fact is it has already been proven to save 
considerable amount of money. It is already proven in most cases, as a 
matter of fact, because of the improvement on the part of the Federal 
employees; they remain there through the competition.
  It just seems to me it is a mistake for us to get into this program 
and say you can't do that anymore. Clearly these people are not the 
people who are decisionmakers. They are the folks who are doing the 
administrative work that brings it to the decisionmakers.
  Additionally, my amendment would not result in the closure of any 
immigration service centers or district offices currently in operation, 
which appears to be the concern of some of the sponsors.
  I hope we can take a long look at this and that we can try to allow 
this program of efficiency, of cost saving, to be continued by this 
department. Let them make the decision as to who can best do this task.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have great respect for the Senator from 
Wyoming. He is a friend. I understand what he is saying. Unfortunately, 
the reason why this position was not taken in the other body is what he 
has asked for is something they could do anyway, simply ask for a 
reporting requirement. What they have done, in asking for that, they 
simply put it over for another 60 days and then do exactly what they 
want. I don't think anybody questions the reporting that would come 
back from the very department that wants to do this would be to say: Do 
what you want to do. They accept the report, they accept the way it 
will be done. Rather than needing 60 days, they could probably do it in 
6 minutes.
  What I am concerned about is the reason why there is such a 
bipartisan support for this in the other body--not for the gutting 
amendment of the Senator from Wyoming but for our amendment--was this 
makes sure that these very critical services are in the hands of 
Government agencies.

[[Page 17609]]

  There are jobs that can be privatized but I think sometimes we 
privatize what we should not. We sometimes privatize law enforcement 
and we have seen some of the problems we have had in our prisons when 
we have done that. Otherwise we privatize investigations and we find 
that people have their records and their reputations ruined by private 
companies that do not meet the standards they are supposed to follow 
and afterwards they say, Sorry, we made a mistake.
  Frankly, if you vote for the second-degree amendment you are voting 
to outsource positions that are critical to our security. We have had 
35 Senators who have already written to Secretary Ridge, asking him not 
to do this. Basically the second-degree amendment simply says tell us 
why you think you should do it and just go ahead and do it anyway.
  I hope we would not vote for it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
by Senator Leahy, myself, and other colleagues that would prohibit 
opening up the Immigration Information Officers, IIO, position for 
commercial competition.
  This position was opened for commercial competition after a 
determination that the IIO position was not performing an ``inherently 
governmental activity,'' and thus capable of being filled through 
commercial competition. This decision was fundamentally flawed and 
will, if implemented, be an impediment to national security.
  While a very basic description of the functions performed by an IIO 
might include telephonic and written responses to questions from the 
public, a closer look at the duties actually performed by IIOs results 
in a more varied list of duties. My staff and I have had the pleasure 
of being helped by IIOs on numerous occasions over the years in our 
attempts to assist my constituents. It is my experience, that IIOs not 
only provide basic immigration information to the public, but they also 
have the ability to advise petitioners on the type of petition to file; 
they have the authority to correct mistakes made in Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, CIS, records and computer systems; they can 
reject petitions for various reasons; and it is my understanding that 
many IIOs adjudicate petitions.
  As anyone who is familiar with United States immigration law knows, 
interpreting regulations and offering advice is a complicated business. 
When dealing with immigration law, the potential is great for making a 
mistake that could severely impact a business or a family for a 
lifetime. Thus, it is inconceivable to me that CIS would consider 
opening this position to commercial competition.
  In the interest of security, following the 2001 terrorist attacks, 
the Federal Government decided that airport passenger screeners should 
be Federal employees. Consistent with that decision, I believe that 
maintaining the IIO position as a Federal employee position strengthens 
our protection against future terrorist attacks.
  In reality, IIOs have the ability to determine who can or cannot 
remain in this country. When dealing with the public, they draw from a 
wealth of institutional knowledge that benefits not only the 
petitioner, but also the entire Nation. IIOs also have access to agency 
records and can, in fact, modify such information when appropriate.
  For many years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, 
struggled to live up to the word ``service'' in its name. It is my hope 
that at the beginning of this new era, with the creation of the 
Department of Homeland Security, including the CIS, we will not weaken 
our ability to provide persons seeking immigration benefits with the 
service they deserve. Having the important duties of Immigration 
Information Officers performed by individuals selected through 
commercial competition will only hinder the service provided, not 
improve it.
  A similar amendment passed in the House of Representatives during its 
consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
bill this year, and I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will join us 
in supporting this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it occurs to me that this is an issue 
that probably ought not be on this bill. As a matter of general 
principle, it is a legislative decision. It seems to me the committee 
of jurisdiction would probably be the committee chaired by the 
distinguished Presiding Officer.
  Having said that, that doesn't make this amendment go away by itself. 
We have to dispose of it. We have to deal with it. Frankly, I am 
confused about how the amendment got added to the House Appropriations 
Committee bill. I am told it was an amendment offered on the floor and 
it was adopted by the House. This seems to me an amendment that ought 
to be at least discussed in conference. If we adopt the Leahy amendment 
without changing it at all, then we are stuck with the language, it 
seems to me. I don't know how you get away from having this provision 
in the final version of the bill, and this appropriations process would 
have been subverted and it would have been distorted.
  This is not an appropriations amendment. We are not talking about an 
amount of money to be appropriated for any particular purpose. 
Immigration services are provided, of course, by the Department of 
Homeland Security and apparently the Department feels it ought to have 
flexibility in the administration of that program. We are singling out 
an employment circular to prohibit its effectiveness on an 
appropriations bill. I think it is fairly convoluted.
  I don't like the process. The Senator from Wyoming comes in and 
offers a modification, which basically requires the Department to 
provide information on its intentions.
  It must submit to Congress not later than 60 days before making an 
award. This is an award for providing services under the auspices of 
the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Before it 
makes an award to someone to provide these services, it has to go 
through certain steps and make this disclosure to the Congress.
  It seems to me that this is an appropriate place to at least call 
time out and let us put this issue on hold and give the Appropriations 
Committee an opportunity to consider it in conference. We would have to 
resolve the differences between this amendment and this provision in 
the Senate and the one adopted by the House.
  I fully support the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
  Let me add one other note. The administration submits to the 
committee after we write a bill in the Appropriations Committee a 
Statement of Administration Policy. Looking at their Statement of 
Administration Policy on the bill as reported by our Appropriations 
Committee, you get down to the bottom of page 2 where it talks about 
competitive sourcing, it states:

       The administration has adopted a reasonable and responsible 
     approach for ensuring the fair and effective application of 
     public-private competition. On a government-wide basis, 
     competitions completed in fiscal year 2003 are estimated to 
     generate savings, or cost avoidances, of more than $1 billion 
     over the next 3 to 5 years. The House version of the bill 
     contains a provision that would block DHS from using 
     competition to choose the best public or private sector 
     source to handle basic administrative tasks associated with 
     the processing of immigration applications and benefits. We 
     understand an amendment may be offered on the Senate floor 
     that would also preclude public-private competition and turn 
     back DHS' efforts to significantly improve customer service 
     for immigrants. If the final version of the bill were to 
     contain such a prohibition, the President's senior advisers 
     would recommend that he veto the bill.

  So I can't stand idly by and see this provision be included in the 
bill and risk the veto of this Homeland Security appropriations bill 
that we have worked very hard to craft, after hearings and hearings, 
and with the good assistance of other Senators on the subcommittee such 
as the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I would hate to see all of 
our work go for naught and have to start over with a vetoed bill.
  I am urging Senators to vote for the Thomas amendment and let us take 
this issue to conference and see if it

[[Page 17610]]

can be resolved in a way that gets the bill signed and takes care of 
the concerns expressed by the distinguished Senator, my very good 
friend from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have served for over a quarter of a 
century on the Appropriations Committee with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Mississippi. I hope this doesn't hurt him back home when I 
can state unequivocally that nobody works harder than he does. Nobody 
is more conscientious in going through legislation. I know he has 
worked very hard on the appropriations bill before us. As he knows, I 
have supported him in the subcommittee on a great deal of measures in 
this bill. We have similar views.
  On the question of vetoes, I can remember the last time a piece of 
legislation I was working on with the White House, saying they would 
veto legislation if we put in the TRICARE provisions to provide health 
care for our National Guard and Reserve members and their families, 
even at a time when an extraordinary, unprecedented number of National 
Guard and Reserve members were being called up for the war in Iraq and 
were being required to serve way beyond the time anyone ever 
anticipated. Nobody could understand why the White House would do that 
which basically undercuts the brave men and women who are going over 
there. Fortunately, Republicans and Democrats came together in this 
body and the other body and passed the legislation with very strong 
bipartisan support and somehow the veto threat disappeared.
  I suspect the same thing. This bill is not going to be vetoed on this 
issue. I understand the threats. I have been here for 30 years, and I 
have seen Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents and 
administrations. It never comes through the Presidents. It says their 
senior advisers would recommend a veto threat. I have seen hundreds of 
these in my 30 years I have been in the Senate. I have probably seen 
about a dozen vetoes come out of the hundreds and hundreds of threats, 
even though they have been ignored.
  The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has a responsibility 
to bring that forward. But he knows, as I do, that we hear veto threats 
almost as though they were being printed and cranked out when any bill 
comes along.
  I think it never would have passed a body as tightly controlled by 
the Republicans as the House of Representatives, it would never have 
passed with the overwhelming support had they really thought there 
would be a veto.
  I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor to my amendment to the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would say only this: If the Thomas 
amendment is adopted, it effectively kills the Leahy amendment and 
allows the outsourcing to go forward on what is a critical governmental 
responsibility.
  As I have said before, I would be happy to see a private enterprise 
stake. As we know, this administration has dramatically increased the 
number of Government employees. They went down substantially during the 
8 years of President Clinton's administration, and they have increased 
more than any time in a dozen years by this administration. Maybe they 
could look for areas of outsourcing but not outsourcing in those areas 
that are critical to our lives and our national security and fight 
against terrorism.
  I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on the Thomas amendment, but I 
would remind everybody that it kills the Leahy-Nelson et al amendment 
and allows at a time of heightened terrorist threat the Department of 
Homeland Security, which dramatically increased the number of 
employees, to take some very key governmental employees and turn them 
over to the private sector and say the private sector can handle our 
security from terrorists who might try to come in under the immigration 
rubric better than our own Government could do.
  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. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, are we going to vote? Fine. I would like 
to be able to make a closing statement pretty much as my friend from 
Vermont did.
  I want you to remember that this is an effort that is being made 
throughout the Government to try to find a way to be more efficient. It 
is not outsourcing; it is competition; and whoever does the best job 
ends up doing this activity.
  I further remind you that these are not people who make decisions 
with regard to terrorism. These are the people who do the detail work 
and report to folks who make the decisions.
  I also remind you that this Department is in the process of doing 
this now, is willing to come to the Senate as we proceed and report 
where they are. This is part of the program that has been ongoing. It 
has been proven to work. We ought to continue to do it here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a situation where an amendment has 
been offered. Eventually, there will be a vote on the amendment offered 
by Senator Leahy and Senator Nelson. It may not be tonight. Before this 
bill is finished, they have a right to have their amendment heard, 
which it has been, and voted on.
  Everyone should understand this amendment will not go away. People 
will vote on outsourcing. That is the way it is. So everyone 
understands, there will be another opportunity for Senators Nelson and 
Leahy to offer the amendment. If the majority wants to second-degree 
the amendment and filibuster their own bill, we would have to do it 
some other time.
  We, in good faith offered, an amendment. Time was very limited. These 
two men spoke very short periods of time. There are many others who 
wanted to speak, but in the context of what the two leaders said, we 
should try to move this bill along. We tried to do that. At least we 
should have an opportunity to vote on these amendments.
  It appears the majority is attempting to not allow us an opportunity 
to vote on this amendment. And it will happen, sooner or later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, so there is no illusion about who is 
responsible for suggesting we have a vote on the Thomas amendment, it 
is me. It is not the majority leader. As the manager of this bill, I 
think we ought to follow the regular order. The Senator from Vermont 
laid down an amendment. The Senator from Wyoming offered an amendment 
to the amendment. It is in order.
  We have had a debate on it. He is entitled to a vote on his 
amendment. We ought to have it. If his amendment prevails, then we vote 
on the amendment as amended. Nobody is going to filibuster the bill on 
this side. I am not going to. I am not going to filibuster my own bill 
because of this amendment. I want people to understand it is not this 
big an issue. It is not going to bring down the Senate and block 
consideration of this bill as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might ask the senior distinguished Senator 
from Mississippi a question. He has said this matter has to go to 
conference. He is absolutely right. He will hold the majority votes in 
the conference. Why not this: Why not set both the Thomas amendment as 
a freestanding amendment, the Nelson-Leahy, et al, amendment, as a 
freestanding amendment, take them both to conference?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will give a quick answer. I am not going to, by 
unanimous consent, deprive any Senator of a right to offer an 
amendment. That is what I

[[Page 17611]]

would be doing if I would, by agreement, say that you can offer an 
amendment and have a vote on it without any other Senator having an 
opportunity to modify it.
  That is not in the rules of the Senate. It is inconsistent with the 
traditions of the institution to do that.
  Mr. LEAHY. The reason I suggest it is because the Senator from 
Wyoming is in the Senate, and it is his amendment. That way he could be 
part of it.
  The Senator from Mississippi is absolutely right. We go forward with 
a vote--I was suggesting a way to save having to put the other 
amendment up at another time. It still becomes a matter of conference. 
If the distinguished Senator from Mississippi wishes to go forward with 
the vote on the Thomas, that is fine with me.
  I would state, as I have before, that is a defeat of the underlying 
Nelson-Leahy, et al, amendment which will come up in another form at a 
later time. I am perfectly willing to go ahead and vote now.
  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 question is on the second-degree amendment 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     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
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 3582) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


          Amendment No. 3584 to Amendment No. 3581, As Amended

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, and 
Mrs. Feinstein, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 3584.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prohibit funds from being used to process or approve a 
  competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 for 
   services provided as of June 1, 2004, by certain employees of the 
  Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of 
                           Homeland Security)

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act 
     none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     process or approve a competition under Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided as of June 1, 
     2004, by employees (including employees serving on a 
     temporary or term basis) of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 
     who are known as of that date as Immigration Information 
     Officers, Contact Representatives, or Investigative 
     Assistants. This section shall take effect one day after the 
     date of the bill's enactment.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
managers, we have had the basic debate on this amendment. I ask that we 
have 2 minutes on each side and then go to a vote, if that is 
agreeable. I will make that request.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have 4 minutes equally divided and 
that it then be in order to request the yeas and nays and go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I do not know what the amendment is. It 
was sent to the desk. It would be nice to know what it is so we would 
know whether we should agree to the unanimous consent request to limit 
2 minutes to a side.
  Mr. LEAHY. I apologize. I thought the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi had been advised of this amendment. It is basically my 
underlying amendment as freestanding.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If this is an 
amendment that has already been before the Senate and to which an 
amendment has been added, is it in order for the Senator to put before 
the Senate the same amendment as an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order because the amendment is now in 
a different posture as a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request for 
the time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said before, the amendment I have 
offered is the same amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the House 
of Representatives, with strong Republican support. It says on these 
very critical--very critical--steps based in the former INS in which 
they try to weed out possible terrorists on immigration applications 
that this not be contracted out to a private company but be done by 
professionals. That is really the bottom line. We can talk about it for 
hours. We have had the debate before.
  I withhold the remainder of my time, and I will ask for the yeas and 
nays once time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is not yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. We just voted on this same issue. We have voted on it a 
dozen times. What we have here is an effort by this Government to try 
to be more efficient, more cost saving, by having competition. That is 
what is involved.
  Let me say that these immigration information officers are GS-5s, 7s, 
and 8s, with supervisors at the GS-9 level, who perform only first-line 
procedural processing. They are not performing any ``inherently 
governmental'' work. They are not policymakers or regulators. They do 
not bind the Government to a course of action. This is already underway 
in this administration. They have looked at doing this. Who knows who 
is going to do it more efficiently? We are saying to the Government 
that you cannot do that. You have to leave things the way they are, and 
we don't want to have any opportunity to do things better than we have 
been doing them. That is what it is all about. I urge a ``no'' vote.

[[Page 17612]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I strongly urge Senators to vote against the Leahy 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 56 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are talking about people who attempt to 
discover and prevent immigration fraud, prevent dangerous people from 
abusing the immigration system. This is inherently governmental. We 
have kept inherently governmental things like law enforcement within 
the Government. We should do it here with these 1,200 immigration 
information officers who contact representatives around the Nation. We 
have an inherent body of expertise that we need in this fight against 
terrorism.
  I yield back my remaining time and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     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
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 3584) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3581, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3581, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3581), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 3586 Through 3588, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk three amendments that 
are making technical changes to the bill. They have been cleared on 
both sides of the aisle. I ask they be considered and agreed to en 
bloc.
  I ask my statement on each of these amendments be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) proposes 
     amendments en bloc numbered 3586 through 3588.

  The amendments (Nos. 3586 through 3588), en bloc, are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3586

   (Purpose: To make technical corrections to provisions of the bill 
  related to verification of air carrier calendar year 2000 security 
                                 cost)

       On page 11, strike ``Provided further'' on line 13 down 
     through and including ``proviso'' on line 23, and insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided further, That the Government Accountability 
     Office shall review, using a methodology deemed appropriate 
     by the Comptroller General, the calendar year 2000 cost 
     information for screening passengers and property pursuant to 
     section 44940(a)(2) of Title 49, United States Code, of air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers engaged in air 
     transportation and intrastate air transportation and report 
     the information within six months of enactment of the Act but 
     no earlier than March 31, 2005, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives and 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Provided 
     further, That the Comptroller General, or any of the 
     Comptroller General's duly authorized representatives, shall 
     have access, for the purpose of reviewing such cost 
     information, to the personnel and to the books; accounts; 
     documents; papers; records (including electronic records); 
     and automated data and files of such air carriers, airport 
     authorities, and their contractors; that the Comptroller 
     General deems relevant for purposes of reviewing the 
     information sought pursuant to the provisions of the 
     preceding proviso: Provided further, That the Comptroller 
     General may obtain and duplicate any such records, documents, 
     working papers, automated data and files, or other 
     information relevant to such reviews without cost to the 
     Comptroller General and the Comptroller General's right of 
     access to such information shall be enforceable pursuant to 
     section 716(c) of Title 31 of the United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the Comptroller General shall maintain 
     the same level of confidentiality for information made 
     available under the preceding provisos as that required under 
     section 716(e) of Title 31 of the United States Code: 
     Provided further, That upon the request of the Comptroller 
     General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
     shall transfer to the Government Accountability Office from 
     appropriations available for administration expenses of the 
     Transportations Security Administration, the amount requested 
     by the Comptroller General, not to exceed $5,000,000, to 
     cover the full costs of any review and report of the calendar 
     year 2000 cost information conducted by the Comptroller 
     General, with 15 days advance notice by the Transportation 
     Security Administration to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and House of Representatives: Provided further, 
     That the Comptroller General shall credit funds transferred 
     under the authority of the preceding proviso to the account 
     established for salaries and expenses of the Government 
     Accountability Office, and such amount shall be available 
     upon receipt and without fiscal year limitation to cover the 
     full costs of the review and report: Provided further, That 
     any funds transferred and credited under the authority of the 
     preceding provisos that are not needed for the Comptroller 
     General's performance of such review and report shall be 
     returned to the Department of Homeland Security and credited 
     to the appropriation from which transferred.''.
       On page 11, line 25, strike ``audit'' and insert 
     ``review''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3587

       On page 7, line 3, strike ``General Accounting'' and insert 
     ``Government Accountability''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3588

(Purpose: To make modifications to the Government Accountability Office 
study of the Transportation Security Administration's Computer Assisted 
          Passenger Prescreening System/Secure flight program)

       On page 37, line 6, strike all after ``(a)'' down through 
     and including ``2005.'' on page 39, line 5 and insert the 
     following:
       ``None of the funds provided by this or previous 
     appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment or 
     implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Computer 
     Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) or Secure 
     Flight or other follow on/successor programs, that the 
     Transportation Security administration (TSA) plans to utilize 
     to screen aviation passengers, until the Government 
     Accountability Office has reported to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     that--
       (1) a system of due process exists whereby aviation 
     passengers determined to pose a threat and either delayed or 
     prohibited from boarding their scheduled flights by the TSA 
     may appeal such decision and correct erroneous information 
     contained in CAPPS II or Secure Flight or other follow on/
     successor programs;

[[Page 17613]]

       (2) the underlying error rate of the government and private 
     data bases that will be used both to establish identity and 
     assign a risk level to a passenger will not produce a large 
     number of false positives that will result in a significant 
     number of passengers being treated mistakenly or security 
     resources being diverted;
       (3) the TSA has stress-tested and demonstrated the efficacy 
     and accuracy of all search tools in CAPPS II or Secure flight 
     or other follow on/successor programs and has demonstrated 
     that CAPPS II or Secure flight or other follow on/successor 
     programs can make an accurate predictive assessment of those 
     passengers who may constitute a threat to aviation;
       (4) the Secretary of Homeland Security has established an 
     internal oversight board to monitor the manner in which CAPPS 
     II or Secure flight or other follow on/successor programs are 
     being developed and prepared;
       (5) The TSA has built in sufficient operational safeguards 
     to reduce the opportunities for abuse;
       (6) substantial security measures are in place to protect 
     CAPPS II or Secure Flight or other follow on/successor 
     programs from unauthorized access by hackers or other 
     intruders;
       (7) the TSA has adopted policies establishing effective 
     oversight of the sue and operation of the system;
       (8) there are no specific privacy concerns with the 
     technological architecture of the system; and
       (9) the TSA has, pursuant to the requirements of 49 USC 
     44903 (i)(2)(A), modified CAPPS II or Secure flight or other 
     follow on/successor programs with respect to intrastate 
     transportation to accommodate States with unique air 
     transportation needs and passengers who might otherwise 
     regularly trigger primary selectee status.
       (b) During the testing phase permitted by paragraph (a) of 
     this section, no information gathered from passengers, 
     foreign or domestic air carriers, or reservation systems may 
     be used to screen aviation passengers, or delay or deny 
     boarding to such passengers, except in instances where 
     passenger names are matched to a government watch list.
       (c) The Government Accountability Office shall submit the 
     report required under paragraph (a) of this section no later 
     than February 15, 2005.''.


                           Amendment No. 3586

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment makes necessary 
technical changes in the bill language authorizing the Government 
Accountability Office--GAO--to perform review activities to verify air 
carriers' calendar year 2000 security costs and makes funds available 
to GAO for this purpose.


                           Amendment No. 3587

  This amendment makes a technical correction to the bill in 
conformance of Public Law 108-271 renaming the General Accounting 
Office the Government Accountability Office.


                           Amendment No. 3588

  This amendment makes technical corrections to bill language for the 
Government Accountability Office to report on the progress of the 
Secure Flight program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, the 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3586 through 3588), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, while the distinguished manager of the 
bill is in the Chamber, I wonder if the Senator would agree--I talked 
to him personally, but so Senator Byrd knows--that Senator Byrd could 
offer his amendment during morning business in the morning. Would that 
be appropriate?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is certainly OK with me for Senator 
Byrd to offer his amendment any time he wants to offer it. We are not 
putting one Senator in front of another. But he is the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee, and we would be happy to see him 
offer his amendment when he wants to in the morning.
  Mr. REID. I would say through the Chair to the distinguished manager 
of the bill that Senator Byrd is planning to be here when morning 
business finishes around 10:30 tomorrow. Our next amendment in order 
will be that offered by Senators Dodd and Stabenow on first responders. 
That would be the next one that we would offer, just so the 
distinguished manager of the bill knows that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If it suits Senator Byrd, it suits me. There are some 
amendments on the list that we have been reviewing hoping to agree 
those would be the only amendments in order to the bill. I don't know 
how close we are to reaching an agreement on that or whether the acting 
leader is empowered to sign off on those agreements. We probably should 
wait until Senator Byrd is here though.
  Mr. REID. We are working on a list of amendments, and we are not 
ready to do it at this time, but maybe tomorrow sometime we could do 
that. We will do our very best.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I encourage Senators to let us know if 
they intend to offer an amendment to this bill. We would like to have a 
finite list of amendments so we can expedite final conclusion of this 
bill tomorrow or as soon as possible.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss an 
amendment which I have been discussing with the manager of the bill 
which would allocate $50 million for high-risk organizations as defined 
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code with the priority 
of that $50 million to be determined by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. The $50 million figure is firm, and there is no doubt that 
there will be a need for more than $50 million. This is a start. This 
is a start on the protection of 501(c)(3)s and the discretion of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security is limited to establishing the priority 
for the use of the $50 million. The Secretary does not have the 
authority to put up the $50 million. The $50 million will be firm under 
this amendment, with the discretion of the Secretary to establish the 
priority.
  This amendment, which is currently being reworked, is expected to 
have $50 million dedicated for assistance to nonprofit organizations as 
defined under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code 1986 which are at high 
risk of international terrorist attack, with priority funding to be 
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  An earlier draft of this amendment was to be cosponsored by Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Santorum, Senator Murray, Senator Lugar, Senator 
Kennedy, and Senator Lieberman, but they are not being added as 
cosponsors at this point because they have to look over the change in 
wordage. But the substantive thrust is exactly the same, to provide $50 
million for these 501(c)(3) institutions which are at high risk.
  The Director of Central Intelligence has stated that al-Qaida has 
turned its attention to so-called ``soft targets.'' Al-Qaida's 
willingness to attack soft targets of all kinds has been made readily 
apparent with the attacks in the United States, England, Canada, Spain, 
Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey, including an 
International Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels, 
airplanes, restaurants, nightclubs, and cultural and community centers.
  There is broad national support for this initiative with the 
following organizations illustrative of the support: the American 
Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the American Jewish 
Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the American Red Cross; the 
American Society of Association Executives; the Association of Art 
Museum Directors; the Association of Jewish Aging Services of North 
America; Independent Sector; National Assembly of Health and Human 
Service Organizations; National Association of Independent Colleges and 
Universities; Theater Communications Group; Union of Orthodox Jewish 
Congregations; United Jewish Communities, representing 155 Jewish 
federations; the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; the United 
Way of America; and the YMCA of the United States of America.
  This assistance would be delivered pursuant to pending legislation 
which Senator Mikulski and I have introduced as Senate bill 2275 which 
was marked up by the Governmental Affairs Committee and is now on the 
docket of the Senate.

[[Page 17614]]

  I would have waited until tomorrow to make this presentation, but I 
will be traveling with President Bush in Pennsylvania so I will not be 
here to offer the amendment. The amendment has been discussed, as I 
say, with the manager. I believe it is going to be accepted, but it 
cannot be offered at the present moment because the senior Senator from 
West Virginia, Senator Byrd, has an amendment which he intends to offer 
which is broader in scope and, if enacted, may well cover this 
amendment. It is hard always to say what is going to happen if any 
amendment is offered in the future, but in the event the Byrd amendment 
is not accepted, then this amendment will be offered.
  To repeat, I think it will be acceptable to the managers; however, no 
commitments were made. If the Byrd amendment is not accepted, or voted 
for and adopted, this amendment may still be in order, depending on the 
precise language of the amendment to be offered by Senator Byrd.
  I wanted to lay out the provisions. It is very important that 
churches, synagogues, YMCAs, and other religious institutions have some 
specified protection under this Homeland Security bill.
  The authorizing legislation which Senator Mikulski and I produced has 
been marked up and approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It 
authorizes some $100 million. But in discussions with the manager, the 
$50 million figure appears to be acceptable. We want to proceed on that 
basis.
  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. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Maritime Patrol Aircraft Requirements

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I seek recognition for the purpose of 
engaging Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee, in a discussion on the U.S. Coast Guard's 
Deepwater program.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, has the good 
fortune of representing a coastal State on the Gulf of Mexico very 
similar in geography to my State of Alabama. The chairman is an 
outstanding steward and supporter of the United States Coast Guard and 
in particular the ongoing Deepwater modernization program in the Coast 
Guard. This bill addresses numerous issues related to Deepwater and I 
appreciate the chairman's support and leadership on this vital issue to 
every coastal State, as well as the Nation.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind words. He 
is both a colleague and a neighbor to my State of Mississippi. As 
neighbors, our two States have a strong appreciation for a strong and 
capable Coast Guard.
  Mr. SHELBY. I note that this bill contains a provision to address a 
continuing issue of concern over the provision of Maritime Patrol 
Aircraft assets for the United States Coast Guard. Last year, the 
chairman wisely and judiciously included funding in his bill for a 
third Maritime Patrol Aircraft. This year, the subcommittee bill 
includes a total of $15.25 million for the Maritime Patrol Aircraft 
requirement. This amount, together with available balances from 
previous appropriated funds for maritime patrol purposes, will enable 
the Coast Guard to place the third CN-235 Maritime Patrol Aircraft 
under contract and to fund long-lead items for the next series of CN-
235 aircraft to be purchased, thereby reducing the cost of these next 
aircraft.
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the Senator from Alabama is well aware, the Coast 
Guard has been moving slowly on the Maritime Patrol Aircraft 
Modernization pending a review of their requirements for specific types 
of aircraft throughout the Coast Guard. I am very sensitive to the 
Senator's concerns with this slow pace of Maritime Patrol Aircraft 
modernization. I would say to the Senator, that I firmly believe and am 
committed to the Coast Guard's modernization effort under the Deepwater 
program, which includes the Maritime Patrol Aircraft requirement.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the chairman for his support for the Maritime 
Patrol Aircraft and the recognition of the importance of the CN-235 to 
the Coast Guard's mission requirement to achieve maritime domain 
awareness through aerial surveillance. Clearly, the security of the 
United States is improved through any effective means to push our 
borders farther out and extend our zone of security. The CN-235 is one 
such effective method of extending our borders.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I share the Senator's assessment that the extension of 
our maritime surveillance is critical to our security interests. The 
Coast Guard selected the CN-235 as the optimal solution for the 
Maritime Patrol Aircraft mission and I continually encourage the 
Commandant to aggressively pursue the modernization of all assets to 
address the mission needs of the Coast Guard. It is clear that the 
Maritime Patrol Aircraft requirement has been delayed due to the Coast 
Guard review and I support any expedited effort to ensure that the 
long-term maritime patrol mission requirement is addressed.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator for his time and attention and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, the pending Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005, S. 2537 as reported 
by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $32.867 billion in 
budget authority and $30.736 billion in outlays in Fiscal Year 2005 for 
the Department of Homeland Security. Of these totals, $867 million is 
for mandatory programs in Fiscal Year 2005.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in Fiscal Year 
2005, of $32 billion. This amount is $1.05 billion more than the 
President's request, it matches the 302(b) allocations adopted by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, and is $2.812 billion more than Fiscal 
Year 2004 enacted levels excluding Fiscal Year 2004 supplemental 
appropriations.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate. 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. 4567, 2005 HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
    [Spending comparisons--Senate-reported bill (Fiscal Year 2005, $
                               millions)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            General
                                            purpose  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.......................    32,000        867    32,867
  Outlays................................    29,729        863    30,952
Senate committee allocation:
  Budget authority.......................    32,000        867    32,867
  Outlays................................    29,873        863    30,736
2004 Enacted:
  Budget authority.......................    29,188      1,020    30,208
  Outlays................................    26,771        850    27,621
President's request:
  Budget authority.......................    30,950        867    31,817
  Outlays................................    28,990        863    29,853
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.......................    32,000        867    32,867
  Outlays................................    29,813        863    30,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    SENATE REPORTED BILL COMPARED AT:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.......................  ........  .........  ........
  Outlays................................      -144  .........      -144
2004 Enacted:
  Budget authority.......................     2,812       -153     2,659
  Outlays................................     2,958         13     2,971
President's request:
  Budget authority.......................     1,050  .........     1,050
  Outlays................................       739  .........       739
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.......................  ........  .........  ........
  Outlays................................       -84  .........       -84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Intelligence Reform

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, there are now fewer than 72 
hours from this hour, on this Wednesday afternoon, until we observe the 
third anniversary of the terrorist attacks on this Nation when 19 
hijackers took control of commercial airliners, converted them into 
weapons, and struck the symbols of our economic and military might.
  When the House and Senate Intelligence Committees began the Joint 
Inquiry into the attacks of September 11, the first witness we called 
in public

[[Page 17615]]

session was Kristen Breitweiser. Kristen's husband Ronald, who worked 
in the World Trade Center, was one of the 3,000 innocent lives lost 
that day. In his memory, she helped found the family group September 
11th Advocates.
  In her brave testimony, she described her husband's last words to 
her. She described her daughter placing flowers on an empty grave. On 
her right hand, she was wearing her husband's wedding band--charred, 
scratched, but intact--recovered from Ground Zero with a part of her 
husband's left arm.
  Her testimony was deeply moving. Her closing words presented a call 
to action. This is what she said:

       All we have are tears and a resolve to find the answers 
     because we continue to look into the eyes of our young 
     children who ask us why.
       We have an obligation as parents and as a nation to provide 
     these innocent children with answers as to why their mother 
     or father never returned home from work that day.
       We need people to be held accountable for their failures.
       We need leaders with the courage to take responsibility for 
     what went wrong.
       Mistakes were made and too many lives were lost.
       We must investigate these errors so that they will never 
     happen again.
       It is our responsibility as a nation to turn the dark 
     events of September 11th into something from which we can all 
     learn and grow, so that we, as a nation, can look forward to 
     a safe future.

  As we debate the scope of reforms of our intelligence community, I 
hope we will keep in mind the challenge laid down by Kristen 
Breitweiser and the others whose lives have been touched by this 
tragedy.
  Today, and over the next several days, I want to discuss with my 
colleagues the question of whether we have met her challenge. I, for 
one, do not believe we have. And then we need to look at the question 
of where do we go from here?
  I will start my discussion this evening with a look at the history of 
our intelligence efforts and what that history tells us about the 
challenge of the future.
  While America has understood the utility of intelligence since Paul 
Revere's midnight ride from Boston to Lexington, warning that the 
British were coming, America has never embraced intelligence. It was 
contrary to a nation that had fought a 7-year war to secure liberty 
from the very things that were the stock and trade of King George III's 
intelligence gathering: the late night knock on the door to separate a 
husband, father, or son from a frightened family; the use of torture to 
discover the rebellious plans of patriots; the clandestine search of 
private effects without notice or permission.
  So it is of little surprise that the United States was the last 
advanced nation in the world to establish a permanent civilian 
intelligence agency--not until 1947--and that came only after two world 
wars when we realized that a new era--the cold war--was dawning.
  When the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union dissolved and the 
cold war ended, we had lost our single clear enemy, and our 
intelligence capabilities were allowed to wither.
  There was no reliable and consistent source of funding for 
intelligence agencies, and the agencies failed to anticipate and adapt 
to the new threats of the 21st century.
  That is clear from what we have come to know about the attacks of 
September 11. All Americans now realize that in this new world, an 
attack can come not only from an army of an enemy, but also in the form 
of a boat, a backpack, or a vial.
  Now all Americans realize that intelligence has become a crucial 
shield, an evermore integral part of our national and personal 
security.
  In this century, effective intelligence will be more important than 
it has ever been to this Nation for six reasons.
  First, our adversary is different from any we have engaged in the 
past. It is not a nation but a tribe of tribes united by an ideology. 
The terrorists are not constrained by the global standards and values 
of the West but are instead a foe for which death and an afterlife in 
paradise are the highest goals of life. To know this enemy is essential 
to defeating this enemy, and Americans will be dependent on effective 
intelligence to gain that knowledge.
  Second, we learned on September 11 that the Atlantic and Pacific are 
not the protective barriers to our domestic security they have been in 
the past.
  Our new enemy was capable of insinuating 19 or more of its trained 
killers into our Nation, where they were able to refine a plan, 
practice and execute the most deadly attack on the continental United 
States in our history, and to do all of that in anonymity.
  America will look to alert intelligence to do what two oceans can no 
longer do: protect us here at home.
  Third, America can no longer abide by the rule of never striking 
first, waiting only until we have been acted upon. The consequences of 
waiting for threats to gather is too risky. But to be anticipatory, to 
be preemptive, requires the highest quality of intelligence, or we risk 
something else--the loss of lives of soldiers and civilians and the 
loss of our global credibility.
  If we are to adhere to a doctrine of preemption, we have to be 
certain we know what it is we are preempting. We cannot afford to be 
deceived, manipulated, or blinded by ideology, as we have been in Iraq, 
or to waste time and resources fighting threats that are not real.
  Fourth, sound intelligence will enhance our long-term security. 
America's political, economic, and security interests now span the 
globe. A vigilant intelligence community will alert us to emerging 
threats against our interests beyond the homeland. Through both 
strategic and actionable intelligence, we will be better able to 
confront terrorist threats abroad before those threats materialize at 
home.
  But we face threats beyond terrorism--most especially the spread of 
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Accurate and 
actionable intelligence is absolutely necessary if we are able to make 
what many think is inevitable, an attack in the United States by 
terrorists with nuclear weapons, preventable.
  Fifth, effective intelligence is important to maintaining our 
international relationships. Success in the 21st century will require 
alliances with nations that share our vision and our values, if not our 
views on all subjects. Credible information upon which wise judgments 
can be founded must be the bedrock of those alliances.
  Sixth and finally, with better intelligence, our Nation and its 
leaders will be more able to focus on the challenges of the future 
rather than the failures of the past. The pace of technological change 
will only continue to accelerate, and the rising tide of globalization 
will lead to a new and complex web of relationships between state and 
nonstate actors. Better intelligence will help us keep up with the pace 
of change as we continue to identify new challenges.
  For all of these reasons, in the 21st century, intelligence will have 
a role to play in almost every way we seek to provide greater security 
at home and advance our interests abroad.
  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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list 
of amendments I will send to the desk be the only first-degree 
amendments in order to the bill; provided further that they be subject 
to second degrees that are relevant to the first degrees; finally, that 
all other provisions of the previous order governing this bill remain 
in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       Allard--Reports from DoHS, Allard--Reports from DoHS, 
     Baucus--Border Air Bases Security Money, Baucus--Relevant, 
     Baucus--Relevant, Bennett--U.S.-Customs Service, Biden--
     AMTRAK, Boxer--Air Marshals, Boxer--Air Marshals, Boxer--
     Interoperable Communications, Boxer--Port Security Grants, 
     Boxer--Related to Homeland Security, Bunning--Aviation 
     Security, Bunning--

[[Page 17616]]

     Relevant and Germane, Byrd--Additional Funds for Homeland 
     Security.
       Byrd--Relevant, Byrd--Relevant, Byrd--Relevant, Byrd--
     Relevant, Byrd--Relevant, Byrd--Relevant to any on the list, 
     Carper--Rail Security, Clinton--Funding for FDNY and NYPD, 
     Clinton--Insert language requiring Homeland Security funds 
     beyond small State minimum to be allocated based on threat 
     and risk, Clinton--Strike requirement that Homeland Security 
     funds be allocated on per-capita basis (this language is in 
     the Senate report, not the bill), Clinton--High threat urban 
     areas, Cochran--Managers Amendments, Cochran--Relevant, 
     Cochran--Relevant, Cochran--Relevant, Cochran--Relevant, 
     Cochran--Relevant, Collins--Relevant, Collins--Relevant, 
     Corzine--Relevant, Daschle--Relevant, Daschle--Relevant, 
     Daschle--Relevant to any on the list, Daschle--Relevant to 
     any on the list, Dayton--Relevant, Dayton--Relevant, DeWine--
     Firefighters Assistance, Dodd--Fire Fighters, Dodd--First 
     Responders and other Homeland Security needs, Dole--Textile 
     Transshipment Fundings.
       Dorgan/Conrad--Ag., Durbin--Customs, Durbin--Homeland 
     Security Management, Feingold--Data Mining, Feingold--
     Emergency Responders, Feingold--Relevant, Feingold--Relevant, 
     Feingold--TSA, Feinstein--Relevant, Feinstein--Relevant, 
     Fitzgerald--CFO Appointee, Fitzgerald--CFO Political 
     Appointee, Fitzgerald--CFO Political Appointee, Fitzgerald--
     CFO Reporting, Frist--Relevant or Relevant to the list.
       Frist--Relevant or Relevant to the list, Frist--Relevant or 
     Relevant to the list, Frist--Relevant or Relevant to the 
     list, Frist--Relevant or Relevant to the list, Harkin--
     Increase Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program, Harkin--
     Relevant, Hatch-Dugway Proving Ground, Hatch--Homeland 
     Security, Hollings--Port Security, Landrieu--Barge Tracking, 
     Landrieu--Personnel, Lautenberg--Coast Guard, Lautenberg--
     Color coded threat system, Lautenberg--Port Security, 
     Lautenberg--Port Security.
       Lautenberg--Rail Security, Lautenberg--Reimbursement due to 
     convention and elevated alert levels, Lautenberg--
     Transportation Security Information, Leahy--Immigration 
     (House Version), Levin--Contracting with Corporate Ex-
     Patriots, Levin--Relevant, Lieberman--Port Security, 
     McConnell--Related, McConnell--Related, McConnell--Related, 
     Mikulski--Fire Grants, Mikulski--Overtime for Border Agents, 
     Murkowski--FEMA Disaster Assist Employee CADRE, Murray--
     Related, Murray--Related.
       Murray--Related, Murray--Related, Murray--Related, Nelson-
     Florida--Ag., Nelson-Florida--American Red Cross, Nelson-
     Florida--Economic Assistance, Nelson-Florida--FAA, Nelson-
     Florida--FEMA, Nelson-Florida--SBA, Nelson-Nebraska--First 
     Responders, Reed--Congressional Notification, Reed--LNG 
     Shipment Security, Reed--Transit Security, Reed--Transit 
     Security, Reid-Hazardous Material Truck Tracking.
       Reid--Interoperable Communication, Reid--Relevant, Reid--
     Relevant to any on list, Reid--TSA Funding, Reid--Waterfall 
     Fire, Schumer--Buffalo Peace Bridge, Schumer--High Threat 
     Urban Area Funding, Schumer--Hospitals, Schumer--Immigration, 
     Schumer--Northern Border, Schumer--Port Security, Schumer--
     Rail and Transit Security, Schumer--Relevant, Schumer--
     Relevant, Schumer--Relevant.
       Schumer--Rochester Fast Ferry, Schumer--Signal Corps, 
     Schumer--Stingers, Schumer--Truck Security, Shelby--Marine 
     Patrol Aircraft, Specter--Homeland Security, Specter--
     Homeland Security, Stabenow--Funding for Non-urban Border 
     Crossing, Stabenow--Rundmond/Hart Funding, Stabenow--Rural 
     Volunteers/First Responders, Stevens--Relevant, Stevens--
     Relevant, Talent--Homeland Spending Allocation, Talent--
     Threat-Based Assessment, Voinovich--EMPG, Voinovich--First 
     Responders Med. Screening, Warner--Storm Damage, Warner--
     Storm Damage.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I may have the attention of the 
distinguished majority whip, as he can see, there are scores of 
amendments. We are going to be as cooperative as we can. We have a 
number of ours that are relevant amendments, and we will work with our 
side to see how many are serious about offering amendments. It is going 
to be a real heavy lift to finish this by next Tuesday, which is what 
the leaders want.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend, I hope we will 
have the cooperation to try to winnow down the list and finish up the 
bill prior to the Jewish holiday, which begins next Wednesday.

                          ____________________